Tag: business

Posted on

What we’ve learned about desktop and application hosting for small businesses

Application hosting is pretty popular these days, and a lot of that popularity can be attributed to the proliferation of web-based and SaaS solutions that have clearly revealed the benefits of mobility and managed service.  Not everyone wants to or can use a web-based application, however, causing demand for hosting of desktop applications to grow.  Take a look at what’s going on with Intuit QuickBooks, for example.  With all the push to QuickBooks Online, Intuit has created a surge in the demand for hosted QuickBooks desktop editions.  Folks want their QuickBooks available for remote access and to support multiple users from different locations… but they also want to continue to use the feature-rich QuickBooks desktop products their businesses rely on.  Hosting lets them have their cake and eat it, too.  It’s the best of both worlds.

Back in 2000, there were a few in the tech industry that said the desktop would be dead soon.  Business users wouldn’t be sitting down to work at computers, they would be using various devices to access their applications and data, from anywhere.  Those early visionaries recognized that mobility was the coming thing, and that even the smallest of businesses would need what was at the time enterprise-class technology. I wasn’t so sure about the potential death of the desktop and the beloved applications businesses love to use, but I was pretty certain that “working online” with centrally-managed systems was the thing to work toward.

A lot of hosting companies started up at that time, and a lot of them went out of business just a few years later – some in virtual flames.  Customers lost time, productivity, and in some cases their data.  Investors lost their investments.  It wasn’t that the service providers weren’t doing a good job, or that the technology wasn’t quite up to the task – the problem was the hype and the money.  Too many people sat on the sales-side of the technology, making promises they couldn’t deliver and coming up short in meeting investor and customer demands.

Quite a number of years have gone by, and the market is still rife with promises unkept and solutions undelivered.  But some of us in the industry have learned a lot over the years, so I’d like to share some of that learning.

Application hosting services gained popularity because they solved some major problems for businesses and their collaborators (including accountants, bookkeepers, remote workers, etc.).

Hosted application services allow everyone to work on the same software and data, regardless of where the user is located. Hosted application services provide centralized access for businesses with multiple locations or mobile workers.  And hosted application services make it easier for contracted or engaged professionals like accountants and bookkeepers to work closer with their clients.

In the beginning, when we were just launching these hosting services, the equipment, facilities and expansive engineering labor requirements were really expensive so there was tremendous pressure to find ways to keep costs down.  For customers, the plan was to pack as many users into the environment as possible, with volume representing a way to get a lower per-user cost.  This concept paved the way for the accountant cloud server model, where it was suggested that an accounting firm could bring all their clients onto the cloud server to help keep the costs down.  For a while that model worked pretty well, but then some issues started to be revealed.

With small business application hosting, particularly when dealing with QuickBooks, it should be recognized that nobody uses just QuickBooks.

There’s almost always a plug-in or add-on or some other solution that is also required with QuickBooks. Taking payments in QuickBooks requires a 3rd party plugin if you aren’t going to use Intuit payment solutions.  Downloading payroll data from another service may also require a plugin, as does the tax add-on and the order sync tool and the solution that integrates orders from the website or via EDI from vendors or suppliers.  It is almost never just QuickBooks.  When a provider tries to pack all that customization into a single server and serve a whole lot of different business, each with their own needs – things go a bit sideways.  Servers hang, customer applications interfere with one another, and data gets compromised.

The next phase then was either VDI or dedicated service.  VDI was and continues to be too expensive and complex when you have to factor in database engines, shared storage and such.  Dedicated service (server) is a bit more straightforward and still has some economy of scale.  With this model, each customer gets what they need.  They’re still in a cloud-hosted environment so collaboration isn’t a problem, and every customer has the benefit of working with exactly the software solutions they need for their particular business.  The challenge is serving just a few users.  Even though cloud servers can be relatively affordable to get these days, it may still be too costly for one- or two-user situations. (Note that these are the folks that often find themselves compelled to try the online, web version of an application simply due to cost.)

