6 ms·

The right thing for the company to do would be to hire people as employees, but it appears that worker protections are too strong for them to want to financiall

The right thing for the company to do would be to hire people as employees, but it appears that worker protections are too strong for them to want to financially. Universal healthcare/dental/paid leave would allow for companies who’s employees currently are the only receivers of these “benefits” to not require companies to hold onto people so long. Worker protections are supposed to be so that catastrophic job loss is less catastrophic and companies can’t just arbitrarily decide they need 20000 people one month and 0 the next. But we should definitely look into a better deal for the workers and give companies less power over their livelihood.

dannyw 6y ago
Some people, like the grandparent or me, don't want to be employees.
- Retric 6y ago
  The difference between a contractor and an employee isn’t arbitrarily. Basically, if you’re using company equipment, following the companies schedule, and don’t have a clear task with a clear finishing condition then you’re an employee. Finding someone to fill in for a secretary on maternity leave is fine, but open ended contacts on their equipment and schedule without some specific task is just opening them up to lose another lawsuit.
  - taurath 6y ago
    By that metric almost every contractor I've ever worked with should be an employee. Which I sort of agree with. But you can come up with "well defined project's" when its really "staff-aug".
- danaris 6y ago
  And it's fine to be a contractor—as long as that's genuinely and meaningfully what you are. If you're contracting out your services to only one company, and they have primary say over when and how you work[1], then that's not a genuine "contractor" relationship; you're an employee that they're taking advantage of by paying less and not providing benefits to. If you really do want to be a contractor, who sells their services to many companies, sets their own hours, and has primary control over their tasks and such, then by all means do so. But please don't try to make things worse for the vast majority who do not want these things by advocating for stripping away protections from people who are being abusively and illegally misclassified as contractors. [1] I don't recall offhand all the various specific aspects of a job that define whether you're logically a contractor or an employee, but I do remember that it's basically "if your livelihood depends entirely on one company paying you, and/or they have near-total control over how you do your work, you're an employee, whatever the paperwork says".
  - ryanschneider 6y ago
    RE: [1] this is somewhat dated but a “contractor” friend used this “twenty factor” list to determine her “employer” was acting questionably maybe ten years ago: https://www.lakeshoreacct.com/blog/what-irs-20-factor-test https://www.lakeshoreacct.com/blog/what-irs-20-factor-test The site says the IRS no longer uses it but it’s still generally a good rule of thumb. And yes I recognize the irony that both her and her employer used the terms contractor and employer when describing their relationship.
  - coryking 6y ago
    The IRS has very clear guidelines on the difference between contractor and employee: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
- taurath 6y ago
  I also wouldn't want to be an employee. I work best in short monthly bursts with legitimate breaks in between. I'm working on setting it up so I can do that as an experienced consultant/freelancer. The job market is pretty different though for full time employees - one part of which is the insane contractor usage at big companies with money. Microsoft is still like 50% contractors, and in this area if you have "contractor for a bigco" attached to your resume I'd estimate you'll be talked to by far fewer recruiters, and then offered less lucrative work. Also as others have stated you'll have up to 60% of what the company pays for your work taken by the contracting agency especially if they do "management" for their workforce. Then benefits are a real thing. I have some healthcare needs which require me to have consistent insurance that isn't going to force me to other providers just because I switch. Retirement investing without a 401k is basically all cash since the roth and regular IRA limit is so low. I'm still figuring out how that will work, whether I should incorporate as a consultant so I can provide a 401k to myself, or just not bother with it and just invest.
  - infinite8s 6y ago
    You don't need to incorporate - you can open a sole 401k plan at Vanguard as an LLC.
dcolkitt 6y ago
Employee-status may come with certain benefits, but it also comes with many drawbacks and burdens for the employee. For me, and probably many on this board, the biggest risk is "works-for-hire". Under US law, contractors have strong legal protections of their own intellectual protection. Whereas it's much easier for a W-2 employer to claim IP made in personal time. I don't really care about healthcare of unemployment insurance. I'm well compensated enough that I can buy my own high-deductible insurance and have more than enough assets to feed myself between jobs. Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good".
- RHSeeger 6y ago
  > Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good". It's the government screwing _some_ people over for the good of everyone else, where it's presumed that "good of everyone else" is worth more to society than what is lost by those that get screwed over by it. At least, that's generally the intent.
  - yaml-ops-guy 6y ago
    I’m very glad we’re only screwing over “some” people, good to have that cleared up, thank you for that...it’s still an abominable practice to put any amount of laborers through.
    - threatofrain 6y ago
      Government policy is inherently concerned with those kinds of moral tradeoffs. Vaccines and lockdowns naturally pose such questions.
    - RHSeeger 6y ago
      Are you of the belief that there are a set of policies/laws that result in everyone being happy and nobody being screwed over? Such a thing is not realistic. Every system of laws results in some people suffering for the benefit of others. The better law system result in less suffering for more benefit.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

dannyw 6y ago

Some people, like the grandparent or me, don't want to be employees.

