A Letter from the President

It is a new year and constant uncertainty is slowly starting to diminish, and hope is taking over. As we look toward the future, our priority is always, and always has been, our own safety and the safety of those around us with whom we conduct business.

We all know how difficult things have been since the pandemic began; transitioning our apprenticeship program to a fully virtual platform, postponing in-person engagements until further notice, and changing the way our HVAC contractors and distributors do business. Given all these factors, we were able to overcome obstacles we never thought we would have to face, and we will continue to do so as we move into 2021.

As we begin February, we have already accomplished so much. AACP hosted a very informative, and very important, seminar with a COVID security and safety specialist and our Attorney Frank Kollman. Both spoke on how to implement policies and procedures in your company to keep your staff and customers safe, all while continuing to help your business thrive. Last week, we hosted a Leadership Seminar, featuring Mary Kelly, on how to strengthen your leadership and develop a bull pen of future leaders.

This year, AACP has partnered with AnnDyl Policy Group, LLC to represent our organization before the Maryland General Assembly and to monitor legislative activity in Washington D.C. Last Wednesday, members of AACP and HACC partnered together and testified before the Budget and Taxation Committee to work on getting our first bill passed, the Indoor-Air Quality Tax Credit. We are also collaborating for the passage on our second legislative bill, the Scholarship Eligibility Bill.

Needless to say, it’s been a busy month for our AACP team! We plan to continue our efforts to further the HVAC industry throughout the rest of the year. Remember…you get out of an organization what you put into it.

Philip Thompson 
AACP President

Upcoming events

  • No upcoming events

Follow us on Facebook, Twitter, LinkedIn, and Instagram!

NADCA Urges CDC to Prioritize HVACR Technicians for Phase 1B COVID-19 Vaccine Distribution


Contributed by the HVAC Insider

The National Air Duct Cleaners Association (NADCA) — also known as the HVAC Inspection, Cleaning, and Restoration Association — has partnered with other industry organizations to implore the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices for the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to prioritize heating, ventilation, air conditioning, and refrigeration (HVACR) technicians, plumbing and utility service professionals, and heating fuel delivery drivers for Phase 1B COVID- 19 vaccine distribution.

Already deemed essential in the Cybersecurity & Infrastructure Security Agency’s (CISA) most recent list of critical infrastructure workers, HVACR technicians, plumbing and utility service professionals, and heating fuel delivery drivers must enter homes and businesses on a daily basis to service, repair, or replace plumbing, heating, or ventilation systems, refrigeration units, or related appliances and equipment. They frequently interact with homeowners, tenants, and their family members, some of which are members of the most vulnerable populations. These workers always wear personal protective equipment and strictly abide by CDC guidelines to protect themselves and their customers, however, there is always a risk of exposure — especially when working in smaller residential units.

NADCA, along with Air Movement and Control Association (AMCA), American Public Gas Association (APGA), Indoor Air Quality Association (IAQA), National Association of Oil & Energy Service Professionals (OESP), National Energy & Fuels Institute (NEFI), Plumbing-Heating-Cooling Contractors National Association, Refrigeration Service Engineers Society (RSES), Women in Energy, and Women in HVACR, has asked that these factors be considered for next steps in the national vaccine plan, and, specifically, prioritize these professionals as critical workers in Phase 1B of COVID-19 vaccine distribution.

While deployment plans for vaccines does not rest exclusively with the federal government, the CDC, or national medical organizations, organizations at the federal level provide guidance to state and local governments, and will be pivotal for seamless vaccine distribution among all stakeholders, helping to ensure the long-term health of American families and workers, and bolster the national economic recovery.

“We certainly applaud the Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices’ (ACIP) recent recommendation that healthcare professionals, long-term care facilities, and the most vulnerable seniors be given priority access to vaccines during its Phase 1A distribution,” said Mark Zarzeczny, ASCS, CVI, NADCA’s President and Chairman of the Board. “As the weather turns colder, and Americans head indoors, they’ll rely more and more on HVACR technicians to keep their homes and businesses warm.”

“NADCA has partnered with several industry organizations to release a joint statement to persuade the CDC’s Advisory Committee on Immunization Practices to prioritize these critical workers for the next phase of vaccine distribution.”

