Courier or Messenger as Contractor or Employee? Compliance with Department of Labor

Courier or Messenger as Contractor or Employee? Compliance with Department of Labor

courierWhen it comes to dealing with the Department of Labor, there is only one prudent approach: keep meticulous records and self-audit regularly.  It’s not that the DOL is a particularly frightening group, but increasingly public conflicts suggesting wage theft and avoidance of employer responsibilities continue to shine a bright light on the gravely imperative nature of keeping the right records and operating within the proper constraints.  It is the DOL’s persistence in the auditing of independent contractor relationships which has put a tremendous amount of pressure on businesses which operate with primarily contracted workers.

The issue is not exclusive to any particular industry, but it seems that there are numerous rich targets in the area of logistics, as recent decisions impacting FedEx and UPS reflect.  Described in an MSNBC article quoting David Weil’s book “The Fissured Workplace”, the decisions supporting the DOL in the 9th Circuit “further undermine the “devolution of the proletariat” — corporate America’s ongoing effort to shed front-line, often low-wage employees through independent contracting, subcontracting, and franchising arrangements”.  The two federal appellate decisions disputed FedEx’s contention that its drivers in California and Oregon were properly classified as independent contractors.   While there are many situations where the argument supports fair treatment for workers who operate more as employees than contracted workers, there is an equally substantial base of business where the performers are contracted and independent and should remain free to operate as such.

One of the industries directly in the crosshairs of the Wage and Hour Division of DOL is the courier and messenger industry. Couriers and messengers pick up and deliver messages, documents, packages, and other items – generally between offices or departments within a business, or directly to other businesses or individuals – and do this while traveling by foot, bicycle, motorcycle, public transportation or private vehicle.  The Bureau of Labor statistics in 2012 indicated that almost 25% of those classified as couriers and messengers were local messengers and delivery providers, and that the highest concentration of these providers is in New York.

So what’s the deal with DOL versus courier/messenger services and their clients as it relates to the “contractor independence” issue?  Well, the initial approach by the DOL is often to consider the hiring authority (the client) as a Professional Employer Organization or simply as an employer.  This approach is often forwarded regardless of the provider’s owner/operator status, and may be due to a lack of supporting evidence that the courier was actively soliciting additional business from other sources (which is generally not the problem of the client, but in this case could be).  There is a requirement to substantiate not only the client’s position that he is not the employer, but to satisfy recordkeeping for the courier or messenger, as well, proving independence and having the necessary paperwork and proof to support the claim.

In a business where people are frequently on the move, scheduling jobs between pickups and deliveries, there isn’t a lot of time to spend filling out paperwork and getting written agreements.  These folks are working even as they’re scheduling more work, and a lot of this activity is done via text or telephone while riding a bicycle. The circumstances of how this industry works makes compliance a particularly difficult task, and the DOL doesn’t have to schedule audits and compliance visits – they can approach a business at any time and request to review records, observe activities, and more.

Given the frequency of such investigations and audits, every business in the industry should be looking for a simple and foolproof solution to keeping the right paperwork and records that will support the business operator claim of independence and protect them from unnecessary cost or litigation.  This is where an accounting professional or consultant may provide assistance, identifying the tools and developing the processes to ensure proper reporting and compliance with regulations on both sides of the transaction. Without the proper documentation and evidence supporting the position of the client as well as the provider (the courier/messenger), both parties may end up finding themselves in an unintentional and costly relationship.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

Retaining Productivity while Empowering the Remote and Mobile Workforce

Retaining Productivity while Empowering the Remote and Mobile Workforce

anywhere-anydevicehttp://wp.me/p2hGOJ-J7

A lot of the marketing and discussion around why businesses should use the cloud for IT service is focusing on creating anytime, anywhere access to business data and improving overall IT performance.  By deploying applications to remote desktops and hosted systems, business owners are recognizing the benefits of outsourcing IT service management to professionals who can spend their time actually managing IT.  Focus is able to remain on the business operation and not the technology supporting it; the main office and remote locations are able to work with the same systems and information, and users are able to access information while at home or on the road. Bringing workers together with the same applications and data means new levels of productivity can be achieved regardless of where the work gets done.