The customized cloud delivery is the right concept, but many service providers still have problems supporting multiple applications for customers and often charge quite a bit extra while delivering a marginal level of service.  You may find a provider who will try to deliver any application for you (and many will do that poorly) or you may find a popular provider that can only offer a particular set of applications for hosting.  If the provider isn’t able to deliver the applications the business needs, or if they are unable to deliver custom or personalized service, then they are likely not the right provider for the business.

The emergence of public cloud services like AWS should make it easier for small businesses to get affordable computing power and customized cloud service from any IT provider, but it hasn’t yet. 

The public cloud is still far too complicated for most small businesses to navigate or even get started with.  Truthfully, it is difficult for many IT resellers and partners to navigate, too.  Getting started is potentially costly in terms of time and resources especially for service providers, so those costs and complications end up reaching through to the customer.  The public cloud just isn’t ready for the average small business to take advantage of directly, so on-premises servers or managed cloud server hosting are still the most viable options.

A big wrinkle in the whole hosted online application model is that many businesses don’t really need or want to completely outsource their IT to a cloud provider.

Considerations relating to privacy and proximity are paramount for many business owners, not to mention the trust factor.  Lawyers, accounts, manufacturers… business owners in any industry may be uncomfortable considering moving their systems and information out of their immediate control.  There could be regulatory concerns or logistical challenges, or it could be something as simple as realizing that there remain applications or data on computers on-premises that make an outsourced hosting approach more complicated and costly while delivering only a partial solution.  Whatever the reasons, there remains a lot of in-house IT and that’s OK.

There is no doubt that business owners and their team members need and want mobility and secure remote access.  They also want to work with the IT providers they trust and maybe they even want to continue working from servers they have already contracted for or purchased. Others may wish to leverage cloud platforms, but remain closely associated with their IT providers.

Forcing a business owner to migrate their systems to a hosting platform when all they really want is remote access or multi-user service seems a bit like overkill.

Granted, there are many benefits to be derived from outsourcing IT management and administration, like improved focus on the business, and various business processes and workflows could be more streamlined with a centrally-managed and fully accessible solution.  Yet those benefits are the intangibles that businesses must discover after-the-fact, and are achieved only if the business works specifically towards those goals.  In short, it isn’t necessarily what business owners are buying.

If we have learned nothing else over the years it is that things don’t move as quickly as we’d like them to.

The world never seems to end before your homework is due.

Software-as-a-Service hasn’t completely killed off desktop software, and smartphones and tablets haven’t ended the useful life of the desktop computer.   What they have done is fully expose the desire and need for mobility and access, and have opened the doors for tools to address those needs better than the other approaches previously available.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

 

Posted on

Securing Business Data When Mobility is the Target

driving1-ANIMATIONToday’s workforce is a mobile workforce. Technology has enabled businesses to allow their employees to reach beyond the office walls, doing business and operating effectively from just about any location.  SaaS, online access to business data, and smart phone technologies have brought flexibility in working models previously only imagined by the workforce tethered to business locations and office computers. Yet this flexibility comes at a price if the business is to keep up with securing and protecting data assets as readily as it extends access to them.  The bad guys are well aware that mobile computing and remote access working models are growing in adoption with businesses, and are finding ways to take ever-greater advantage of the situation.

Teleworking, which is not quite the same thing as telecommuting, is on the rise and it doesn’t look to be a trend that will slow down any time soon. According to GlobalWorkplaceanalytics.com, “telework is defined as the substitution of technology for travel”.  Those who work sometimes from an office, but sometimes not, are teleworkers. Working at the office during the day and then taking work home at night makes you a teleworker. The primary tool of the teleworkforce is the smart phone – the mobile computer with built-in connectivity and enough processing power to handle many basic office workloads.