This recent action isn’t the first time NADCA has advocated for its members. Earlier this year, NADCA partnered with the Restoration Industry Association (RIA) and the Institute of Inspection Cleaning and Restoration Certification (IICRC) to release a joint statement to federal, state, and local officials requesting they recognize and cite HVAC technicians, air duct cleaning companies, surface cleaning/disaster restoration contractors, and indoor air quality professionals as essential businesses.

To further support members, NADCA created a website that serves as a repository of useful information for the industry during the COVID-19 pandemic. For instance, NADCA anticipates a greater consumer demand for NADCA members to “sanitize” or “disinfect” HVAC systems, and while numerous antimicrobials on the market have been approved for use in HVAC systems and ductwork, not all antimicrobials approved for HVAC components can be claimed to sanitize or disinfect. The support site includes guidelines for the use of chemicals and antimicrobials in HVAC systems.

Finally, with a dangerous shortage of personal protective equipment (PPE) in the healthcare industry earlier this year, NADCA called on members to donate PPE to the GetUsPPE organization. NADCA represents more than 1,300 small and large businesses and more than 3,000 certified technicians, with most routinely utilizing PPE. Items requested included gloves, masks, N95 Respirators, face shields, booties, safety goggles, and more.

For COVID-19 resources and information for the HVAC and air duct cleaning industries, visit https://nadca.com/resources/covid19.


Interested in Becoming a Member of AACP?

We have three categories of membership. They are:

Contractor membership is open to any company engaged principally in the heating, ventilation, and/or air conditioning business as a contractor, who becomes a contractor member of the national association, and who is not a subsidiary, affiliate, division, or related entity of a public utility.

Associate membership is open to companies engaged in (a) manufacturing, (b) wholesaling, jobbing, and selling allied products or equipment principally to contractors and/or (c) supplying fuels, energies, or other services beneficial to the industry.  Associate membership is not open to retailers or other suppliers who sell principally to the general public.  Associate members have voting rights and can hold an elected office. Subsidiaries, affiliates, related entities, and divisions of associate members are not eligible for membership in the association.

Vocational membership
shall be available to teachers, students, heating inspectors, and other such individuals having interest in the environmental systems industry.  Vocational members shall not have the right to vote and hold an elected office.

GET THE MOST OUT OF YOUR MEMBERSHIP


  • Local, State and National Legislative & Advocacy efforts
  • Participation in the nationally recognized Apprenticeship Program
  • Education opportunities for your technicians and staff - (NATE, CFC, Business management, Legal and Legislative)
  • Industry Resources - (IRS documents, Risk Management documents, white papers, Code Compliance, six e-Newsletters)
  • Member pricing for events and training sessions
  • A discounted rate on insurance for member companies


Words Matter in the Workplace

By: Frank Kollman

Whenever I give a seminar on employment discrimination, I emphasize several points.  First, I note that most employees are promoted to supervisor not because of their supervisory skills, but because they were a great worker.  The skills to be a great worker are far different from the skills to be a great supervisor.  Moreover, most of the people at these seminars are upper-level managers or business owners, not frontline supervisors.  Promoting an employee to a supervisory position without training on labor and employment laws and management skills is a huge mistake.

Second, I talk about how discrimination is proven in court.  Generally, there are three ways.  The first is to show direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  That is the subject of this column.  The other two methods are to show either (1) that the company is enforcing policies against minorities and other covered employees (older, disabled, religious, etc.) differently than non-minorities or other employees not covered by the law (called disparate treatment) or (2) that an otherwise neutral policy has a negative effect on minorities or covered employees (called disparate impact).  A height policy, which could have a negative impact on women, is an example of disparate impact.  Disciplining an older worker for absences but not a younger worker with similar absences is an example of disparate treatment.

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent used to be uncommon.  Today, however, as political correctness pervades every aspect of our lives, comments that used to be acceptable are now considered racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever "ist" is unacceptable behavior.  A professor got in trouble in an elevator recently by saying "ladies lingerie" when a female professor asked what floor he wanted.  What would have been a mere “Dad” joke many years ago is now considered evidence of misogynist behavior.

If you like irony, a civil rights law firm that has become known for bringing discrimination lawsuits against big law firms is finding out that it is not immune from these lawsuits based on "words."  Twenty-nine of that firm's clerical employees alleged in a letter that attorneys made purported racists comments such as:  “These Asian names give me so much trouble. Bing bong bing bong!” and “That shirt makes you look like you’re in a gang,” referring to a tee shirt with a college minority group reference.  On the sexist side, they have alleged that attorneys made comments to female employees such as “I love looking at you in the sunlight” and “be a good girl.”  Needless to say, a firm that prides itself on its "enlightened" credentials would be bothered by such allegations.  

