4 ms·

Sure - That would neatly eliminate majority of qualified candidates :-) Very few people who are successfully employed would take a risk / have a luxury to fors

Sure - That would neatly eliminate majority of qualified candidates :-) Very few people who are successfully employed would take a risk / have a luxury to forsake their certain employment for an extremely short term contract (with all the registration, taxation, regulation etc headache this implies!) and extremely limited chance of gainful employment. (it's perspectives like these that make me realize how much of a grouchy old man I am and have always been - always being a buzzkill by thinking things through next 3 steps! :P)

kanobo 6y ago
True, true. In my poor defense I was imagining all candidates as identical versions of myself in a bubble and never considered taxes or anybody else's lifestyle.
madamelic 6y ago
>with all the registration, taxation, regulation etc headache this implies! It's not if you are in the US. You will get a 1099 from where you worked, you write it on your 1040 and include the 1099 with your taxes if I recall from when I was an independent contractor for a while. It takes maybe like 10 minutes extra and 1099-ing is incredibly common nowadays (unfortunately) so not a super weird case. And it's not regulation. You don't need to worry about anything besides getting the 1099 like you would your W2s and appending it.
- pandaman 6y ago
  What if you get a 1099 from another state? Multiple states? Don't you need to file taxes with those states now? (Genuinely curious, I am not a CPA so I really don't know). What if you don't have any other 1099s (so you have to pay self-employment tax just because of that one interview, at least I had once when my moving expenses were paid with a 1099). Not even getting into possible illegal work for the candidates on work visas.
  - dabockster 6y ago
    My city considers 1099s as businesses due to some shady contractors in the past. So my local government would try to collect a chunk of any contractor earnings (with that chunk getting huge if you didn't register with them first).
    - kanobo 6y ago
      What city do you live in? I've never heard of 1099 tax collection on a city level before, is that common?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
- dudul 6y ago
  A lot of employees in the US sign IP documents that prevent them from working on anything, or everything they code is owned by their employer, etc.
- throwawaywrench 6y ago
  >with all the registration, taxation, regulation etc headache this implies! >It's not if you are in the US. Its also not if you are in Australia. I'd suggest that the number of developers and designers who at least occasionally take on paid side gigs or who have revenue generating side projects (even if it barely covers hosting etc) is about 1/3.
perl4ever 6y ago
You are making a point that many others have made, and it makes me unhappy to see it yet again. What you are saying in effect, is that hiring regimes can't be (or ought not to be) designed to include a group that is (commonly) discriminated against, if that discriminates against anyone, particularly the majority. Implicitly, I see you defining the optimum as where everyone uses the same criteria that are as inclusive as possible, and just shrugging and saying "we're doing our best" when some are left out in the cold completely. But isn't there an alternative vision where the optimum is employers using different ("diverse") sets of criteria that individually discriminate but create a society where there's a place for everyone?
- NikolaNovak 6y ago
  Hmmm; I feel you are making some interesting and valid points, and I would like to engage in a conversation; but I am (genuinely) having trouble articulating/parsing what they are. I don't know if you are trying to be diplomatic if the message may not be politically correct, or are the key points very generalized and lean more toward implication/insinuation; or whether it's a philosophy-textbook-style language and I just lack experience in it to parse generically-sounding words in a specific-context-meaning. My best effort: * Who/what is the group you feel is a "commonly discriminated group", that would benefit from "contract first" hiring practices? * If a company uses a practice that "discriminates against a majority", is that a practically beneficial funnel/sieve/practice for the company? Alternatively, if we are discussing companies which are making a stand / moral decision through hiring practices, I feel that's a very different discussion than what I interpreted original poster to posit as "best hiring practice for everybody in all situations / everybody should do THIS". * I feel your last sentence is proposing each employer using different criteria in hope that cumulatively they'd create an overlapping and comprehensive venn diagram. My response to that notion would be a) I don't trust either free markets or regulation to make that venn diagram complete and b) that kind of stratification of the market sounds horrible... no matter what, I can only go to specific companies who have specific hiring practices that happen to match me? (I fully understand the irony in that this may in fact be the underlying unspoken reality of the market! my point is that it should be something we move away from, not explicitly design as a goal). But again, I may be misinterpreting your argument and inadvertently taking discussion in the wrong direction...