  • 50% of the US workforce holds a job that is compatible with at least partial telework and approximately 20-25% of the workforce teleworks at some frequency
  • 80% to 90% of the US workforce says they would like to telework at least part-time. Two to three days a week seems to be the sweet spot that allows for a balance of concentrative work (at home) and collaborative work (at the office).
  • Fortune 1000 companies around the globe are entirely revamping their space around the fact that employees are already mobile. Studies repeatedly show they are not at their desk 50-60% of the time.  http://globalworkplaceanalytics.com/telecommuting-statistics

The number of teleworking employees is on the rise, and so is the variety of devices used to facilitate mobile working.  Smartphones, tablets and phablets and, of course, laptop computers are used by mobile workers – often in addition to the company-supplied desktop in the office. The variety and number of computing devices per user is growing. Knowing this, businesses must take increasingly expansive steps to strengthen and secure remote access systems and business data, yet many organizations are just beginning to fully realize that the mobility they extend to their users is part of the reason for the increasing number of data breaches and attacks against business information systems.

Cybercriminals and their crafty programs are often able to steal important information or access a network by first infecting computers and devices used for telework.  Many of the devices available to the attackers are not company-owned, but are introduced to the system by contractors, vendors and employees (BYOD or bring-your-own-device users).

Even if the device isn’t a vehicle delivering a nasty payload into the network, data breaches may still occur when business information is stored on an improperly secured device. Most people who work with computers have some recognition of the potential for virus attacks and malware, but far fewer recognize the threat potential of attacks against mobile devices such as phones and tablets, and even fewer may implement meaningful protections on those devices.

“To prevent breaches when people are teleworking, organizations need to have stronger control over their sensitive data that can be accessed by, or stored on, telework devices,” said Murugiah Souppaya, a NIST computer scientist. [1]

Providing guidance and information to the public on such topics, NIST (National Institute of Standards and Technology) is revising its publications on telework to cover growing use of BYOD and how contractor and vendor devices are increasingly used to access company information resources.  Two new publications – one for organizations and one for users – are now available for review and comment.  You can find them here.

“As one of the major research components of the National Institute of Standards and Technology, the Information Technology Laboratory (ITL) has the broad mission to promote U.S. innovation and industrial competitiveness by advancing measurement science, standards, and technology through research and development in information technology, mathematics, and statistics.”  [NIST Information Technology Laboratory Mission]

The rising number of threats, attacks and breaches caused by compromised devices used for teleworking is nothing to take lightly, and protecting against them shouldn’t be approached as a merely perfunctory obligation. Organizations must create and consistently update policies and requirements relating to protecting information accessible by remote workers if they intend to reduce business risk and provide assurances to stakeholders and customers that the information is adequately guarded.  But it doesn’t stop with the policy; businesses must also make an effort to properly educate their users (employees, contractors, vendors, etc.) on those policies, ensuring that all parties involved understand the responsibilities and requirements and strictly adhere to them.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

[1] http://www.nist.gov/itl/csd/attackers-honing-in-on-teleworkers-how-organizations-can-secure-their-datata.cfm
Posted on

Is this email legitimate? QuickBooks Payroll ACH ID Changes go live on the 22nd!

Is this email legitimate? QuickBooks Payroll ACH ID Changes go live on the 22nd!

Trusted QuickBooks Advisors – here’s another thing for you to help your clients with

Intuit recently sent an e-mail to QuickBooks Online Payroll (QBOP) and QuickBooks Full Service Payroll (QBFSP) customers about an ACH ID change.  It kind of looks like a phishing thing, but it is really a legitimate email from Intuit, and it is important to pay attention if your company uses the impacted services and a banking feature called “debit filtering”.  There isn’t much time to act, either, because the changes go live in 3 days (February 22, 2016).

Impacted services are QuickBooks Online Payroll and QuickBooks Full Service Payroll, so it is pretty important to address.  Nobody wants their business payroll processes interrupted, and this could easily do just that.

Intuit has added some new ACH ID numbers for use with direct deposit and other processes which work with the bank, so customers using a fraud-prevention method known as “debit filtering” will need to contact their banks to add the new IDs or their bank transactions will fail.

