4 ms·

I was a contractor in corporate America for a while and experienced the same thing. The way it was explained to me was that you cannot give contractors the sam

I was a contractor in corporate America for a while and experienced the same thing. The way it was explained to me was that you cannot give contractors the same "benefits" is a regular employee. If you do, then you have to treat them as employees, which means you have to offer the same healthcare, PTO structure, etc. I don't think the rules around the "benefits" were especially clear from a legal standpoint. Therefor the company would always err on the side of caution. If some auditor somewhere could perceive an action or event as employee specific and a contractor took part then the company could be penalized for it. In my case, it was pretty standard things like in-office birthday parties and monthly staff meetings. It's not right, but I can understand why it happens. The legal team in a big corporation is extremely risk averse.

civilized 5y ago
This seems inconsistent with what little I know of employment law, or at least the spirit of the law. The difference between an employee and a contractor is mostly about the degree of control the employer exerts. Employees are more heavily controlled and therefore get more protections and benefits. In a sane world, common practices like forbidding a "contractor" from working with any other company would be more legally risky than letting a contractor participate in an in-office party.
- eric-hu 5y ago
  I was a long term, full time contractor from about 2015 until 2019. It worked out better for me since I was working as a nomad abroad. Around 2019, my client wanted me on as an employee. I never found out the precise motivations, but I suspect it had to do with the contractor laws getting tightened down for rideshare drivers. I suspect that I could have remained a contractor by the letter of the law, but that still might have skirted into territory the legal team was not comfortable with. This seems like the most reasonable read of the situation to me, but it’s still only my speculation.
  - civilized 5y ago
    For all we know, some attorney general was ginning up to collectively punish businesses that use contractors because recent press had made such businesses politically attractive targets. And your client was just trying to stay out of the crosshairs. You can be compliant with the spirit of the law and still be targeted by some ideologue using the law as a cudgel.
    - eric-hu 5y ago
      Yes that’s exactly the way I’d characterize the public sentiment towards “businesses with many contractors” at that time.
lanstin 5y ago
To be honest I don’t think it is the cost of benefits but the ability to fire people quickly without having to find other work that is appealing to companies. If some big grand idea flops and it’s 200 contractors, just don’t renew the contract. If it’s a lot of employees you have to move them around or something. Also, often contractor money is a different pile of money than regular hires/payroll. So people looking to empire build can do it more easily with contractors. Companies looking for lower costs will hire lower on the skill ladder or choose different cheaper locales, or drive off with more experience and higher salaries.

civilized 5y ago

This seems inconsistent with what little I know of employment law, or at least the spirit of the law. The difference between an employee and a contractor is mostly about the degree of control the employer exerts. Employees are more heavily controlled and therefore get more protections and benefits. In a sane world, common practices like forbidding a "contractor" from working with any other company would be more legally risky than letting a contractor participate in an in-office party.

eric-hu 5y ago
I was a long term, full time contractor from about 2015 until 2019. It worked out better for me since I was working as a nomad abroad. Around 2019, my client wanted me on as an employee. I never found out the precise motivations, but I suspect it had to do with the contractor laws getting tightened down for rideshare drivers. I suspect that I could have remained a contractor by the letter of the law, but that still might have skirted into territory the legal team was not comfortable with. This seems like the most reasonable read of the situation to me, but it’s still only my speculation.
- civilized 5y ago
  For all we know, some attorney general was ginning up to collectively punish businesses that use contractors because recent press had made such businesses politically attractive targets. And your client was just trying to stay out of the crosshairs. You can be compliant with the spirit of the law and still be targeted by some ideologue using the law as a cudgel.
  - eric-hu 5y ago
    Yes that’s exactly the way I’d characterize the public sentiment towards “businesses with many contractors” at that time.

lanstin 5y ago

To be honest I don’t think it is the cost of benefits but the ability to fire people quickly without having to find other work that is appealing to companies. If some big grand idea flops and it’s 200 contractors, just don’t renew the contract. If it’s a lot of employees you have to move them around or something. Also, often contractor money is a different pile of money than regular hires/payroll. So people looking to empire build can do it more easily with contractors. Companies looking for lower costs will hire lower on the skill ladder or choose different cheaper locales, or drive off with more experience and higher salaries.