4 ms·

Right, and I always have the same question to anyone complaining about this. "If you hire someone to fix the plumbing in your house and you pay him by the hour

Right, and I always have the same question to anyone complaining about this. "If you hire someone to fix the plumbing in your house and you pay him by the hour, would you check that he worked what he's asking or do you pay blindly?" Yes "Amazon bad" and whatnot but in the end it all boils down to the same thing, we live in a society where you want what you pay for, whether you're an individual or a company. And as a plumber, if you don't want to be checked or followed by some annoying customer, you ask to be paid for the completed job, not by the hour.

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]
2023throwawayy 3y ago
A more relevant discussion for this crowd I think would be, if you hire a consultant and pay them hourly, do you expect to be able to monitor their screen remotely while they work? Because I’ve been a consultant hired hourly, and I would never agree to that kind of surveillance. If you don’t trust me, don’t hire me. The output of the work should be all that matters. Back to your point, if the plumber fixed the problem for what seems like a reasonable amount of time, why would I need to follow them around?
- zeckalpha 3y ago
  If they do that sort of thing, it may violate the definition of the contractor status for tax purposes, and you may be reclassified as an employee.
  - buffington 3y ago
    If they do what sort of thing? Monitor stuff? It all depends on the nature of the consultancy agreement. If you work for the financial industry as a consultant you can expect to allow monitoring. I don't know of a single place that makes the law clear, but if you dig in a bit, you can find a lot of resources that describe the legal differences between contractors and employees. One thing that's evident in nearly anything you can find is that contractors basically have no protections. The IRS doesn't care in the slightest if an employer monitors a contractor.
- elijaht 3y ago
  Feels like you're moving the goalposts. Article doesn't mention anything about monitoring the screen remotely. You could rephrase it as "if you hire a consultant with the expectation that they will attend in person 3 days a week, do you expect to be able to verify that is happening?"
  - 2023throwawayy 3y ago
    I’m not replying to the article. I’m replying to a specific comment. Monitoring remotely is as close as I could get to “following the plumber around”.
- toomim 3y ago
  Contractors are not employees. This is about employees. The key difference between the two is precisely that employers are not presumed to watch and control how a contractor works.
  - buffington 3y ago
    That is incorrect. That "key difference" is not even remotely a universal truth. I've been a consultant and an employee many times in my career. You can take any variation of the following sentence and it'll remain true: I've worked for a company as a [ hourly consultant | salaried employee | per project consultant ] that [ monitored my every keystroke | monitored attendance | monitored nothing ]. Every variation is possible, and I've seen every variation.
- whynotmaybe 3y ago
  >If you don’t trust me, don’t hire me Exactly, but how can I trust you without knowing you ? Trust but verify right ? I've also been a consultant and worked in a place where they manage sensitive data. They told you on day 1 that the computer they provided is monitored for everything and that they can take screenshot from time to time. If you don't agree, you don't work there. > The output of the work should be all that matters. Not when you're hired hourly/weekly/monthly, the output is irrelevant. If a company hire you for your time, it means that your time is at "their" disposal. If they tell you to be at the office during that time, you're supposed to be there. And if they think that it's best for them to have you sit in a room with 20 other zoom callers for the possibility that you might talk with someone down the hall and that it might raise the revenue, that's their decision. Work is a business relation between 2 entities with rules in place, if 1 entity doesn't like some rules, the relation stops. And as they are paying, they have the right to verify that they receive what they're paying for, whatever it is. Just like it's my decision to accept that I must pay the plumber for his time when I ask him to explain me some stuff about my boiler that I could read online.
hooverd 3y ago
Do you loom over every tradesman you hire with a stopwatch?
- mywittyname 3y ago
  I sure as shit talk to them when they get there, then talk again when they are ready to leave, ask them to walk me through what they did, and double check the invoice for accuracy. Especially for "subscription" services. I've found it's best to trust, but verify that they are coming out as frequently as you're paying them to and doing everything you're paying them for. It's not even a malice thing; humans make mistakes.
- whynotmaybe 3y ago
  Depends on the job. I hire you to change the electrical panel and you charge me X to do it, I'll leave you alone and might even leave the house because the electricity is out. If I pay 150$/h to have something fixed, you can be sure I won't be far. But if I want to watch them work, I ask first if it's ok for them.

