4 ms·
Am I in the minority to be appalled by the actions of Lawson (and people like him)? Clearly, you are not a full-time employee if you are employed on an as-neede
by swamy_g 9y ago
Am I in the minority to be appalled by the actions of Lawson (and people like him)? Clearly, you are not a full-time employee if you are employed on an as-needed basis.
- meowface 9y agoNo. Employees and employers can both be shitty to each other.
- jjeaff 9y agoEmployment law is not so black and white. And in the case of employee classification of contractors, there is rarely a "clearly". Why not just say all employees are contractors and working "as needed"? No more pesky employment tax, unemployment tax, health care benefits, etc. But that is not to say this guy was in the right. Just that it's rarely obvious.
- tptacek 9y agoThat doesn't follow at all. I think you're confusing "contractor vs. employee" with "full-time vs. part-time". Plenty of retail employees are deployed as-needed, and none of them are contractors.
- harryh 9y agoNone of those retail employers can clock in and out as they please. "as-needed" is the wrong phrase for sure because it indicates the choice is in the hand of the employer. "as-desired" would be better.
- tptacek 9y agoIt's a weighting of factors argument, right? It's probably not simple (or these cases would all be finished by now). Counting against the contractor definition: single, longstanding continuous relationship.
- ewjordan 9y agoBut most of the driving-giggers that I know do not have single relationships, they're working with both Uber and Lyft, or GrubHub, Seamless, Doordash, etc, as each one rises and falls in profitability for them.
- monocasa 9y agoHave you never been on call?
- walshemj 9y agoI have worked on zero hours contracts before and I was still an employee