2 ms·
It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor). Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitiv
by stefan_ 7y ago
It's worse, apparently they also try to charge the walker (=contractor).
Which is a wholly different bowl of trouble. Charging the pet owner is anti-competitive unenforceable nonsense, charging the pet walker means a lawsuit for back pay and taxes given the obvious misclassification as contractors.
- fgonzag 7y agoExactly, IANAL but I'd guess that limiting a contractor like that (telling him who he can and he cannot do business with) would immediately classify him like an employee in quite a few states, unless wag is paying a $1000 dll exclusivity fee. So any Wag "contractors" in a few employee protective states might be able to make a case.