Debit filtering allows customers to tell their banks which ACH IDs are allowed to perform transactions with the bank account, like removing or depositing funds.  It is an extra level of fraud security that protects the bank account from unauthorized access, but it is also something that can work against the business if it is not managed.  In this case, contacting the bank to add the new IDs is critical to keeping things processing and flowing smoothly.  It is also important that the old IDs not be removed yet, as they may be tied to historic transactions that must be tracked and reported on for tax and other purposes.

“Is this really from Intuit? It seems like Intuit would have a better way to make such changes than to ask millions of subscribers to contact their bank”

Source: Is this email legitimate? ACH ID Changes; – QuickBooks Learn & Support

QuickBooks users don’t have much time to reach their banks and supply the new IDs, so pull the email out of the SPAM folder and call the bank right away. Intuit won’t be sending notices to the banks, and they have no authority to add different IDs to your approved list, anyway… which is a good thing.  If just anyone could add an approved ACH ID on your account, then just anyone could get to your funds.  Better to make the phone call yourself.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

Posted on

No REST for QuickBooks Desktop Integration Developers

No REST for QuickBooks Desktop Integration Developers

elastic-cloudIntuit, the maker of QuickBooks small business accounting software (among other things), is discontinuing service for the REST API and the Sync Manager on March 1, 2016 [1].  Developers with applications which integrate with the desktop editions of QuickBooks using this method must change their approach right away or risk having their integrations simply stop functioning.  It’s not that Intuit will DO something on March 1st.  Rather, they’ll stop doing something – like handling Sync Manager integrations.

There are a lot of different types of businesses in the world, and each of them produces and consumes a lot of information.   From sales to human resources; from operations to finance – every business generates and manages information to support the various processes which make up the business activities.  Computer systems and software represent the tools businesses use to develop and manage information, and often become foundations for structuring the information which flows through the organization. Just as there may be different people in the business, each with their own responsibilities and job functions, there are likely software applications which are similarly oriented to support different processes within the business.  Integrating or connecting different applications and processes within the business helps the organization be more efficient with information usage, generally increasing the quality of access and reporting throughout the business while at the same time reducing or eliminating redundant data entry and the potential for errors.  Software integrations are a big thing to many businesses, which is why the discontinuation of Intuit’s Sync Manager for QuickBooks Desktop editions is a big deal.

Intuit’s Sync Manager was the big thing just a few short years ago.  Providing developers with a seamless method for accessing QuickBooks company data and passing it to/from web-based and other applications was a boon to the online application model and paved the way for many disk-based integrated solutions to migrate to SaaS offerings instead.  Developers who saw success operating in Intuit’s QuickBooks marketplace as recognized add-ons were encouraged to use Sync Manager so that they would be able to seamlessly market to, subscribe and onboard new users who purchased QuickBooks products. Whether or not the developer participated in Intuit’s application marketplace, the Sync Manager and the REST API provided them with some very important capabilities and supported new methods now recognized as “standards” for development of web-based solutions and services.

The World Wide Web has succeeded in large part because its software architecture has been designed to meet the needs of an Internet-scale distributed hypermedia system. The modern Web architecture emphasizes scalability of component interactions, generality of interfaces, independent deployment of components, and intermediary components to reduce interaction latency, enforce security, and encapsulate legacy systems. http://dl.acm.org/citation.cfm?doid=337180.337228

In order to integrate a solution with QuickBooks desktop products, there are two essential problems to solve.  First, there must be access to the QuickBooks data.  Few products are able to directly access the data in a QuickBooks data file; generally, the QuickBooks program itself is used to ‘broker’ access to the company file. So, developers need a way to work inside of QuickBooks to use it to access the data their applications need.  Second, the data must be transported (via the Internet) to allow for data to come from QuickBooks into another app, or to allow data from the other app to come to QuickBooks.  The REST API and the Sync Manager addressed both of those problems and provided developers with the mechanisms required to facilitate the data integration as well as transport the data.

