Add new comment

No, it wouldn't be cartel like behaviour, because a cartel is offering for sale goods and/or services at an agreed price across colluding but separate providers.

You are just reviewing the market available, and not allowing (or even "blacklisting") some of them for legitimate commercial reasons.

No one can force you to buy, or offer your labour and skills (yet...) - it is hardly discrimination based on racial, gender, or sexual orientation.

BTW, for those with long memories, in the 1990's the Victorian MTAA (if I recall correctly) or Victorian panelbeaters banned AAMI - no one would accept business from them due to their conduct (using 2nd hand parts, accepting quotes, then unilaterally reducing payments, etc). Unions have "blackbanned" companies and work sites... forever.

BTW, generally, I have found that outrageous and abusive policies penetrate an entire company, whether it is internal or external; poor initial administration or abusive and unfair claims administration - it is the corporate culture which has developed over time. They also go through cycles, based on new management entering, exiting, or economic results.

That is why we need a large pool of competitors that allows innovation, product development, price differentiation, contractual variety, etc. In the early-mid 1990's, there were ~45 Life Insurance Companies, of which ~20+ were active in the retail market (Remember Oceanic, Friend's Provident, Prudential, L&G, Tyndall, FAI Life, Lumley, etc?). Even if some only held licenses, did not sell directly, and outsourced coverage, there was a wide variety and range of players, products, and corporate cultures. Today, effectively, there are only 5-10.

it is very similar to the Banks - Government allows reduction in competitor numbers because they like dealing with only a few organisations:"Over a drink at the club", and because there are excuses about "Global competitiveness", "Scale", and "Internal Efficiency", while promising no reduction in competition, embedding special conditions (to evade...), monopolistic behaviour, etc. Sure...

Heaven forbid that we can insinuate that there is any "Quid Pro Quo", political support, or campaign funding...

After a bit, suddenly we see that it is back to the big getting monstrous, becoming "Too big to fail", bloated bureaucracy, internal inefficiencies, expanding rigidity, and effectively, social economic enslavement.

Hitting them in the wallet is a VERY effective way of communicating your displeasure.