Now, imagine that one of these clerical employees was fired for performance reasons and claimed she was the victim of race, national origin, or sex discrimination.  These words, which might not rise to the level of actionable sex or racial harassment, could now be used to show that the decision was motivated by race, sex, or national origin.  That a comment was made as a joke does not matter, especially if the joking is common and often repeated.  Once employees are fired, you would be surprised what they remember about workplace jokes that could help them in a lawsuit.

While I am not advocating turning the workplace into a dull environment where everyone must walk on egg shells, I am advocating training for all employees on appropriate workplace language and conduct.  Such training can frequently be a defense to charges of harassment and discrimination, especially if the so-called victim did not take advantage of the complaint procedure discussed during that training.  

Unfortunately, as social customs change, what was once considered acceptable language becomes unacceptable.  For example, a term for a gay man that was widely used in the 1980's in popular movies is now considered horribly homophobic.  National Public Radio ran several stories on the word, which they dubbed the "other F-word."  Many years ago, I was asked by an African American judge to repeat a racial slur that a black woman had used against a black employee of my client.  Then, I said the word; today, I would more carefully say:  "She called him the house n-word."  The term "Chinese wall" to describe a company policy to prevent employees from seeing certain files is now, to avoid allegations of racism, called a "Firewall."  

Even though it becomes more difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong, employers certainly can recognize unacceptable language in the workplace.  Making fun of a person's disability has never been acceptable, and it still is not.  Stopping it in this environment is essential.

Even if you do not want to engage in formal training, it should be emphasized at manager's meetings that racist, sexist, ageist, or other bad language should not and will not be tolerated in the workplace.  That way, when you fire someone for performance problems, he cannot allege that the company tolerated language that was offensive to him, and his termination was a result of prejudice, not performance.  Expressions like “you people,” “old man,” “little lady,” “terrorist,” or “country boy” are ticking time bombs.

I would normally recommend exercising commonsense.  Instead, forget commonsense, and try to stay on top of what language is no longer acceptable.  Words matter.

Whenever I give a seminar on employment discrimination, I emphasize several points.  First, I note that most employees are promoted to supervisor not because of their supervisory skills, but because they were a great worker.  The skills to be a great worker are far different from the skills to be a great supervisor.  Moreover, most of the people at these seminars are upper-level managers or business owners, not frontline supervisors.  Promoting an employee to a supervisory position without training on labor and employment laws and management skills is a huge mistake.

Second, I talk about how discrimination is proven in court.  Generally, there are three ways.  The first is to show direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  That is the subject of this column.  The other two methods are to show either (1) that the company is enforcing policies against minorities and other covered employees (older, disabled, religious, etc.) differently than non-minorities or other employees not covered by the law (called disparate treatment) or (2) that an otherwise neutral policy has a negative effect on minorities or covered employees (called disparate impact).  A height policy, which could have a negative impact on women, is an example of disparate impact.  Disciplining an older worker for absences but not a younger worker with similar absences is an example of disparate treatment.

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent used to be uncommon.  Today, however, as political correctness pervades every aspect of our lives, comments that used to be acceptable are now considered racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever "ist" is unacceptable behavior.  A professor got in trouble in an elevator recently by saying "ladies lingerie" when a female professor asked what floor he wanted.  What would have been a mere “Dad” joke many years ago is now considered evidence of misogynist behavior.

If you like irony, a civil rights law firm that has become known for bringing discrimination lawsuits against big law firms is finding out that it is not immune from these lawsuits based on "words."  Twenty-nine of that firm's clerical employees alleged in a letter that attorneys made purported racists comments such as:  “These Asian names give me so much trouble. Bing bong bing bong!” and “That shirt makes you look like you’re in a gang,” referring to a tee shirt with a college minority group reference.  On the sexist side, they have alleged that attorneys made comments to female employees such as “I love looking at you in the sunlight” and “be a good girl.”  Needless to say, a firm that prides itself on its "enlightened" credentials would be bothered by such allegations.  