REST (representational state transfer) is “the software architectural style of the World Wide Web [2]” and represents a standard for creating scalable, distributed system interactions.  Using this method, developers were able to make their online solutions access, read and write data in QuickBooks desktop products because Intuit had first sync’d the data to its servers, so developers needed only to reach the Intuit servers to reach the data.  The Sync Manager provided the transport, carrying the data to/from the desktop installation where the Sync Manager service was running.  And, because the Sync Manager was basically built-in to QuickBooks, there was no additional software to install and maintain on the computer because it was all part of the QuickBooks installation.

Intuit did a fantastic job of getting developers to move to the API integration method, positioning all those lovely 3rd party solutions for linkage via an Intuit.com account and, now, to QuickBooks Online.  Intuit is clearly favoring the QuickBooks Online edition and the API integration method available with that platform, and is telling developers that they must convert their customers to QBO in order to retain the easy connective ability they had with the desktop editions via Sync Manager.

Now that Intuit has announced the discontinuation of the REST API and the Sync Manager, what options do QuickBooks integration developers have, and how can customers using 3rd party integrations keep using them?  Options do remain, and they aren’t all that bad.  In fact, the options which remain continue to be the methods of choice for certain developers. These developers recognized early on that Intuit’s somewhat “lightweight” methods couldn’t handle the complexity or full functionality of their integrations facilitated their solutions using the SDK and never looked back (and still don’t).  For this community of developers – many of whom likely never considered trying to market their solutions in the Intuit app marketplace – the elimination of the REST API and Sync Manager don’t really matter.  They didn’t bother with them in the first place, just as they aren’t bothering with QBO.  Those solutions don’t fit their customers, anyway.

The QuickBooks desktop SDK (Software Development Kit) has been around for years, and using the SDK developers have been able to craft tight integrations between their solutions and the QuickBooks desktop products.  From payment plug-ins to fully integrated sales, customer relationship, inventory and manufacturing solutions – a broad range of integrated applications built with the SDK have been successfully deployed to QuickBooks customers all over the world.   Many applications which integrate with QuickBooks desktop solutions are desktop products themselves and are designed to work within the same desktop and network environment as QuickBooks, so there is no need to worry about “transport” of the data over the Internet.

For other solutions, such as online applications and services, there may be a need to exchange data via the Web. The QuickBooks Web Connector has also been a very popular solution for developers of applications that integrate data with QuickBooks.  The Web Connector is just what its name implies: it is a way to connect QuickBooks to the web and vice versa. With the Web Connector application and a web connector configuration file, developers could provide a method of exchanging data between QuickBooks desktop and another solution fairly simply.  While the Web Connector is quite useful in providing a means to transport integrated data to/from the QuickBooks desktop to an external system (like an online application), it only allows access to whatever data Intuit decides.  For this reason, many developers use both an SDK application and the Web Connector so their applications can access all data required and also have a web service available to transport it.

There are numerous implications relating to the sunset of QuickBooks REST API and Sync Manager, and another among them is the impact in hosted environments.  For customers who are (or might) benefit from hosted QuickBooks delivery models, what does the end-of-life of the Sync Manager mean?  Since the Sync Manager was basically built into QuickBooks desktop editions, it meant that there wasn’t any extra software to install or manage when a company wanted to adopt a Sync Manager-based 3rd party integrated solution. In a hosting environment, this means that the customer could easily add integrated applications to work with their hosted QuickBooks and the service provider might never even know it was being done.  There would be no additional software to install on the host servers; so many providers would simply be unaware that their customers were using these other solutions.

As developers return to SDK and Web Connector implementations in order to integrate with QuickBooks desktop, customers will ask their hosting providers to install the QWC (QuickBooks Web Connector) and/or integration software in their service.  In shared service delivery models, this may be virtually impossible to do without potential compromise to existing customers using those servers or other applications resident on the systems.  Hosting customers will not always understand that a “simple plug-in” actually represents installable software that must be secured, maintained, managed, and kept from improperly interacting with other software in the environment.  Some providers may not even be willing to work with the new integration software, while others may allow it but will not take adequate precautions to ensure proper and secure function.