Yet the perceived value of “working in the cloud” and the reality remain somewhat disconnected for many mobile business users. The confusion and frustration many users experience with connected, online working models has quite a lot to do with the realization that they don’t simply need remote access or virtual office solutions to bring them together.  Users want solutions that help them get their work done even when they aren’t working on a traditional computer.  When a computer is available, that’s great.  But users want to be able to work from their tablets and smartphones, too.  Have you ever tried to login to a remote desktop from your phone, or to see a full screen of data when the keyboard takes up more than half of the view?  It may technically function, but there’s no way to get anything useful done with that little teeny weeny screen, and that’s a problem.

It is this new multi-mode working environment which is testing the boundaries of usability for software developers and service providers alike.  No longer may the assumption be that users will perform their job functions using a desktop or laptop computer, just as it is no longer assumed that a mobile phone will be used just for phone calls.  Users want (and sometimes need) to be able to get their work done using their smartphones, iPads, Kindles, or other types of tablet, pad or surface computers.  Applications designed to run on full size screens and desktop computers often don’t work well for users accessing them with other types of devices, even when the device is connecting to a remote desktop service.

Mobile device users are starting to face these usability barriers somewhat less frequently when visiting various websites.  If you look at many reasonably modern business websites, you’ll find there is a “mobile” counterpart.  The mobile website is often somewhat less functional than the full website, providing only essential information for the mobile viewer rather than the expanded content and functionality available on the full site.  Yet the mobile site delivers a more pleasant and usable resource for the mobile device user, encouraging the user to visit the site more often.

Application software development can be approached in a similar manner, where essential functionality is presented for mobile users in a format usable by mobile devices, and where the full functionality and rich feature set might be available only in the full application interface.  Even where legacy applications are concerned – those firmly tied to the desktop and network – there are likely options for extending some manner of functionality and access to remote and mobile devices, perhaps by using 3rd party integrated or connected solutions.

Many commercial software developers are successfully viewing this “web and mobile enabled” approach as a means to capture Software-as-a-Service buyers by providing some web-based and mobile functionality with attachments back to the data and applications residing on the LAN or hosting platform.  This hybrid approach may actually present better and more options for businesses, as it embraces the concepts of mobility and device independence while at the same time retaining the features, functionality and productivity-enhancing working mode that only desktop applications have to-date fully proven… and the businesses can keep their own data to take with them and not be relegated to list-only extractions if they wish to change solutions.

This idea is not really new – the idea of providing users with the specific functionality they need (and not more) to accomplish their tasks and get their jobs done.  The concept of Service Oriented Architecture has always spoken to this philosophy, advocating that the right approach to software is the one which orients the application, functionality and view specifically and directly towards the user and their role.

The new twist on SOA is that the orientation of the application should be based not only on roles and functionality.  Modern business applications must also address device and modality, not assuming a particular form factor or platform of access, and having an understanding of the particular mode in which the solution exists or is experienced by the user.  Mobile users want a useful experience on their  mobile devices, and remote and  local desktop users want the features, functionality and performance of desktop applications.

Website designers have figured out that visitors may access the website using any variety of computing devices, including smartphones, tablets, laptops and desktops.  Understanding that each device has a different capability in terms of displaying and interacting with content, site developers have begun to include mobile site designs as a standard offering with business website services.  Users accessing the site with smartphones and tablets are able to effectively navigate and view information on the site because it’s been formatted to fit the screen, and navigation and other action options are accessible from smart menus that are sized and placed for touch screen access.  This approach is now finding its way in many business applications now that the applications are also “living” on the web.

The growing number of web and SaaS products on the market clearly demonstrate that mobility is a big consideration in modern application design.  Unfortunately, productivity losses due to sluggish interfaces or complicated operating processes often offset the benefits of the solution, even though it may be both desktop and mobile “friendly”. Software companies rolling out new SaaS models to their existing desktop product user bases are finding that the desirability of the subscription model web-based solution may be somewhat less than expected.  This may be attributed to the fact that users have become not simply accustomed to how they can make the desktop software work for them – they’ve become reliant upon that ability.  Initial experiences with transitioning from desktop applications to SaaS has left many businesses with frustrations founded in overall productivity loss.  I’ve even heard the term “productivity-sucking”, which I don’t think describes either a feature or a benefit.

There must be a balance found, where productivity is enhanced for both desktop and mobile users and where critical functionality is not sacrificed in order to facilitate a mobile capability.  The goal is to empower the remote and mobile user to be as productive as the non-mobile user, and to do it without forcing changes which may impede rather than improve productivity of the overall organization.

Make Sense?

J

Read more about:

QuickBooks online, or QuickBooks Online? Use Software on the web without using Web-based software

Bringing Order to Inefficient Business Processes: Give people easy to use tools that make sense, and they’ll use them.

