3 ms·

> For example, almost all construction is subtracted. Yes, that was the first example that came to mind. You hire "ABC Fencebuilders" to build a fence, but wit

> For example, almost all construction is subtracted. Yes, that was the first example that came to mind. You hire "ABC Fencebuilders" to build a fence, but without informing you, they subscontracted the job out to "BCD Fencebuilders" who subcontracted the job out to "CDE Fencebuilders". And so, if anything goes wrong, you have a half-dozen companies to deal with (none of which you actually hired, none of which you would have used if you had a choice), and no one will take actual responsibility for the situation, because they can all point to mysterious third-parties. That's what's irresponsible about that. Residential construction is rife with this, it's routinely used to screw people over. It's not necessarily a problem for someone to contract out work outside their industry or field (a carpenter might recommend hiring an electrician and/or a plumber, because a carpenter is not an electrician. All good, makes sense). But banning subcontracting within the same industry (i.e., an electrician subcontracting out their work to a different electrician) doesn't seem like a problem at all.

chrisseaton 6y ago
I don't think you understand how contracting works. If I contract you, and your subcontractor messes up, I don't complain to the subtractor, I complain to you. It's up to you whether you complain to the subtractor or just get it fixed. There's no issue with 'they can all point to mysterious third-parties'. That just isn't how contract law works. You’re responsible for the work of all your subcontractors. > but without informing you They do inform you. It's completely normal and works fine. The top-level contractor is often explicitly called the 'prime contractor' with the expectation they'll do the work of finding other contractors for you. It's not a scam it's useful to consumers. I don’t want to find and manage ten different contractors - I want just one person to complain to.
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > I don't think you understand how contracting works. I think I do, I think you just haven't been hit by (or are otherwise ignoring) bad subcontracting behaviour. > That just isn't how contract law works. (The top party in the agreement still technically holds legal liability for the subcontracting work) True, but that only matters if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford the time and money and headaches to sue to enforce good behaviour. Normal people don't have lawyers on call, and can't afford to immediately file a lawsuit everytime someone does something irresponsible, and then wait for the whole thing to play out in court. > They do inform you. They don't always, and even if they do inform you, they can still do so without your consent. (EDIT: Removed another subcontracting example that was difficult for folks to follow, and wasn't particularly important to the point anyway)
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    Being unable to afford a lawyer is still a thing even if the original contractor did all the work themselves. Selling a mortgage to another bank is not an instance of subcontracting. None of the things you're complaining about have anything to do with subcontracting.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    > Let's say you hate Chase Bank, they foreclosed on your parents home years ago, and are your sworn enemy. I don’t know if hatred and ‘sworn enemies’ and bearing a grudge is a great reason to be arguing for anything. But anyway your issue is with selling debt, not subcontracting, as the same issues would arrive if they sold the debt to Chase without subcontracting. Again, with simple subcontracting you only have to deal with the original contractor.
  - bmm6o 6y ago
    > and sells it off Now you're talking about something completely different. You'd disallow selling a mortgage? And this is related to subcontractors how?
  - supportlocal4h 6y ago
    If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Just like a landlord has to bar subleasing in the original lease agreement. No new law required. Problem solved. I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. I also question the current headline. Comedians in general are not affected. Comedians may be booked for 30 engagements a year by 25 different parties. That would make them an independent contractor. They probably employ an agent to line up those bookings. An agent may be employed by multiple comedians. Now, what if there were a company that booked comedians all over the place, then payed various comedians to fill those slots? Doesn't that flip the relationship? Isn't the comedian now employed by the agency? Is the comedy club contracting with the comedian or with the agency? Is the comedian contracting with the club or with the agency?
    - maxsilver 6y ago

chrisseaton 6y ago

I don't think you understand how contracting works. If I contract you, and your subcontractor messes up, I don't complain to the subtractor, I complain to you. It's up to you whether you complain to the subtractor or just get it fixed. There's no issue with 'they can all point to mysterious third-parties'. That just isn't how contract law works. You’re responsible for the work of all your subcontractors. > but without informing you They do inform you. It's completely normal and works fine. The top-level contractor is often explicitly called the 'prime contractor' with the expectation they'll do the work of finding other contractors for you. It's not a scam it's useful to consumers. I don’t want to find and manage ten different contractors - I want just one person to complain to.

maxsilver 6y ago
> I don't think you understand how contracting works. I think I do, I think you just haven't been hit by (or are otherwise ignoring) bad subcontracting behaviour. > That just isn't how contract law works. (The top party in the agreement still technically holds legal liability for the subcontracting work) True, but that only matters if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford the time and money and headaches to sue to enforce good behaviour. Normal people don't have lawyers on call, and can't afford to immediately file a lawsuit everytime someone does something irresponsible, and then wait for the whole thing to play out in court. > They do inform you. They don't always, and even if they do inform you, they can still do so without your consent. (EDIT: Removed another subcontracting example that was difficult for folks to follow, and wasn't particularly important to the point anyway)
- AnthonyMouse 6y ago
  Being unable to afford a lawyer is still a thing even if the original contractor did all the work themselves. Selling a mortgage to another bank is not an instance of subcontracting. None of the things you're complaining about have anything to do with subcontracting.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  > Let's say you hate Chase Bank, they foreclosed on your parents home years ago, and are your sworn enemy. I don’t know if hatred and ‘sworn enemies’ and bearing a grudge is a great reason to be arguing for anything. But anyway your issue is with selling debt, not subcontracting, as the same issues would arrive if they sold the debt to Chase without subcontracting. Again, with simple subcontracting you only have to deal with the original contractor.
- bmm6o 6y ago
  > and sells it off Now you're talking about something completely different. You'd disallow selling a mortgage? And this is related to subcontractors how?
- supportlocal4h 6y ago
  If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Just like a landlord has to bar subleasing in the original lease agreement. No new law required. Problem solved. I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. I also question the current headline. Comedians in general are not affected. Comedians may be booked for 30 engagements a year by 25 different parties. That would make them an independent contractor. They probably employ an agent to line up those bookings. An agent may be employed by multiple comedians. Now, what if there were a company that booked comedians all over the place, then payed various comedians to fill those slots? Doesn't that flip the relationship? Isn't the comedian now employed by the agency? Is the comedy club contracting with the comedian or with the agency? Is the comedian contracting with the club or with the agency?
  - maxsilver 6y ago