Intuit has said to many constituent groups that its focus on desktop editions of QuickBooks will continue, and new certifications and benefits for desktop ProAdvisors (and continued development of interoperability with other solutions, like the Revel POS integration for QuickBooks desktop) give support to those statements.  Yet developers who support integrations with QuickBooks desktop are once again adjusting to the not infrequent changes Intuit makes to developer programs and philosophies.  The push to QBO and connected apps may be the focus for QuickBooks marketing dollars, but there are still quite a number of (very busy!) developers supplying solutions to businesses who don’t shop inside their QuickBooks software.

Joanie Mann Bunny FeetMake Sense?

J

[1] https://developer.intuit.com/blog/2014/09/08/timeline-to-discontinue-the-quickbooks-desktop-rest-api

[2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Representational_state_transfer

Paperless_468x80

Posted on

Report Right or It’ll Cost You (double)

Report Right or It’ll Cost You (double)

paper-stackReporting requirements for business just keep growing, and so do the penalties for doing it wrong.  New this year and just in time for the annual reporting season (makes it sound almost fun, huh?) are new forms to file and an increase in penalties for not making an effort to get the information correct and into the hands of the proper recipient. Failure to file by the due date can cost businesses $250 per item, up to $3,000,000 in penalties ($1,000,000 for small businesses).  Add to that the warning about intentionally not filing or having an “intentional disregard of the requirements to furnish a correct payee statement”, which carries a penalty of at least $500 per payee statement and has no maximum penalty. Clearly, the cost of making sure the information is correct and filed in a timely manner is far less than the cost of not getting it done – or done right.

Growing problems around wage and revenue reporting have caused the IRS to pursue a variety of measures over the years to try to improve information reporting.  The Affordable Care Act has also had quite an impact on wage and benefit reporting, increasing reporting requirements substantially.  From the introduction of health plan reporting on W2s to the new mandatory forms 1095-C and 1094-C (for applicable large employers), businesses of all sizes are feeling the pressure.

February 2016 marks the date when employers and healthcare providers are required to file those shiny new IRS information returns regarding employer-provided healthcare coverage, providing a copy of the return to each employee much like a W2. The information would then enable the IRS to enforce rules established under the Affordable Care Act by revealing whether an individual might be eligible for a premium tax credit, or if an employer may be subject to non-compliance penalties. Penalties for failing to comply essentially double in 2016.  And the IRS suggests that a “good faith effort” standard will be applied to information reporting, offering no relief for employers that fail to make the effort to file timely and correctly.

It wasn’t very long ago that 1099 filing requirements expanded substantially, forcing businesses to get far more detailed in their production of information to the IRS and to payment recipients.  While this filing requirement impacted businesses both large and small, most lived through it (with the help of their trusted accounting professional!) and were able to comply.  That effort informed the IRS on a wide variety of business payments and expenses not previously tracked, in particular payments made for services and non-employee compensation.

The increasing scrutiny of wage and earning information may also help in efforts to curtail tax refund fraud.  Identity thieves use stolen (or borrowed) social security numbers to file false tax returns early in the year. Unfortunately, with the IRS motto of “pay first, prove later” the cross checking won’t likely be done until after the refund check has been sent. Once the task is performed, however, the taxpayer could end up getting a letter from the IRS stating that more than one tax return was filed using the social security number, they owe for a tax year for which they did not file a return, or the IRS indicates that wages were reported from an employer the taxpayer doesn’t know.

The IRS expects tax refund fraud to top $21 billion by 2016, which is an increase of 223% from 2013 numbers. Tax refund fraud costs every taxpayer.  No wonder the IRS is getting tougher with the penalties for not filing information returns accurately or on time.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

Following is the text from the IRS, which outlines the “Increase in Penalties for Failure to File Correct Information Returns and to Provide Correct Payee Statements — 31-JUL-2015

L. 114-27, section 806, increased penalties for failure to file correct information returns and provide correct payee statements for information returns required to be filed after December 31, 2015.