Intuit Ended QuickBooks Remote Access Service: The Time to Host is Now

Intuit Ended QuickBooks Remote Access Service: The Time to Host is Now

accountingCloudAccountants, bookkeepers and small business consultants have recognized the benefits of accessing client information remotely, where all parties can work on the same data in real-time, creating the opportunity to maintain more timely and accurate financial data for the business client.  The Internet has become the network, facilitating a variety of different working models which allow users, regardless of location, to access business information and data to get their work done.

For accountants and their business clients, it is essential that there is some type of virtualized working model, else the client is relegated to accepting after-the-fact reporting and outdated information.  Especially in smaller businesses where many of the accounting and finance processes are handled by an outsourced professional, time and distance is the enemy.

Just about anything that helps remove those barriers to real-time efficiency is worth looking at – which made it particularly unfortunate when Intuit, the  makers of QuickBooks, discontinued the QuickBooks Remote Access Service which was a tool that had addressed the remote access requirement for many businesses and their accounting and bookkeeping providers.

There are a wide variety of options for accountants to work closer with their small business clients, and jumping into a SaaS or web-based application is just one of them; other proven options include secure remote PC access or hosted application services.  Hosting in particular is beneficial as it allow businesses to continue the use of the software and processes they have already invested in while enabling a remote access and mobile capability.

If the problem is access, the solution isn’t necessarily a complete change in software – the solution is to create access. With Intuit’s end of QuickBooks Remote Access services in sight, the time to explore QuickBooks hosting is now.

Make sense?

J

Small Business IT Governance: You really need it now

it-balancing-actBig changes are going on in the world of information technology and business.  Where social computing and  mobility are no longer purely consumer concerns, enterprise IT departments face a growing requirement to embrace user devices and access in environments which were once strictly and closely controlled.  Enterprise IT may be challenged when presented with user personal devices and demands for remote access to enterprise data, yet the governance of systems is generally well-defined and strictly performed.  In small business, however, the people, policy and process issues (collectively incorporated into “governance”) tend to be more organic, and the use of personal devices and open access is more frequently considered to be a normal part of the overall business IT profile.

It is a focus on defining controls and processes, and influencing the activities and attitudes of the people involved, which has become an essential requirement in small business.  Where management of information technology resources was not of great concern to the small business owner before, increased device and information mobility (removal of physical boundaries) and erosion of logical boundaries around personal and business computing have become a really big deal for everyone in business. Small businesses just don’t often have departments of people working on the problem.

Technology use in business has always come at a price, and as various influences continue to change how users interact with devices, applications and systems, business owners and IT managers will continue to face difficult choices between balancing security of information resources and providing a productivity-enhancing user experience.   Too many security barriers result in avoidance of security protocols, slow or immobile company computers result in users working on their own machines and portables, and restricting access for mobile users results in “shadow IT” implementations of mobile sync and other data access approaches.

Yet “shadow IT” tends to be the norm with many small businesses, where there are often fewer barriers to implementing solutions which address individual user issues or problems.  Lacking the resources or understanding to develop a strong plan for managing information systems and technology within the business, small business owners often consider the computer systems and computerized data to be tools to get jobs done rather than strategically valuable assets to be strictly controlled and protected.  These business owners are not recognizing the ever-increasing need to not simply secure business information, but to establish processes and rules which will govern how users and devices access and interact with the information and systems.

Enterprise IT departments have often viewed their small business counterparts (customers, suppliers, etc.) as potential points of vulnerability, an attitude which was once considered to be centered not on real assessments of the risk but more in terms of ego, level of sophistication, and hierarchy in the food chain.  In today’s world of real risk introduced by myriad technological and human elements in every link in the supply chain, enterprise IT conclusions regarding the risk potential of doing business with anyone – including small businesses – may not be entirely unfounded.  Whether it be commentary and information distributed by individuals via social media or malware or corruption introduced inadvertently (or not) via computerized interaction, there is the possibility of risk introduced with every system, person and process involved.  Enterprise to enterprise, these issues may be more often recognized and remediated; where the SMB is involved, not always so much.

This is a brave new world of computing, and there is truth in that even the smallest of businesses can “compete with the big guys” when the right mixture of technology and process is applied – for good or bad.  Technology enables businesses to be more productive, get more done with fewer resources and perform at higher levels. IT Governance in small business is no longer an optional area of focus, addressed only during infrequent discussions with the local contract IT guy when he comes in to defrag the hard drive on a slow computer.  Establishing the proper processes and controls to wrap around IT use in the business has become an imperative; a necessarily specific and considerate approach to how information technology is used within the business, who uses it, and what IT is composed of.