kanobo 6y ago

True, true. In my poor defense I was imagining all candidates as identical versions of myself in a bubble and never considered taxes or anybody else's lifestyle.

madamelic 6y ago

>with all the registration, taxation, regulation etc headache this implies! It's not if you are in the US. You will get a 1099 from where you worked, you write it on your 1040 and include the 1099 with your taxes if I recall from when I was an independent contractor for a while. It takes maybe like 10 minutes extra and 1099-ing is incredibly common nowadays (unfortunately) so not a super weird case. And it's not regulation. You don't need to worry about anything besides getting the 1099 like you would your W2s and appending it.

pandaman 6y ago
What if you get a 1099 from another state? Multiple states? Don't you need to file taxes with those states now? (Genuinely curious, I am not a CPA so I really don't know). What if you don't have any other 1099s (so you have to pay self-employment tax just because of that one interview, at least I had once when my moving expenses were paid with a 1099). Not even getting into possible illegal work for the candidates on work visas.
- dabockster 6y ago
  My city considers 1099s as businesses due to some shady contractors in the past. So my local government would try to collect a chunk of any contractor earnings (with that chunk getting huge if you didn't register with them first).
  - kanobo 6y ago
    What city do you live in? I've never heard of 1099 tax collection on a city level before, is that common?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
dudul 6y ago
A lot of employees in the US sign IP documents that prevent them from working on anything, or everything they code is owned by their employer, etc.
throwawaywrench 6y ago
>with all the registration, taxation, regulation etc headache this implies! >It's not if you are in the US. Its also not if you are in Australia. I'd suggest that the number of developers and designers who at least occasionally take on paid side gigs or who have revenue generating side projects (even if it barely covers hosting etc) is about 1/3.

perl4ever 6y ago

You are making a point that many others have made, and it makes me unhappy to see it yet again. What you are saying in effect, is that hiring regimes can't be (or ought not to be) designed to include a group that is (commonly) discriminated against, if that discriminates against anyone, particularly the majority. Implicitly, I see you defining the optimum as where everyone uses the same criteria that are as inclusive as possible, and just shrugging and saying "we're doing our best" when some are left out in the cold completely. But isn't there an alternative vision where the optimum is employers using different ("diverse") sets of criteria that individually discriminate but create a society where there's a place for everyone?

NikolaNovak 6y ago
Hmmm; I feel you are making some interesting and valid points, and I would like to engage in a conversation; but I am (genuinely) having trouble articulating/parsing what they are. I don't know if you are trying to be diplomatic if the message may not be politically correct, or are the key points very generalized and lean more toward implication/insinuation; or whether it's a philosophy-textbook-style language and I just lack experience in it to parse generically-sounding words in a specific-context-meaning. My best effort: * Who/what is the group you feel is a "commonly discriminated group", that would benefit from "contract first" hiring practices? * If a company uses a practice that "discriminates against a majority", is that a practically beneficial funnel/sieve/practice for the company? Alternatively, if we are discussing companies which are making a stand / moral decision through hiring practices, I feel that's a very different discussion than what I interpreted original poster to posit as "best hiring practice for everybody in all situations / everybody should do THIS". * I feel your last sentence is proposing each employer using different criteria in hope that cumulatively they'd create an overlapping and comprehensive venn diagram. My response to that notion would be a) I don't trust either free markets or regulation to make that venn diagram complete and b) that kind of stratification of the market sounds horrible... no matter what, I can only go to specific companies who have specific hiring practices that happen to match me? (I fully understand the irony in that this may in fact be the underlying unspoken reality of the market! my point is that it should be something we move away from, not explicitly design as a goal). But again, I may be misinterpreting your argument and inadvertently taking discussion in the wrong direction...