With just a couple of chicken bones left on my plate, I must have looked rather misty as we sat listening to Bing Crosby's Twelve Days of Christmas for the thirteenth time.

"Penny for your thoughts?" my mother asked.

"Oh, it's nothing," I replied. "I was just wondering if real estate agents will maintain their place right above lawyers as the most hated work group in 2007."

"Oh," said my mother. "Well have a mince pie, dear."

If you think ‘Buyers are Liars', the New Year is a great time to get real. Let's be honest, buyers will never even begin to match real estate agents when it comes to lying - I mean ‘fluffing up' the truth. Lord knows, our entire industry is predicated on 'spin'. What is spin? Well, you show me 'spin' and I'll show you an untruth. The fact is, since joining the real estate industry two years ago, I have seen as much unethical behavior as when I served as a police officer. The only difference is that it doesn't involve beating folk with sticks.

The interesting part about that statement is that at no time have I observed any appreciable difference between those persons who were members of the National Association of Realtors (NAR) and those who were not. In fact, NAR's holier-than-thou attitude regarding their 'realtor' status is sadly misplaced: the issue of unethical behavior in our profession cannot be solved by something as simple as membership of an industry trade group.

The public know this. They are not uneducated - and they will not have the wool pulled over their eyes by an advertising campaign to 'educate' them about what makes a great sales associate. They understand instinctively that so long as our business is based on commission dollars, the industry will be fraught with behavior that is less than honorable. They understand that any employee who relies purely on commission to put a roof over their head cannot be trusted to consistently deliver impartial or unbiased services. Indeed, the first question that exits any savvy mouth when offered services is: "Are you commission based?" A "Yes" response won't necessarily jeopardize the sale, but it certainly halts the expectation that one's best interests are about to be served - fiduciary or otherwise.

So why do we join NAR? The simple fact is that most people join because they have no choice. NAR operates like your typical in-house union, and you have no choice but to join if your broker has already made that decision for you. The first time I joined NAR I was told that I had two choices: either I joined up (and ponied up) or I could go find another broker. So of course, I joined up (and I ponied up). I have another friend who would actually like to join, alas, she may not (regardless of her excellent moral credentials) because her broker is not a member.

This is exactly how a closed-shop union operates; it's a special kind of industry-acceptable blackmail. But increasing numbers of agents are decrying NAR's stance as divisive and unhealthy. It leads to elitism and the creation of bogeymen (non members) and scapegoats. 

The truth is, that it's perverse and just plain wrong to suggest that agents who are members of NAR are any better, any more educated, more sophisticated, more likely to behave ethically - more trained even, than those agents who have not joined this national frat house. Suggesting to the public that anyone who is not a realtor just isn't up to par, based on their lack of membership of a self-serving trade organization is short- sighted, disingenuous and in itself, deeply unethical.

Demonizing sales associates who are not members of NAR as the enemy without will do nothing to alter the root cause of this problem, which is that dual agency causes a conflict of interest - hence its prohibition in many states. Most of us understand that. Now understand this: when your interests are split between 'number one' who needs to make the sale, and your client who's looking for the best deal, that's another form of dual agency, known as divided loyalty. Attaching the term 'fiduciary' to the client will not change human nature. We will always look after 'number one' - and in my experience, that is not always the 'fiduciary'.

In the final analysis, the issue is not whether an individual is a realtor or not, nor whether they live by some nebulous code of ethics (as those nauseating NAR commercials would have you believe). The issue is the system itself. And it's peculiar to the United States. In the UK for example, 'estate agents' as they are known, are employees, who attract a regular salary (with some commission thrown in).

I've been thinking about this subject more than usual lately because, due to a shift in specialism, I've recently changed brokers. My new broker is not a member of NAR, and is therefore not a 'realtor'. (Shame on his heathen soul.) He's been in the business for 35 years, and is as honest and competent as the day is long. But as a commercial specialist, he doesn't need the MLS and sees little virtue in NAR's self-righteous posturing. It follows that his lack of membership automatically revokes my own membership, which is a shame - and hardly logical. First, I'm practically press ganged into joining, and then I'm tossed out unceremoniously - left to roam open houses alone - just a minor league, second class, sales associate once more. Make sense?

So to my subjugated brothers and sisters who are forbidden from sporting the coveted golden "R" I would say this: If NAR wants to suggest that our clients should expect to be short changed because we are membership-less incompetents, perhaps they need an introduction to the only work group that is hated more than our own. My attorney's office would be more than happy to send along an envoi, with something special for 2007 - a class action lawsuit for libel?