>>Do you disagree that employers sometimes abuse their employees by mislabeling them as one or the other? No, but I for one am very opposed to the drive by som

>>Do you disagree that employers sometimes abuse their employees by mislabeling them as one or the other? No, but I for one am very opposed to the drive by some (not you) to do everything they can to make it next to impossible for companies to use IC's (many have stopped for fear of them being reclassified down the road) - there are plenty of people that want to operate as IC's and there are others that would prefer the 'security' of being an employee (in quotes, because imo, being an IC is often more secure than being an employee because one often has multiple customers and is constantly needing to 'sell' their services). I have no problem with people that would prefer to be an employee, not any problem with people who prefer to operate as an IC - I have done both, and would prefer both options continues to exist; people should be able to decide which model they prefer. In my field - I used to be able to IC with almost any company large or small - then big companies got spooked and they will hire you as a 'contractor', but you need to do it thru an agency who more often than not will only allow you to work as an employee on a W2 (USA) - which take huge cuts of the gross that the 'real' customer is paying - sometimes 25-50% of the actual amount billed. What was supposed to 'help' the little guy, ends up screwing them, at least some of them.