7 ms·

I'm not sure why the onus is on the business here, rather than the individual: when deciding to be a "contractor" vs. "employee," I should & do take those risks

I'm not sure why the onus is on the business here, rather than the individual: when deciding to be a "contractor" vs. "employee," I should & do take those risks and decisions into account, and weigh the trade-offs. You want 401k match and other nice benefits? Then become a full-time employee somewhere. You like more flexibility and independence, given the trade-offs? Then go with independent contracting.

true_religion 6y ago
Because they don’t give you that flexibility. They require a high number of working hours to stay in the system, and require you to work peak hours anyways. No one really gains as a contractor working 39 hours a week without benefits.
Finnucane 6y ago
The whole point of the sharecropper economy is to make it so a lot of people don't really have much choice.
pfooti 6y ago
Because, given the opportunity and no regulation, companies will always push to make all employees contractors. Independent contractors represent a significantly lower liability on the balance sheets. Except that those lower liabilities are just externalizing the cost of employment to other systems (health and unemployment insurance, etc). If we don't regulate corporations, they will just race to the bottom in how they treat labor.
- s3r3nity 6y ago
  I'll grant that I agree this is probably true for low-skilled labor where supply is high and interchangeable. I don't think this is the case for low-supply, high-skill labor (ex: doctors, engineers, etc.) as well as certain low-supply trades (HVAC, welders, etc.) Then bargaining power can properly counteract any such forces.
  - worik 6y ago
    "low-supply, high-skill labor (ex: doctors, engineers, etc.)" Doctors, I know, have powerful unions and associations. Very, very, powerful.
  - TaylorAlexander 6y ago
    This is absolutely true for engineers. While I did have employer provided healthcare, I was hired as a contract worker at Google X on their flagship robotics research project as a mechatronics prototype engineer and later a test engineer. I worked for two years alongside full time employees on the same exact things as full time employees. But they got stock, parties, and other special treats that contractors did not. Almost 50% of the team - I think the legal limit - were contractor roles. While I do appreciate that from their perspective it makes sense, it is also true that if we don't fight to protect workers, all jobs will go this way. That's actually why what an up-thread comment said is a great idea. If we decouple important things like healthcare from employment, then everyone gets important quality of life care without employers having to restrict benefits. If we do not fight for ourselves, we will end up in a situation where most people cannot access the basic necessities of life. Already in the US millions of Americans are without healthcare.
  - glitchc 6y ago
    The AMA is a union in all but name [1] and quite powerful [2]: By money spent, the AMA is the nation’s third largest lobbying organization of the last 20 years, behind only the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doctors-union/?sh=14e6d4c34339 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doct... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/why-were-fighting-the-american-medical-association https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/why-we...
    - esoterica 6y ago
      What does lobbying have to do with whether or not an organization is a union? The Chamber of Commerce obviously isn't a union.
- splistud 6y ago
  Perhaps. But also, given the regulation, you remove opportunity for those that are looking for the type of employment you discredit from accepting it from employers that want to offer it. I very much appreciate the ability to step into the gig economy when I need to. I assume you mean well, but I wish you and other's who agree with you would kindly butt out and let me make my own decisions.
- robertlagrant 6y ago
  > Because, given the opportunity and no regulation, companies will always push to make all employees contractors This is not the case. Companies need permanent staff for: - deciding strategy, at various levels - deciding who's worth bringing on board - managing internal and external staff - cost (permanent contractors cost a lot) - being part of corporate memory, which can be handed over in a notice period of a month or two or three, but not in the week it takes for a contractor to offboard
SwiftyBug 6y ago
If only it was a matter of choice rather than a very planned uberization of the workforce.
- splistud 6y ago
  If only you could come reasonably close to proving that. Let's say you were correct. Want to stop it? Regulation is just a wall with holes. The only way to stop it is to reduce the labor force. If this is actually a plan, it's conception requires that the labor force is going to expand rapidly. In a tighter labor market, companies are much better off locking up labor rather than nickel and diming costs. So any said evil plan is an add-on to opening the gates to immigration, both legal and illegal.
heavyset_go 6y ago
The point is that companies are eliminating full-time employment roles for employees and replacing them with roles for contractors. That means there are less full-time employment opportunities for W-2 employees, and an increasing amount of roles for 1099 contractors.
rossdavidh 6y ago
Speaking as a person who intentionally chooses to be a contractor, and refuses offers of permanent employment because I prefer to be a contractor, I respectfully disagree. I have these options because being a computer programmer (lately) gives me options. In any occupation where it is a "buyer's market", the employee has no such option. Now, whether things like healthcare and retirement should be linked to employment in the first place, is a real and valid question. But currently it is, and the distinction between "employee" and "contractor" seems bogus in a lot of cases.
- willcipriano 6y ago
  When you say it gives you more flexibility do you mind if I ask what do you mean? I'm in the US and generally my employment has been at will, either of us are free to end the arrangement at any time. Having a specific date where that arrangement ends doesn't seem to be more flexible, if I wanted to leave in a month I would just give my notice and leave. I'm in the same position as you career wise and I often get offers to join contract roles and they are very unappealing to me. When I do the math on the benefits I'd lose out on and the additional taxes, rarely are these offers competitive let alone when I factor in the greater volatility inherent in the arrangement and the lack of unemployment benefits. Also in my experience the recruiters pushing the contract roles are the most desperate and aggressive, that doesn't lead me to believe these roles are all that high quality.
  - wonderwonder 6y ago
    I just transitioned to contract based. The pay is significantly higher than if I was a salaried employee. In addition all of my salary comes to me, pre tax. This allows me greater flexibility regarding what I do with my $. For example I will use all income in the first half of the year to pay off all of my debt (2 cars, credit cards and money down for a house refinance). The second half of the year I will save for taxes and at that stage my overall monthly bills are massively lower. I get my health insurance via my wife who is salaried. In addition it allows me to write off a lot of things for taxes. Getting paid through my company gives a lot of tax benefits. The contract is for a year, with the option to extend. The job I just left was salaried but actively laying people off. So while both positions have risk, the contracted one provides a much higher income and flexibility to use it as I see fit. Plus any work I do on the weekend for the contract position is paid, as a salaried employee its not.
colinmhayes 6y ago
The unskilled labor market has monopsony power. This is effectively telling people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.
lmm 6y ago
If we go down that route then pretty soon 80% of people will be unable to find employment, at all. Which is fine as long as the rest of society is set up to handle that in terms of things like healthcare.