Retric 6y ago
The difference between a contractor and an employee isn’t arbitrarily. Basically, if you’re using company equipment, following the companies schedule, and don’t have a clear task with a clear finishing condition then you’re an employee. Finding someone to fill in for a secretary on maternity leave is fine, but open ended contacts on their equipment and schedule without some specific task is just opening them up to lose another lawsuit.
- taurath 6y ago
  By that metric almost every contractor I've ever worked with should be an employee. Which I sort of agree with. But you can come up with "well defined project's" when its really "staff-aug".
danaris 6y ago
And it's fine to be a contractor—as long as that's genuinely and meaningfully what you are. If you're contracting out your services to only one company, and they have primary say over when and how you work[1], then that's not a genuine "contractor" relationship; you're an employee that they're taking advantage of by paying less and not providing benefits to. If you really do want to be a contractor, who sells their services to many companies, sets their own hours, and has primary control over their tasks and such, then by all means do so. But please don't try to make things worse for the vast majority who do not want these things by advocating for stripping away protections from people who are being abusively and illegally misclassified as contractors. [1] I don't recall offhand all the various specific aspects of a job that define whether you're logically a contractor or an employee, but I do remember that it's basically "if your livelihood depends entirely on one company paying you, and/or they have near-total control over how you do your work, you're an employee, whatever the paperwork says".
- ryanschneider 6y ago
  RE: [1] this is somewhat dated but a “contractor” friend used this “twenty factor” list to determine her “employer” was acting questionably maybe ten years ago: https://www.lakeshoreacct.com/blog/what-irs-20-factor-test https://www.lakeshoreacct.com/blog/what-irs-20-factor-test The site says the IRS no longer uses it but it’s still generally a good rule of thumb. And yes I recognize the irony that both her and her employer used the terms contractor and employer when describing their relationship.
- coryking 6y ago
  The IRS has very clear guidelines on the difference between contractor and employee: https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employed/independent-contractor-self-employed-or-employee https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
taurath 6y ago
I also wouldn't want to be an employee. I work best in short monthly bursts with legitimate breaks in between. I'm working on setting it up so I can do that as an experienced consultant/freelancer. The job market is pretty different though for full time employees - one part of which is the insane contractor usage at big companies with money. Microsoft is still like 50% contractors, and in this area if you have "contractor for a bigco" attached to your resume I'd estimate you'll be talked to by far fewer recruiters, and then offered less lucrative work. Also as others have stated you'll have up to 60% of what the company pays for your work taken by the contracting agency especially if they do "management" for their workforce. Then benefits are a real thing. I have some healthcare needs which require me to have consistent insurance that isn't going to force me to other providers just because I switch. Retirement investing without a 401k is basically all cash since the roth and regular IRA limit is so low. I'm still figuring out how that will work, whether I should incorporate as a consultant so I can provide a 401k to myself, or just not bother with it and just invest.
- infinite8s 6y ago
  You don't need to incorporate - you can open a sole 401k plan at Vanguard as an LLC.

dcolkitt 6y ago

Employee-status may come with certain benefits, but it also comes with many drawbacks and burdens for the employee. For me, and probably many on this board, the biggest risk is "works-for-hire". Under US law, contractors have strong legal protections of their own intellectual protection. Whereas it's much easier for a W-2 employer to claim IP made in personal time. I don't really care about healthcare of unemployment insurance. I'm well compensated enough that I can buy my own high-deductible insurance and have more than enough assets to feed myself between jobs. Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good".

RHSeeger 6y ago
> Forcing freelancers into W-2 status is just another example of the government screwing people over "for their own good". It's the government screwing _some_ people over for the good of everyone else, where it's presumed that "good of everyone else" is worth more to society than what is lost by those that get screwed over by it. At least, that's generally the intent.
- yaml-ops-guy 6y ago
  I’m very glad we’re only screwing over “some” people, good to have that cleared up, thank you for that...it’s still an abominable practice to put any amount of laborers through.
  - threatofrain 6y ago
    Government policy is inherently concerned with those kinds of moral tradeoffs. Vaccines and lockdowns naturally pose such questions.
  - RHSeeger 6y ago
    Are you of the belief that there are a set of policies/laws that result in everyone being happy and nobody being screwed over? Such a thing is not realistic. Every system of laws results in some people suffering for the benefit of others. The better law system result in less suffering for more benefit.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]