4 ms·
From what I've been told, you cannot treat contractors/temps the same way that you treat your employees, otherwise they can claim that they were in fact employe
by xav0989 7y ago
From what I've been told, you cannot treat contractors/temps the same way that you treat your employees, otherwise they can claim that they were in fact employees the whole time (which usually comes with an expensive lawsuit and a visit from the IRS). In order to ensure that contractors/temps can't claim to be employees, it's not enough to not offer benefits. You have to effectively create a two tier system with FTEs at the top and contractors/temps at the bottom.
Not arguing whether it's good/bad, but it comes with the territory in the current landscape. You gain in flexibility/autonomy but loose in benefits/treatment.
- tylerrobinson 7y agoI’ve definitely seen the tiered system you’re describing. For example, contractors aren’t given the same training or professional development opportunities as FTEs. But do you know if there are actually legal reasons for this, or is it just pragmatic to give fewer opportunities or privileges to employees you know won’t be around long?
- CydeWeys 7y agoThere is legal precedent for it. The most famous and precedent-setting case in this area occurred with Microsoft in 1996: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsoft https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Permatemp#Vizcaino_v._Microsof... That set the framework for all contracting that has followed since.
- tylerrobinson 7y agoInteresting, thanks for the reference. In the Microsoft case it looks like the decision hinged on the definition of a common law employee. Wikipedia notes that benefits eligibility can be formally defined. Employers don’t have to treat their contractors badly just to imply a tiered system, in other words, as the parent comment suggests.