true_religion 6y ago

Because they don’t give you that flexibility. They require a high number of working hours to stay in the system, and require you to work peak hours anyways. No one really gains as a contractor working 39 hours a week without benefits.

Finnucane 6y ago

The whole point of the sharecropper economy is to make it so a lot of people don't really have much choice.

pfooti 6y ago

Because, given the opportunity and no regulation, companies will always push to make all employees contractors. Independent contractors represent a significantly lower liability on the balance sheets. Except that those lower liabilities are just externalizing the cost of employment to other systems (health and unemployment insurance, etc). If we don't regulate corporations, they will just race to the bottom in how they treat labor.

s3r3nity 6y ago
I'll grant that I agree this is probably true for low-skilled labor where supply is high and interchangeable. I don't think this is the case for low-supply, high-skill labor (ex: doctors, engineers, etc.) as well as certain low-supply trades (HVAC, welders, etc.) Then bargaining power can properly counteract any such forces.
- worik 6y ago
  "low-supply, high-skill labor (ex: doctors, engineers, etc.)" Doctors, I know, have powerful unions and associations. Very, very, powerful.
- TaylorAlexander 6y ago
  This is absolutely true for engineers. While I did have employer provided healthcare, I was hired as a contract worker at Google X on their flagship robotics research project as a mechatronics prototype engineer and later a test engineer. I worked for two years alongside full time employees on the same exact things as full time employees. But they got stock, parties, and other special treats that contractors did not. Almost 50% of the team - I think the legal limit - were contractor roles. While I do appreciate that from their perspective it makes sense, it is also true that if we don't fight to protect workers, all jobs will go this way. That's actually why what an up-thread comment said is a great idea. If we decouple important things like healthcare from employment, then everyone gets important quality of life care without employers having to restrict benefits. If we do not fight for ourselves, we will end up in a situation where most people cannot access the basic necessities of life. Already in the US millions of Americans are without healthcare.
- glitchc 6y ago
  The AMA is a union in all but name [1] and quite powerful [2]: By money spent, the AMA is the nation’s third largest lobbying organization of the last 20 years, behind only the US Chamber of Commerce and the National Association of Realtors. [1] [1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doctors-union/?sh=14e6d4c34339 https://www.forbes.com/sites/johngoodman/2014/09/03/the-doct... [2] https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/why-were-fighting-the-american-medical-association https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/jun/06/why-we...
  - esoterica 6y ago
    What does lobbying have to do with whether or not an organization is a union? The Chamber of Commerce obviously isn't a union.
splistud 6y ago
Perhaps. But also, given the regulation, you remove opportunity for those that are looking for the type of employment you discredit from accepting it from employers that want to offer it. I very much appreciate the ability to step into the gig economy when I need to. I assume you mean well, but I wish you and other's who agree with you would kindly butt out and let me make my own decisions.
robertlagrant 6y ago
> Because, given the opportunity and no regulation, companies will always push to make all employees contractors This is not the case. Companies need permanent staff for: - deciding strategy, at various levels - deciding who's worth bringing on board - managing internal and external staff - cost (permanent contractors cost a lot) - being part of corporate memory, which can be handed over in a notice period of a month or two or three, but not in the week it takes for a contractor to offboard

