9 ms·
I just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.
by maxxxxx 9y ago
I just experienced this with a contractor. I have never seen him do anything himself. I strongly suspect he is sending his work somewhere else.
- freeone3000 9y agoHe's a contractor. That's the difference between him and an employee: He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. If he's not allowed to do this, chances are you have an employee.
- frisco 9y agoNot true, limitations on subcontracting (or at least limiting it to approved subcontractors) are allowed and common. Just because he’s a contractor doesn’t mean NDAs are meaningless.
- lovich 9y agoLimiting work to people with security clearances is an example of ok limitations. Adding so many limits that the acceptable people to do work are the single contractor means youve jaut made a constructive way to get around hiring a person as an employee
- zero_intp 9y agoyour statements are unsupported. It is my observation that you are stating spirit of law to your understanding, but not what occurs in law or practice.
- abiox 9y ago> He chooses the time, place, and manner of his work, including subcontracting it. all of this is entirely within the scope of the contract. "subcontracting" is unlikely to be permissible in a variety of scenarios, especially if the material being worked on is even vaguely sensitive. when it does happen, it's typically in a larger organizational context and then there will usually be some vetting or approval process.
- lovich 9y agoIf you are controlling how work is done then you have an employee. If subcontracting is unacceptable and you are still hiring contractors then you are just trying to run around employment law, at least in the US
- abiox 9y agodo you have specific citations or is this some ideological stance? to me it makes zero sense to hire a vetted contractor who can then just toss say, classified data, over to some unknown random. it's a completely untenable proposition.
- lovich 9y agoIf you are requireing who can do the work and how it's done you've constrained the person into an employee-employer relationship regardless of what you decide to call. Contracts are like an interface, you are setting up an agreement on what is being provided and don't care about the implementation. When you constrain the contract so much that only a single person can fulfill the contract you are just abusing the concept of contracting. In the example above with NDAs and security clearance that can be a perfectly valid requirement, but you can't reasonably be upset if the contractor subcontracts out to someone else with clearance who has signed the same NDA
- abiox 9y agoi don't agree with your definition of contracting, but either way i'm particularly interested if you can point to some legal code that forbids a contract from containing a "no subcontracting" clause. that would be quite interesting.
- lovich 9y agoI looked and couldn't find any limitations on subcontracting that werent specific to federal contracts so it likely that my personal view doesn't match up to the law
- maxxxxx 9y agoThis contractor is working onsite during normal working hours. I am not even judging the situation but from what I can see he is not doing anything himself. He also got hired with the assumption that he would do the work.
- thaumasiotes 9y agoWould something be wrong with that? Isn't that basically the concept of contracting?