Now, imagine that one of these clerical employees was fired for performance reasons and claimed she was the victim of race, national origin, or sex discrimination.  These words, which might not rise to the level of actionable sex or racial harassment, could now be used to show that the decision was motivated by race, sex, or national origin.  That a comment was made as a joke does not matter, especially if the joking is common and often repeated.  Once employees are fired, you would be surprised what they remember about workplace jokes that could help them in a lawsuit.

While I am not advocating turning the workplace into a dull environment where everyone must walk on egg shells, I am advocating training for all employees on appropriate workplace language and conduct.  Such training can frequently be a defense to charges of harassment and discrimination, especially if the so-called victim did not take advantage of the complaint procedure discussed during that training.  

Unfortunately, as social customs change, what was once considered acceptable language becomes unacceptable.  For example, a term for a gay man that was widely used in the 1980's in popular movies is now considered horribly homophobic.  National Public Radio ran several stories on the word, which they dubbed the "other F-word."  Many years ago, I was asked by an African American judge to repeat a racial slur that a black woman had used against a black employee of my client.  Then, I said the word; today, I would more carefully say:  "She called him the house n-word."  The term "Chinese wall" to describe a company policy to prevent employees from seeing certain files is now, to avoid allegations of racism, called a "Firewall."  

Even though it becomes more difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong, employers certainly can recognize unacceptable language in the workplace.  Making fun of a person's disability has never been acceptable, and it still is not.  Stopping it in this environment is essential.

Even if you do not want to engage in formal training, it should be emphasized at manager's meetings that racist, sexist, ageist, or other bad language should not and will not be tolerated in the workplace.  That way, when you fire someone for performance problems, he cannot allege that the company tolerated language that was offensive to him, and his termination was a result of prejudice, not performance.  Expressions like “you people,” “old man,” “little lady,” “terrorist,” or “country boy” are ticking time bombs.

I would normally recommend exercising commonsense.  Instead, forget commonsense, and try to stay on top of what language is no longer acceptable.  Words matter.

Whenever I give a seminar on employment discrimination, I emphasize several points.  First, I note that most employees are promoted to supervisor not because of their supervisory skills, but because they were a great worker.  The skills to be a great worker are far different from the skills to be a great supervisor.  Moreover, most of the people at these seminars are upper-level managers or business owners, not frontline supervisors.  Promoting an employee to a supervisory position without training on labor and employment laws and management skills is a huge mistake.

Second, I talk about how discrimination is proven in court.  Generally, there are three ways.  The first is to show direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  That is the subject of this column.  The other two methods are to show either (1) that the company is enforcing policies against minorities and other covered employees (older, disabled, religious, etc.) differently than non-minorities or other employees not covered by the law (called disparate treatment) or (2) that an otherwise neutral policy has a negative effect on minorities or covered employees (called disparate impact).  A height policy, which could have a negative impact on women, is an example of disparate impact.  Disciplining an older worker for absences but not a younger worker with similar absences is an example of disparate treatment.

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent used to be uncommon.  Today, however, as political correctness pervades every aspect of our lives, comments that used to be acceptable are now considered racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever "ist" is unacceptable behavior.  A professor got in trouble in an elevator recently by saying "ladies lingerie" when a female professor asked what floor he wanted.  What would have been a mere “Dad” joke many years ago is now considered evidence of misogynist behavior.

If you like irony, a civil rights law firm that has become known for bringing discrimination lawsuits against big law firms is finding out that it is not immune from these lawsuits based on "words."  Twenty-nine of that firm's clerical employees alleged in a letter that attorneys made purported racists comments such as:  “These Asian names give me so much trouble. Bing bong bing bong!” and “That shirt makes you look like you’re in a gang,” referring to a tee shirt with a college minority group reference.  On the sexist side, they have alleged that attorneys made comments to female employees such as “I love looking at you in the sunlight” and “be a good girl.”  Needless to say, a firm that prides itself on its "enlightened" credentials would be bothered by such allegations.  

Now, imagine that one of these clerical employees was fired for performance reasons and claimed she was the victim of race, national origin, or sex discrimination.  These words, which might not rise to the level of actionable sex or racial harassment, could now be used to show that the decision was motivated by race, sex, or national origin.  That a comment was made as a joke does not matter, especially if the joking is common and often repeated.  Once employees are fired, you would be surprised what they remember about workplace jokes that could help them in a lawsuit.

While I am not advocating turning the workplace into a dull environment where everyone must walk on egg shells, I am advocating training for all employees on appropriate workplace language and conduct.  Such training can frequently be a defense to charges of harassment and discrimination, especially if the so-called victim did not take advantage of the complaint procedure discussed during that training.  

