Code:"Distillation of interaction" between thousands of CSS | Notary Discussion History | |  | Code:"Distillation of interaction" between thousands of CSS Go Back to November, 2013 Index | | |
Posted by MAC/WA on 11/8/13 7:55pm Msg #492018
Code:"Distillation of interaction" between thousands of CSS
from every state and US jurisdiction, the NNA, Lenders and Companies that EMPLOY Specialists.
Anyone want to stand up and take a bow? OK, does anyone know of anyone who had "interactions" with these parties that lead to the adoption of these Standards?
| Reply by Marian_in_CA on 11/8/13 8:59pm Msg #492023
Yup... that's what it says....
"The Guiding Principles and Standards of Practice are the distillation of interaction between the National Notary Association, thousands of Certified Signing Specialists from every state and U.S. jurisdiction, lenders and the companies that employ Specialists. They address the common problems, issues and questions encountered by Specialists."
My first thought is this... how can they have had interaction with "thousands" of Certified Signing Specialists if nobody actually holds that designation yet?
Next is that bit about "companies that employ specialists" --- did you guys catch that? EMPLOY! That shows you where their heads are... they want the benefits of employees without any of the responsibility.
One of my favorite bits of this whole thing is that the NNA is saying they are a "non-voting" entity in and a role of advisors.... and yet 2 of the 3 chairs of this group work for the NNA. The website is owned and operated by the NNA, and anyone who wants to become a member of the SPW *must* be a member of the NNA.
From: http://signingprofessionalsworkgroup.org/become-a-member/
"Membership is open to individuals who are employees or officers of organizations that maintain a National Notary Association industry membership and serve, employ, or rely on Signing Specialists."
Again... there's that EMPLOY reference again.
My guess is that any organization that will want to provide training, the exam or the background screening approved by the SPW will be required to become a member of the SPW first.... which means they must become an NNA member before that, and before shelling out $1,000 a year for the privilege.
| Reply by MikeC/TX on 11/8/13 10:18pm Msg #492032
Re: Yup... that
"My first thought is this... how can they have had interaction with "thousands" of Certified Signing Specialists if nobody actually holds that designation yet?"
Yeah, I was wondering the same thing....
"Next is that bit about "companies that employ specialists" --- did you guys catch that? EMPLOY! That shows you where their heads are... they want the benefits of employees without any of the responsibility."
If these standards are eventually approved by the CFPB, that's exactly what you will be according to IRS regulations - an employee. That may not be what you want to be, but on the plus side you'll only have to pay half of your FICA taxes...
Someone on their side didn't think this thing through...
| Reply by MAC/WA on 11/8/13 10:40pm Msg #492037
NNA could be moving toward "contract employees" n/m
| Reply by MAC/WA on 11/8/13 10:42pm Msg #492038
NNA pays TEAs $35, this is what we have to look forward to n/m
| Reply by MikeC/TX on 11/8/13 10:57pm Msg #492043
They could be, but the IRS will probably disagree
If I am an independent contractor, the hiring party can certainly tell me what the end result should be, but cannot tell me how to do my job. Requiring me to follow a script is telling me how to do my job. That makes me an employee...
| Reply by JanetK_CA on 11/9/13 12:53am Msg #492047
Re: They could be, but the IRS will probably disagree
Right. And those statements might represent exactly what their intentions truly are. The CFPB bulletins are requiring a substantial amount of oversight and supervision of all service providers (and I believe one of the bulletins included "sub-contractors"), so it includes everyone. That's a pretty daunting undertaking.
I also had the same reaction about input from all those "CSSs". I don't believe they even have the CSS certification materials prepared yet, let alone the exams. Kinda putting the cart before the horse. HOWEVER, if we consider that all those guidelines were probably written with their perceived end goal in mind, it paints a pretty good picture of where they may be planning to take this. Also, their publications were probably written not so much to explain to all of us how they WILL operate, but to serve as documentation for what they expect to have in place at some future time. Just some food for thought...
| Reply by jba/fl on 11/9/13 9:56am Msg #492067
As with any committee, lofty goals are laid out. n/m
| Reply by Christine/OK on 11/9/13 4:34am Msg #492054
LIKE!! :D n/m
| Reply by dgd/CA on 11/9/13 7:42am Msg #492060
Re: Yup... that "Employees...Employs"
These "words," as well as other issues I have (professionally) with this Code caused me to forward it, in it's entirity, to California Department of Labor last week.
While I realize that the wheels of any governmental agency/department move at pace much slower than mine, I believe that they will act much faster than the IRS (particularly as the NNA is located in SoCal).
|
|