Join Date: Nov 2012
Location: Silver Springs, Nevada
Thanked 564 Times in 339 Posts
IC/Employee? Or pay for Work???
AIM recently sent out a directive that Stated;
Dear Valued Vendor:
Our industry is experiencing a period of examination. Through this analysis, service and security changes are mandated to ensure compliance and eliminate risk.
In response to these new client-requested initiatives, all AIM vendors will be required to complete industry skills training to remain an active vendor.
AIM, in association with the National Association of Mortgage Field Services (NAMFS), is announcing our new vendor training requirement.
The NAMFS Academy
The NAMFS Academy includes various formats of e-learning, including Basic Literature, Video, PP Presentations and Multi-Media. AIM certifications will be offered in the following:
· Inspection (Inspection & General Industry Modules)
· Preservation (Pre & Post-Sale, General Industry & Recurring Services Modules)
· Inspection & Preservation (Inspection, Pre & Post-Sale, General Industry & Recurring
AIM vendors will need to enroll and complete the certification applicable to their services performed.
Training must be completed within six months of AIM notification. All existing vendors will need to complete their training by November 30, 2013.
NAMFS Academy Registration with 20% savings!
Now I know this has been the subject of many a spirited debate. However, I would lke to know YOUR INTERPRETATION...this is not a debate on any legalities...just how you interpret this directive....
Here is mine.....
This forces a very specific education and training module on any company working for AIM. This also crosses the no-no line of the "A IC not needing training" portion of the IC definition. In addition it creates a "Pay for Play" scenario. Is it legal??? I don't know. But I do feel that by forcing one program down your throat, at a very expensive fee I might add, it crosses that line and places you into an employee classification....
Again I am no lawyer and before this is over, since the directive has been made you can bet the some higher up entity will investigate this matter...I'm just interested in the layperson's feelings and opinions on this...Do you think .....A. This infringes on the IC/employee issue of a Contractor not being required to have training in their respective field?
B. Do you think this is just a marketing avenue to raise awareness for the organization the AIM Contractors have to purchase the education modules and testing certification from. C. Just an affiliate company helping raise revenues for an association they belong to. Or D. Does this directive create a "Pay for Work" scenario?
New Business Consultant