Unfortunately, as social customs change, what was once considered acceptable language becomes unacceptable.  For example, a term for a gay man that was widely used in the 1980's in popular movies is now considered horribly homophobic.  National Public Radio ran several stories on the word, which they dubbed the "other F-word."  Many years ago, I was asked by an African American judge to repeat a racial slur that a black woman had used against a black employee of my client.  Then, I said the word; today, I would more carefully say:  "She called him the house n-word."  The term "Chinese wall" to describe a company policy to prevent employees from seeing certain files is now, to avoid allegations of racism, called a "Firewall."  

Even though it becomes more difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong, employers certainly can recognize unacceptable language in the workplace.  Making fun of a person's disability has never been acceptable, and it still is not.  Stopping it in this environment is essential.

Even if you do not want to engage in formal training, it should be emphasized at manager's meetings that racist, sexist, ageist, or other bad language should not and will not be tolerated in the workplace.  That way, when you fire someone for performance problems, he cannot allege that the company tolerated language that was offensive to him, and his termination was a result of prejudice, not performance.  Expressions like “you people,” “old man,” “little lady,” “terrorist,” or “country boy” are ticking time bombs.

I would normally recommend exercising commonsense.  Instead, forget commonsense, and try to stay on top of what language is no longer acceptable.  Words matter.


Whenever I give a seminar on employment discrimination, I emphasize several points.  First, I note that most employees are promoted to supervisor not because of their supervisory skills, but because they were a great worker.  The skills to be a great worker are far different from the skills to be a great supervisor.  Moreover, most of the people at these seminars are upper-level managers or business owners, not frontline supervisors.  Promoting an employee to a supervisory position without training on labor and employment laws and management skills is a huge mistake.

Second, I talk about how discrimination is proven in court.  Generally, there are three ways.  The first is to show direct evidence of discriminatory intent.  That is the subject of this column.  The other two methods are to show either (1) that the company is enforcing policies against minorities and other covered employees (older, disabled, religious, etc.) differently than non-minorities or other employees not covered by the law (called disparate treatment) or (2) that an otherwise neutral policy has a negative effect on minorities or covered employees (called disparate impact).  A height policy, which could have a negative impact on women, is an example of disparate impact.  Disciplining an older worker for absences but not a younger worker with similar absences is an example of disparate treatment.

Direct evidence of discriminatory intent used to be uncommon.  Today, however, as political correctness pervades every aspect of our lives, comments that used to be acceptable are now considered racist, sexist, ageist, or whatever "ist" is unacceptable behavior.  A professor got in trouble in an elevator recently by saying "ladies lingerie" when a female professor asked what floor he wanted.  What would have been a mere “Dad” joke many years ago is now considered evidence of misogynist behavior.

If you like irony, a civil rights law firm that has become known for bringing discrimination lawsuits against big law firms is finding out that it is not immune from these lawsuits based on "words."  Twenty-nine of that firm's clerical employees alleged in a letter that attorneys made purported racists comments such as:  “These Asian names give me so much trouble. Bing bong bing bong!” and “That shirt makes you look like you’re in a gang,” referring to a tee shirt with a college minority group reference.  On the sexist side, they have alleged that attorneys made comments to female employees such as “I love looking at you in the sunlight” and “be a good girl.”  Needless to say, a firm that prides itself on its "enlightened" credentials would be bothered by such allegations.  

Now, imagine that one of these clerical employees was fired for performance reasons and claimed she was the victim of race, national origin, or sex discrimination.  These words, which might not rise to the level of actionable sex or racial harassment, could now be used to show that the decision was motivated by race, sex, or national origin.  That a comment was made as a joke does not matter, especially if the joking is common and often repeated.  Once employees are fired, you would be surprised what they remember about workplace jokes that could help them in a lawsuit.

While I am not advocating turning the workplace into a dull environment where everyone must walk on egg shells, I am advocating training for all employees on appropriate workplace language and conduct.  Such training can frequently be a defense to charges of harassment and discrimination, especially if the so-called victim did not take advantage of the complaint procedure discussed during that training.  

