Tigerman
Contributor
Yeah well, thanks to us suckers you have a place to post your bile, so youre welcome
PADI has been sold to another investment group. Thoughts?
- Thread starter Jim Lapenta
- Start date
Please register or login
Welcome to ScubaBoard, the world's largest scuba diving community. Registration is not required to read the forums, but we encourage you to join. Joining has its benefits and enables you to participate in the discussions.
Benefits of registering include
- Ability to post and comment on topics and discussions.
- A Free photo gallery to share your dive photos with the world.
- You can make this box go away
mfgremillion
Guest
I was all about PADI (certified PADI DM) till I learned that they have no time limits on the physical requirements for instructor. I have personal knowledge of a new PADI instructor who was unable to complete the requirements for SDI DM (given a pass on swim requirements as disabled but not on his cert.), and then because the SDI course director would not give him a pass for instructor, they just found a PADI course director and then he sould take hours to complete any swimming requirement. This person can't even save himself, never mind others safety. I could tell you about personal experiences with this person, I've trained with him on many occasions, and he really is not able to even buddy breath for extended periods of time.
I personally switched to SSI for all instruction, they at least have some standards that require instructors to pass physical requirements.
PADI was set up originally as a Non-Profit just like NAUI. Yes, 501c3. Go back and read a Sept. '85 Undercurrent. Before you question me, I sat next to Don Dibble in a NAUI Course Director workshop set up specifically for Don Dibble. His attorney that won the lawsuit was there and also very vocal. PADI has sold themselves to themselves before. Where did IPADI(international padi) come from? It's called corporate layering to protect you know who
Padi member's had the right to vote, they were just never told about it. Project Aware made the court happy and go away.
seriousdiver
Registered
Are you kidding me? REALLY?
The failures that caused 2008 are directly related to the "can-do" attitude businesses have taken to maximize returns at the expense of EVERYTHING else.
Did you even read the rolling stones article or are you dismissing it as a "socialist rant" that has no merits?
Greed and Debt: The True Story of Mitt Romney and Bain Capital | Politics News | Rolling Stone
Do you have any proof to directly counter the article or are you just making wild accusations that pro-business means sticking your head in the sand and saying it will lead to economic power.
The hostility towards BAD business practices is warranted, isn't severe enough, and will be the only thing that will keep the global economy from crashing and burning.
I take it you refuse to even understand WHY leveraged buyouts are a bad thing for the company being bought.
The owners sold their soul in order to make a quick buck and PADI "Customers" WILL pay through the nose because of it when PADI is saddled with immense debt.
If you want to actually discuss PE firms and their effects on companies, why don't you actually read the article and comprehend it fully, the businesses today are NOT the businesses of decades ago, the moral integrity of PE companies nowadays is virtually non-existent.
They must be doing SOMETHING right or else there would be a lot of people dying and they wouldn't be growing. They're not the only ones either. Look at SDI/TDI for a moment. They are growing by leaps and bounds. Ask them why and I am SURE they won't say it's because of an inferior product. Same with SSI. One year they condemned the internet at DEMA, yet the very next year they were all over it. I have seen a lot of politics in the dive industry where SDI and SSI have had other agencies try to smear their good names. Like PADI, they don't concentrate on their detractors: they concentrate on bringing more people into our sport. BTW, ScubaEarth scares me. That could really be big.
Thank you for confirming the facts as I presented them. I bear no malice towards NAUI, but given the comment I was responding to, I thought it ironic that he criticized PADI for each of those issues.
It's really not about the facts here: it's about allegiances. Look at this quote
Again, the very same could be said about NAUI, but look at the history. A number of SB members complained about students learning on their knees and PADI not only listened to them: They published them! There are a number of vocal people who hate a particular agency or even all agencies (like Thal) and they don't miss an opportunity to try and paint each and every change as being diabolical. In fact, there is a phenomenon here in the dive industry I call the "if I don't dive it, teach it or sell it, then it must be crap" mentality. That they have a different approach doesn't make them evil. It only makes them different. PADI's goals are simple: they want to teach the world to dive. They have accomplished this task better than any other agency up to this point.
I recall going to a PADI demo day in California this past year. Cerich, a respected instructor for another agency was there with me. His comment after the day's event was and I paraphrase: "I can't hate them anymore now that I know them!" I had to agree. They were decent people trying to do an above decent job. To the person, I found them caring and responsive. My attitude changed a lot towards PADI that day just as it did with Chris.
I know
The point I was making above was that their behaviour on social media is aloof. What you're talking about is if it's possible to get published in the UJ which, as it turns out, it is. Actually, I recall at least one very vocal PADI basher on scubaboard saying this almost literally so I can definitely get where you're coming from. As for Chris' comment about having different feelings after meeting and talking to them: that's exactly why I would like to see them engaging people on social media.
R..
Again, it's not that much different than a few other agencies. BTW, did you realize that PADI has their own forum? I am certain they spend a good amount of time there. Would I like to see them, NAUI and the other missing agencies represented here on ScubaBoard? Yes, oh yes. I think it's important for the community as well as their corporation to support this community.I know
No agency is immune from having over bearing peeps on the internet. However, more people bash PADI than support them in public. I remember one user asking me for forgiveness for being certified by PADI. Ya, rly! Srsly, even! I was absolutely floored that a few members made other members feel so unwelcome. It's why we created the Green Zones.
Nope.
Well, even assuming that is true it ignore two things: (i) one bad set of failures in 2008 does not mitigate the gains of the prior to two centuries, and (ii) it would be make to assume that every business in the world exploded in 2008. Yes, some highly leveraged investments went bad. But the underlying model is sound.
Yes, I read it. It is a socialist rant. I much prefer the more sympathetic (and realistic) appraisal of Mitt Romney's private equity past recently published in The Economist:
Mitt Romney
You lost me a bit there. You want me to disprove an opinion piece?
Interesting assumption though, that the "private equity is evil" is something that you regard as self evidence and therefore must be proved to be untrue.
I think we agree, sort of, that bad business practices are to be deprecated. But leveraged buyouts are not one of them.
I guess it depends upon what you think businesses are for. Businesses are engines of profit, designed to produce returns for their shareholders. They are not there for the benefit of their customers. The previous owners sold the business to PE, presumably at a price they were happy to let it go, and PE houses will manage the business to the best of their ability to engineer growth before (usually) selling it on at a substantial profit.
If you think that the "real" job of a business is to build communities, or work for consumers, or do anything else other than generate profits, then yes, I can see why you would not like private equity. And why that would constitute socialism.
Yeah, I think my knowledge and experience of private equity, and working on leveraged buyouts, is of a sufficient standing that it is not really going to be advanced by reading a puff piece (and a political puff piece at that) in Rolling Stone magazine. Rolling Stone for goodness sake - you could not even resort a sensible financial publication like the FT or WSJ?
I am guessing that if you think a Rolling Stone article is the last word on how private equity really works, that pretty much sums up your credibility.
So yes: I am pretty much standing by my "socialist rant" and statement and by how appalled I am by the trend of people to vilify success in enterprise.
True enough. I guess tall trees catch more wind.
No I didn't realize that. When I took my break they still weren't participating as far as I can recall.
Yeah. I've read such things in the past too. It's disheartening. Some people still need to realize that the rule on the internet is "he who screams loudest, wins".
R..
Similar threads