Just about every business, and most individuals, are connected in some manner via some type of network, representing a dramatic and dynamic change to the traditional composition of business IT and the landscape of vulnerabilities which threaten it.  The increased connectedness, capability and complexity of systems and networks requires a greater focus on overall IT governance – exercising authority and controls – as the impact (just like the information) can easily and unintentionally reach far beyond the boundaries of the individual business.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

“People are nothing more than another operating system”, says Lance Spitzner, training director for the Securing The Human Program at SANS Institute.  “Computers store, process and transfer information, and people store, process and transfer information,”  How Hackers Fool Your Employees

Following the Rules: Users and Licensing for Hosted QuickBooks

Following the Rules: Users and Licensing for Hosted QuickBooks

I have said many times before that the licensing for QuickBooks desktop editions appears to be a bit complicated, and a lot of that may have to do with the fact that so many people use QuickBooks in so many different ways.  With a solution like QuickBooks (or Microsoft Office or other really popular and widely used software products) there is a tendency for folks to want the flexibility of accessing their software regardless of what computer they are using.  Also, especially in businesses, there is the habit of installing software on a computer and then allowing anyone sitting at the computer to use the software.  In some cases these approaches are okay with the software vendors, but in most cases they’re not.  Yet too often, the small business owner doesn’t find out what the actual rules of using the product are until they try to deploy the software with a hosting service provider (because nobody ever actually reads the EULA, do they?).  If the provider has any credibility at all, they will enforce the licensing rules of the software, but that doesn’t always sit well with the customer.

picture-hostedQBThis situation rears its ugly head quite frequently in the QuickBooks hosting world.  Perhaps it is because there are a lot of possible working models involving QuickBooks users, or maybe it’s simply a matter of people not seeing the value of paying for what they want to accomplish.  Either way, service providers find themselves being challenged every day in trying to explain to a customer why they need to have more than one license for QuickBooks and more than one service account if they want more than one person to access the hosted solution.

Different people at different times: The Concurrent User approach

One of the arguments people make for not having licenses for all of their users is that they don’t actually need everyone in the system at the same time.  The belief is that there should be licenses enough only for the number of concurrent, or simultaneous, users that will access the system, yet each individual human being/user should have a login to the system with the software available (for convenience, of course).  A QuickBooks 3-user license, they believe, should be able to be used by any number of business users as long as no more than 3 of them are in QuickBooks at any given time.

While the customer may be making a reasonable argument, it all falls down when you consider the license agreement for QuickBooks.  Each user of the product is supposed to have a specific license.  A business with a 3-user license (or 3 single-user licenses) for QuickBooks has the rights to allow 3 people (unique human beings) to use the software, not any combination of people as long as they number no more than 3 at a time.   There is to be no sharing of licenses, and there is no “concurrent” licensing model: each person/user/human being is supposed to have their own license for the product no matter how often they access it.

Look but don’t touch: The Read-Only User approach

Another of the arguments people make for not licensing all of their users is that there is somehow a belief that if you don’t actually enter information, then you aren’t really using the software.  This often comes up in situations where an accounting professional works with their client, or when business owners want to occasionally see what’s going on in the company.  The approach centers on the concept of what a “user” is and suggests that users are the people entering or changing the data, and people only viewing that information aren’t really “users” at all.  When the bookkeeper opens QuickBooks and enters an invoice, the bookkeeper is recognized to be a user.  But when the business owner opens QuickBooks to view the financial statement or see the bank account balance, isn’t the business owner also a user?  Yup, they sure are. Any person that actually opens the program on the computer is a user, regardless of what they do when the program is open.  Just looking around at the data still requires that the program be open, and opening the program requires a license.

Two Fer: But the other hosting company lets me…

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean that you should.  So, just because a different hosting provider might let you get away with things that aren’t right (but perhaps are convenient or cost saving in the short-term) doesn’t mean you should expect a different host to allow the same thing.  If your current host says things like “as long as you don’t tell us…”, you should be concerned.  This often comes up in a hosting scenario where there is an outside accounting or outsourced back-office professional working with a hosted client business.  The outsourcer will want to access the client books, so they will want to have a login and access to QuickBooks software on the host system.