Unfortunately, as social customs change, what was once considered acceptable language becomes unacceptable.  For example, a term for a gay man that was widely used in the 1980's in popular movies is now considered horribly homophobic.  National Public Radio ran several stories on the word, which they dubbed the "other F-word."  Many years ago, I was asked by an African American judge to repeat a racial slur that a black woman had used against a black employee of my client.  Then, I said the word; today, I would more carefully say:  "She called him the house n-word."  The term "Chinese wall" to describe a company policy to prevent employees from seeing certain files is now, to avoid allegations of racism, called a "Firewall."  

Even though it becomes more difficult to understand what is right and what is wrong, employers certainly can recognize unacceptable language in the workplace.  Making fun of a person's disability has never been acceptable, and it still is not.  Stopping it in this environment is essential.

Even if you do not want to engage in formal training, it should be emphasized at manager's meetings that racist, sexist, ageist, or other bad language should not and will not be tolerated in the workplace.  That way, when you fire someone for performance problems, he cannot allege that the company tolerated language that was offensive to him, and his termination was a result of prejudice, not performance.  Expressions like “you people,” “old man,” “little lady,” “terrorist,” or “country boy” are ticking time bombs.

I would normally recommend exercising commonsense.  Instead, forget commonsense, and try to stay on top of what language is no longer acceptable.  Words matter.

About the Author

Frank Kollman

I am a graduate of the Johns Hopkins University (1974) and the Syracuse University College of Law (cum laude, 1977), where I was an editor of the law review and the Survey of New York Law. I have practiced law in Maryland since 1977 and established the Firm in 1988. I was raised in South Jersey, five miles from Atlantic City, which in those days had no casinos. I could see Convention Hall from my backyard across the tidal marshlands.

Upon graduation, I spent my first five years practicing labor and employment law with two of the largest law firms in Maryland. In 1982, I joined a firm that had concentrated in labor and employment law for over forty years, where I became a partner in 1984. While at that firm, I created and edited an employment law newsletter, Employment Issues. In addition, I produced an educational film for hospital management concerning unions.

By 1988, I knew that I had to work in a firm that reflected my character, and the only way to do that was to start my own place.  This firm, the people in it, and the work we do is my biography.  Anything else is a footnote. I have practiced management labor law for over 40 years. To me, telling a client what is legal can be markedly different from telling him what the best business decision is. The best business decision is the better choice. There are other lawyers with impressive credentials, but there are few with the devotion I have for my client’s cause. I lecture, I publish, and I have done public service. I am a monthly columnist on labor and legal issues for the National Clothesline, the newspaper for the dry cleaning industry. I represent a wide variety of businesses, construction companies, health care institutions, and trade associations, both union and nonunion.  If you are 

Resolutions for the New Year

Presented by our sponsor - Federated Insurance

In normal times, the beginning of a new year brings excitement and anticipation about all the things you want to accomplish over the next twelve months. But 2020 was anything but a normal year. Businesses everywhere faced challenges that no one could have anticipated, and for many business owners, excitement and anticipation have been replaced by a sense of relief that they managed to make it through the year. A fresh start, with goals for the upcoming year, may be just what you need to reset your outlook and help get your business off on the right foot in 2021.  Here are a few ideas to consider to help protect and strengthen your business in the coming year.

Protect Against the Loss of a Key Employee. Have you considered what might happen to your business operations if one of your most valuable, key employees passed away unexpectedly? The death of a key employee could be catastrophic to a business – the loss of expertise, as well as the cost to hire and train a replacement, could be significant. Life insurance coverage on a key employee can help by providing funds to help cover unforeseen costs and keep the business running.

Determine the Value of Your Business. Do you know what your business is worth? For many business owners, their business is the largest asset they own, and knowing its value is critical to any planning they may do. Methods for determining a value can range from relatively simple calculations based on the company’s past financial statements, to an in-depth appraisal. Your advisors should be able to recommend which method is most appropriate for your business based on the purpose and estimated cost.

Evaluate Succession Plans. Do you have a written business succession plan in place? If so, are the documents up to date? Buy-sell agreements and funding should be reviewed periodically to make sure they still reflect the wishes of the owners. If you don’t have a succession plan in place yet, why not set a goal to get that done this year. Who will take over the business if something should happen to you or if you decide it’s time to retire? Better to think about your options now, when you have time to identify your successor and plan for a smooth transition.


Ask your Federated marketing representative about resources available to help accomplish some of these business goals this year.


©  2016 - 2021 Association of Air Conditioning Professionals (AACP)

Powered by Wild Apricot Membership Software