OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

It absolutely is about discriminating against women. This is tied into the long standing belief that men make the decisions.

You spend 5 paragraphs going on about how this is to prevent misunderstandings. This is false. You prevent misunderstandings by having a detailed contract.

Why default to the clear and document legal explanation for something when you can just claim to be discriminated for something and marginalized. Woe is me.

https://www.proremodeler.com/contract-signatures-how-many-do-you-need

Once again...as a woman...I have been in the in home selling workforce and have had contracts signed by either the husband or the wife and the contracts were EXPLICIT and detailed. When the work was completed, the spouse that signed did not effectively communicate the project and the remaining and not present homeowner was disappointed with the completed project.

Is it the consultants job to follow up with the homeowner that wasn't present to make sure they reviewed the contract? Woudn't that be more "discrimination" in your opinion?

Goodness gracious...stop looking for "boogeymen" where there are none. The organization that I worked at was run almost entirely by women. Sales manager - woman. Office manager - woman. Person that wrote the contract drafts and sales procedures - woman.

I guess they were all misogynists as well.

Ah yes, women in sales can't discriminate against women. That's why you're in sales and not a lawyer.

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

Anonymous wrote:This is definitely a red flag. We once sat through an Empire pitch that required this - it lasted hours and the guy would not leave.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?

Anonymous wrote:DH and I prefer to both be there, but the problem is the contractors that insist on this are also the ones that use hard sell tactics and take up a ton of our time. Not to provide useful information, but to talk about how great they are, upsell us their special maintenance plans, and argue with us about why we can't commit on the spot. All during dinner and kids' bedtimes.

Anonymous wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:

Anonymous wrote:

OBXbound wrote:While the rationale for it is so that they can close the deal, I will say that having worked in this space, having both of the homeowners there is preferable. You'd be surprised how much variability it introduces if there are different opinions about options.

That’s fine, but that’s the couples issue…. If they know their dynamic, and that they usually or may disagree, and they decide to have one there for the estimate. But a company To “require” both spouses is absurd.

Again...like I stated before...the organizations that require it do so that they can close the deal in the house.

If, however, you think that this doesn't introduce a degree of variability into the project scope when both aren't there and talking about options and decisions, you haven't worked in this space. It absolutely does and I can see where a company would want to request that so as to mitigate that potential.

I have personally observed where a project was completed and a spouse claimed that it wasn't done "correctly" and was unhappy with the contracted result, albeit exactly reflective of the signed agreement. Does it happen much, no. But enough to where a company would want to avoid it in the future.

The idea that it's discriminatory is false. The companies that require it aren't doing it because they are "Anti-Women". They are doing it for legal reasons so that they can close the deal in the house and overcome objections. Please stop attempting to make this about "discrimination". That is complete bunk.

Are you.... claiming to speak...... for an entire industry?

LOL.

I can assure you, she speaks for pretty much the whole in-home sales industry. As a women, if you're prepared to sign a contract with a deposit payment for many thousands of dollars on the spot without your husband's input, that's great. Indeed it happens but it's rare. It's just as rare for a husband to sign without his wife there. If not, why are you intimidated by the notion that someone who does this for a living would want both of you there to discuss your project?