3 ms·

It’s actually made substantially worse by the fact that every jurisdiction that you “hire” a remote worker in is another jurisdiction whose laws you have to com

It’s actually made substantially worse by the fact that every jurisdiction that you “hire” a remote worker in is another jurisdiction whose laws you have to comply with. An American contractor suing an American company in a Californian court is at least a risk their legal department should know how to manage. An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements, is something they’d be much less equipped to handle. Then just multiply that by the number of jurisdictions they hire these remote workers in, which is information they might not even have.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements Does "contractor" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? This would be like me buying an iPhone and then Apple suing me for not paying proper sick leave entitlements.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  It means something different in every location, and I’m just using Australia as a random example. The fact is that channeling your payroll through an offshore company doesn’t allow you to skirt local labor laws. It would be more like you selling me a faulty iPhone, then after realising that my country had consumer protection laws, you were forced to fix it.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    You're talking about one company suing a second company for not meeting the first company's legal obligations. This is gibberish.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      The risk of “misclassification” where an independent contractor sues to be classified as an employee, or where some labor or tax authority takes legal action to have a contractor reclassified (with or without the consent of the contractor/employee) exists in basically every jurisdiction. The only thing that changes if you move your contractors overseas is the jurisdiction where that dispute will be heard, because it will happen in the jurisdiction where the contractor/employee is located. Even if you put aside the mischaracterisation risks, each jurisdiction is likely to have different worker safety, entitlements, tax… obligations, even for contractors. If any disputes arise relating to those, they’re also going to be heard in the jurisdiction of the contractor/employee. I can understand where your misunderstanding comes from, thinking they’re all just businesses providing services to other businesses. But this interpretation is very naive, and the legal reality is massively more complicated than you’re making it sound. Governments really don’t like independent contractors, they’re subject to far more restrictions than ordinary businesses, and companies employing their services are usually exposed to risks that they don’t have when dealing with ordinary businesses.
- dghlsakjg 3y ago
  In many jurisdictions, the US included, whether or not you are a contractor is not up to you and the company you do the work for. E.g. even if both parties think it’s a contracting relationship, the IRS can decide otherwise. The nature of the relationship, and the work you are doing determines whether your employer is a regular employer and what taxes they have to pay. In Canada, for example, certain taxes (GST) are applied to the contractor relationship based on whether the product the company sells is available within the country, and the distinction between contractor and employee is much less fuzzy than it is in the US (if you have to ask, the person is almost certainly an employee). It gets complicated quick

thaumasiotes 3y ago

> An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements Does "contractor" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? This would be like me buying an iPhone and then Apple suing me for not paying proper sick leave entitlements.

AmericanChopper 3y ago
It means something different in every location, and I’m just using Australia as a random example. The fact is that channeling your payroll through an offshore company doesn’t allow you to skirt local labor laws. It would be more like you selling me a faulty iPhone, then after realising that my country had consumer protection laws, you were forced to fix it.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  You're talking about one company suing a second company for not meeting the first company's legal obligations. This is gibberish.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    The risk of “misclassification” where an independent contractor sues to be classified as an employee, or where some labor or tax authority takes legal action to have a contractor reclassified (with or without the consent of the contractor/employee) exists in basically every jurisdiction. The only thing that changes if you move your contractors overseas is the jurisdiction where that dispute will be heard, because it will happen in the jurisdiction where the contractor/employee is located. Even if you put aside the mischaracterisation risks, each jurisdiction is likely to have different worker safety, entitlements, tax… obligations, even for contractors. If any disputes arise relating to those, they’re also going to be heard in the jurisdiction of the contractor/employee. I can understand where your misunderstanding comes from, thinking they’re all just businesses providing services to other businesses. But this interpretation is very naive, and the legal reality is massively more complicated than you’re making it sound. Governments really don’t like independent contractors, they’re subject to far more restrictions than ordinary businesses, and companies employing their services are usually exposed to risks that they don’t have when dealing with ordinary businesses.
dghlsakjg 3y ago
In many jurisdictions, the US included, whether or not you are a contractor is not up to you and the company you do the work for. E.g. even if both parties think it’s a contracting relationship, the IRS can decide otherwise. The nature of the relationship, and the work you are doing determines whether your employer is a regular employer and what taxes they have to pay. In Canada, for example, certain taxes (GST) are applied to the contractor relationship based on whether the product the company sells is available within the country, and the distinction between contractor and employee is much less fuzzy than it is in the US (if you have to ask, the person is almost certainly an employee). It gets complicated quick