SwiftyBug 6y ago

If only it was a matter of choice rather than a very planned uberization of the workforce.

splistud 6y ago
If only you could come reasonably close to proving that. Let's say you were correct. Want to stop it? Regulation is just a wall with holes. The only way to stop it is to reduce the labor force. If this is actually a plan, it's conception requires that the labor force is going to expand rapidly. In a tighter labor market, companies are much better off locking up labor rather than nickel and diming costs. So any said evil plan is an add-on to opening the gates to immigration, both legal and illegal.

heavyset_go 6y ago

The point is that companies are eliminating full-time employment roles for employees and replacing them with roles for contractors. That means there are less full-time employment opportunities for W-2 employees, and an increasing amount of roles for 1099 contractors.

rossdavidh 6y ago

Speaking as a person who intentionally chooses to be a contractor, and refuses offers of permanent employment because I prefer to be a contractor, I respectfully disagree. I have these options because being a computer programmer (lately) gives me options. In any occupation where it is a "buyer's market", the employee has no such option. Now, whether things like healthcare and retirement should be linked to employment in the first place, is a real and valid question. But currently it is, and the distinction between "employee" and "contractor" seems bogus in a lot of cases.

willcipriano 6y ago
When you say it gives you more flexibility do you mind if I ask what do you mean? I'm in the US and generally my employment has been at will, either of us are free to end the arrangement at any time. Having a specific date where that arrangement ends doesn't seem to be more flexible, if I wanted to leave in a month I would just give my notice and leave. I'm in the same position as you career wise and I often get offers to join contract roles and they are very unappealing to me. When I do the math on the benefits I'd lose out on and the additional taxes, rarely are these offers competitive let alone when I factor in the greater volatility inherent in the arrangement and the lack of unemployment benefits. Also in my experience the recruiters pushing the contract roles are the most desperate and aggressive, that doesn't lead me to believe these roles are all that high quality.
- wonderwonder 6y ago
  I just transitioned to contract based. The pay is significantly higher than if I was a salaried employee. In addition all of my salary comes to me, pre tax. This allows me greater flexibility regarding what I do with my $. For example I will use all income in the first half of the year to pay off all of my debt (2 cars, credit cards and money down for a house refinance). The second half of the year I will save for taxes and at that stage my overall monthly bills are massively lower. I get my health insurance via my wife who is salaried. In addition it allows me to write off a lot of things for taxes. Getting paid through my company gives a lot of tax benefits. The contract is for a year, with the option to extend. The job I just left was salaried but actively laying people off. So while both positions have risk, the contracted one provides a much higher income and flexibility to use it as I see fit. Plus any work I do on the weekend for the contract position is paid, as a salaried employee its not.

colinmhayes 6y ago

The unskilled labor market has monopsony power. This is effectively telling people to pull themselves up by the bootstraps.

lmm 6y ago

If we go down that route then pretty soon 80% of people will be unable to find employment, at all. Which is fine as long as the rest of society is set up to handle that in terms of things like healthcare.