Penalties are discussed in Section O in the General Instructions for Certain Information Returns. The penalties in the bulleted list under “Failure To File Correct Information Returns by the Due Date (Section 6721)” are revised as follows.

  • $50 per information return if you correctly file within 30 days (by March 30 if the due date is February 28); maximum penalty $500,000 per year ($175,000 for small businesses).
  • $100 per information return if you correctly file more than 30 days after the due date but by August 1; maximum penalty $1,500,000 per year ($500,000 for small businesses).
  • $250 per information return if you file after August 1 or you do not file required information returns; maximum penalty $3,000,000 per year ($1,000,000 for small businesses).
Posted on

Franchise FUD: Browning-Ferris Industries, the NLRB, and Joint-Employer Status

Franchise FUD: Browning-Ferris Industries, the NLRB, and Joint-Employer Status

iconicAn August decision by the NLRB is likely to have a broad impact in the coming years, forcing a great deal of change in how many businesses do business.  While the issue may be under the radar for some business owners, those in the franchise industry are paying very close attention – which makes sense because the ruling could easily be construed as the beginning of the end for the franchise business model.  At stake are the definition of “employer” and the determination of who is really responsible for the workers.

The issue stems from a 3-2 decision by the NLRB on a case involving Browning-Ferris Industries of California.  Browning-Ferris Industries is a waste management company that contracted with another company – Leadpoint – to supply employees to perform a variety of work functions.  Under the NLRB ruling, it was determined that Browning-Ferris was a joint employer with Leadpoint.  What is interesting in this case (and where the FUD – fear, uncertainty and doubt – come in) is that “indirect control” of the employees became the primary factor determining whether a joint employer relationship existed under the National Labor Relations Act. Going against years of precedent, the board ruled that Browning-Ferris and Leadpoint were jointly employing the workers.

In the decision, the Board applies long-established principles to find that two or more entities are joint employers of a single workforce if (1) they are both employers within the meaning of the common law;  and (2) they share or codetermine those matters governing the essential terms and conditions of employment. In evaluating whether an employer possesses sufficient control over employees to qualify as a joint employer, the Board will – among other factors — consider whether an employer has exercised control over terms and conditions of employment indirectly through an intermediary, or whether it has reserved the authority to do so.

https://www.nlrb.gov/news-outreach/news-story/board-issues-decision-browning-ferris-industries

There are many who believe Browning-Ferris is a precursor to the pending proceeding against McDonald’s Corp. in which the NLRB general counsel charges McDonald’s Corp as a joint employer of its franchisees’ employees.  Possibly in response to outcries of wage inequality and fast-food worker strikes to force an increase in the minimum wage, the NLRB seems to be adjusting its definitions in favor of the movement and may inadvertently destroy the foundations of the franchise business model according to some.

Clearly the franchise business model is in the crosshairs.  In an article published on Law360 by David J. Kaufmann, Breton H. Permesly and Dale A. Cohen, the authors cite from the June amicus brief on the Browning-Ferris proceeding, in which NLRB General Counsel Richard F. Griffin Jr “directly addressed and attacked franchising, claiming that it was merely an “outsourcing arrangement” and insisting that franchisors are the joint employers of their franchisees’ employees because franchisors can exert significant control over the day-to-day operations of their franchisees”. No ambiguity there.

There have always been questions when workers are classified as contractors, forcing regulatory agencies to delve into the details of the relationship to determine whether or not independence actually exists.  But this decision changes things in a big way.  From Unions gaining more strength in forcing contracting organizations to participate in bargaining processes, to franchise businesses electing to run only company-owned locations to minimize exposure and risk, there is likely to be some troubling times for businesses large and small in the coming months and years as the new definitions take hold.

jmbunnyfeetMake Sense?

J

here’s a shortlink to this article http://wp.me/p2hGOJ-Om