deleted 3y ago

[deleted]

2023throwawayy 3y ago

A more relevant discussion for this crowd I think would be, if you hire a consultant and pay them hourly, do you expect to be able to monitor their screen remotely while they work? Because I’ve been a consultant hired hourly, and I would never agree to that kind of surveillance. If you don’t trust me, don’t hire me. The output of the work should be all that matters. Back to your point, if the plumber fixed the problem for what seems like a reasonable amount of time, why would I need to follow them around?

zeckalpha 3y ago
If they do that sort of thing, it may violate the definition of the contractor status for tax purposes, and you may be reclassified as an employee.
- buffington 3y ago
  If they do what sort of thing? Monitor stuff? It all depends on the nature of the consultancy agreement. If you work for the financial industry as a consultant you can expect to allow monitoring. I don't know of a single place that makes the law clear, but if you dig in a bit, you can find a lot of resources that describe the legal differences between contractors and employees. One thing that's evident in nearly anything you can find is that contractors basically have no protections. The IRS doesn't care in the slightest if an employer monitors a contractor.
elijaht 3y ago
Feels like you're moving the goalposts. Article doesn't mention anything about monitoring the screen remotely. You could rephrase it as "if you hire a consultant with the expectation that they will attend in person 3 days a week, do you expect to be able to verify that is happening?"
- 2023throwawayy 3y ago
  I’m not replying to the article. I’m replying to a specific comment. Monitoring remotely is as close as I could get to “following the plumber around”.
toomim 3y ago
Contractors are not employees. This is about employees. The key difference between the two is precisely that employers are not presumed to watch and control how a contractor works.
- buffington 3y ago
  That is incorrect. That "key difference" is not even remotely a universal truth. I've been a consultant and an employee many times in my career. You can take any variation of the following sentence and it'll remain true: I've worked for a company as a [ hourly consultant | salaried employee | per project consultant ] that [ monitored my every keystroke | monitored attendance | monitored nothing ]. Every variation is possible, and I've seen every variation.
whynotmaybe 3y ago
>If you don’t trust me, don’t hire me Exactly, but how can I trust you without knowing you ? Trust but verify right ? I've also been a consultant and worked in a place where they manage sensitive data. They told you on day 1 that the computer they provided is monitored for everything and that they can take screenshot from time to time. If you don't agree, you don't work there. > The output of the work should be all that matters. Not when you're hired hourly/weekly/monthly, the output is irrelevant. If a company hire you for your time, it means that your time is at "their" disposal. If they tell you to be at the office during that time, you're supposed to be there. And if they think that it's best for them to have you sit in a room with 20 other zoom callers for the possibility that you might talk with someone down the hall and that it might raise the revenue, that's their decision. Work is a business relation between 2 entities with rules in place, if 1 entity doesn't like some rules, the relation stops. And as they are paying, they have the right to verify that they receive what they're paying for, whatever it is. Just like it's my decision to accept that I must pay the plumber for his time when I ask him to explain me some stuff about my boiler that I could read online.

hooverd 3y ago

Do you loom over every tradesman you hire with a stopwatch?

mywittyname 3y ago
I sure as shit talk to them when they get there, then talk again when they are ready to leave, ask them to walk me through what they did, and double check the invoice for accuracy. Especially for "subscription" services. I've found it's best to trust, but verify that they are coming out as frequently as you're paying them to and doing everything you're paying them for. It's not even a malice thing; humans make mistakes.
whynotmaybe 3y ago
Depends on the job. I hire you to change the electrical panel and you charge me X to do it, I'll leave you alone and might even leave the house because the electricity is out. If I pay 150$/h to have something fixed, you can be sure I won't be far. But if I want to watch them work, I ask first if it's ok for them.