The trouble starts when the outsource professional doesn’t want to have to pay for their own service or licensing, yet they want to be able to login to the system and run QB just like the client does.  Falling sometimes under that attempt to leverage a concurrent user approach (see above), these outsourcers just aren’t realizing that the benefits of accessing their client information and working in real-time with that data is often valuable enough to support the cost of a hosted account and license.  Instead, they want their access to be free of charge and not be bound by silly rules of licensing, often because their client won’t want to pay for the accountant service in addition to their own.

This is when the “if you don’t tell us” stuff comes in – where the service provider may suggest to the accountant or outsourcer that they can simply login as the client and nobody would be the wiser.  I’ll fess up and say I have even entertained this idea with clients a few times but always shy away from discussing it in-depth.  While it is basically true that the service provider doesn’t generally know which exact human being is sitting at the other end of that remote desktop connection, that doesn’t mean that it is okay to leverage it into an abuse of services or licensing.

Two or more people sharing a single login just isn’t good ju ju, and it’s usually against a whole bunch of licensing rules and rights of use.  The funny thing is that many customers who initially leverage their service in this manner end up finding it was a really bad idea.  I saw a scenario a few years ago where a business allowed their outside auditors to share the logins of regular employees in the finance department.  When an employee tried to login to their remote desktop, they opened the session the auditor had open – exposing the employee to a lot of data that was not theirs to see but which the auditor user in QB had access to.  The company called it a security breach and it was on their part – and it was allowed to happen because they shared their remote desktops with the auditors rather than giving the auditors their own accounts with their own security profiles.  What seemed like a good, cheap approach on one day rapidly turned into a big issue the next, and the service provider had no power to prevent it from happening.

The moral of this story is simply that following the rules is the right thing to do and most reputable hosting service providers will try, even if they don’t end up doing it really well.  There are always going to be those who figure that the risks don’t measure up to the potential rewards, so they will do what they choose to do.  I’m always left wondering about those guys; if they have no problems breaking these rules, I wonder what other rules (or confidences) they are willing to break.  Hmmm.

Make sense?

J

 

My Love/Hate Relationship with Partner Programs

My Love/Hate Relationship with Partner Programs

originally published on LinkedIn
 

I love Partner programs. You know, those business opportunities to get involved with a product or solution and earn revenue selling it to your customers. Particularly when the opportunity is attached to something you already do for a living, a partner program can represent a way to gain new competencies, new customers, and new revenue streams. Then again, I hate partner programs just a little bit, too.

When a business becomes a business partner, there’s an expectation that something will occur that benefits both participants (hence the word “partner”). Each side is supposed to benefit in some manner from the relationship. In the case of the partner program, the expectation is that the partner will sell the product or service to customers and gets compensation on sold deals in return. There may be marketing, lead generation, reseller pricing, training and other elements involved, but the relationship is generally one of “you sell my stuff and I’ll comp you for it”. The manufacturer gets more sales, and the partner gets products that customers buy, meaning revenue for the partner and the manufacturer. Sounds like a good deal.

Here’s why I hate partner programs at times: they tend to shift the focus from what a customer needs to what the partner can earn revenue on selling. For a product or solution-based business, this may not be a bad thing, as the business is in the business of selling product. For a consulting business, however, it can be quite problematic if the consulting team isn’t clearly focused on meeting the customer need rather than pushing product.

There’s an old saying that “if all you have is a hammer, then every problem looks like a nail”. Some consulting firms inadvertently fall into this situation, where they have their favored solutions (perhaps solutions they earn revenue from selling), and they automatically try to apply that solution to each and every customer engagement, whether it makes sense or not.

This happens time and again and not just with consultants, but also with accounting and bookkeeping professionals. Having developed an understanding for, and processes and procedures for working with, a particular business accounting product, the firm tends to make that product a standard recommendation for all clients. In this case the firm may not be literally reselling the solution for revenue, but has certainly “partnered” with the solution in the context that their ability to earn revenue becomes directly tied to the solution they want their client to purchase.

Partner programs can be hugely valuable to both the manufacturer and to the partner channel, and the value of having skilled “feet in the street” supporting and promoting the solution has been proven many times over. But accounting professionals and business consultants should take care when considering their possible participation in these types of programs, and be realistic about how that relationship fits in to the nature and quality of the service delivered to customers. The program may fit well with the needs of the practice, driving new revenue opportunities in new or existing areas of business. On the other hand, it may end up being a distraction, turning the focus from providing great client service and satisfaction to selling a product or solution just to earn an additional buck on the deal.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J