4 ms·

Actually if you have "single client" contractors a lot of labor laws will grandfather those employees as "real" employees, and you'll have a lot of back taxes a

by rtpg 13y ago

Actually if you have "single client" contractors a lot of labor laws will grandfather those employees as "real" employees, and you'll have a lot of back taxes and they'll end up in your employee register. It's exactly to avoid this sort of exploitation. A lot of people don't seem to know about labor protections, unfortunately employees are just as misinformed of their rights as business owners are.

Tohhou 13y ago
Require in the contract that you are not their only client, but lawyer it well. "We only work with contractors with a diverse set of clients as we believe that diversity promotes excellence." Create buffer companies for those contractors to also work for indirectly for you if necessary. You might still have to pay some taxes, but you won't have the same problem as the Swiss salary cap is trying to prevent if it were implemented. There will always be ways to exploit systems. You see it as exploitation, but those running the companies see it as necessary to compete.
- rtpg 13y ago
  all those extra layers are going to end up making it more costly in some cases. Also, parts of contracts can be invalidated. Just because you put something like that in the contract doesn't mean you're not violating labor laws. Some jobs make more sense to be outsourced, in which case contractors will usually already exist and offer "reasonable" prices that will be cheaper than having a full-time employee around. Other times it doesn't make sense, but employers will try and convince employees to become contractors, so that a lot of employee taxes end up coming out of the employee's side of things. Of course, the employee thinks that this is necessary to keep their job. The construction and taxi industries are very bad at this. It's exploitation, plain and simple.
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    I agree that min/maxing is easily exploitation, but it's also what those companies see as necessary to compete, and it is what high relative fitness companies do to not fail. One company gets a competitive advantage from doing perfectly legal activities which can allow them to edge out their competition from the market. See: Walmart.
- deleted 13y ago
  [deleted]
  - Tohhou 13y ago
    Company A wants to hire another company to do things for them based on a contract. Company A hires company B, which is completely independent - naturally occurring due to demand, to do the work. Company A is highly profitable and only has high earners in pay. Company B is barely profitable and only has lower earners in pay. How does the law have any power over this situation? You are telling me that that government would decide that an employee of another company is also your employee because they don't get paid as well as your company's average?
- rmc 13y ago
  Require in the contract that you are not their only client, but lawyer it well. "We only work with contractors with a diverse set of clients as we believe that diversity promotes excellence." In some countries (I think UK is like this), they will actually look at the amount of work a "contracter" does for a client. Do too much (i.e. only work for them) and they (the taxman) treat you as an employee. Doesn't matter what you put in the contract. It's not nearly that simple.
philwelch 13y ago
The typical workaround is for their contract to "end" after nine months.
jacobr1 13y ago
but you could also hire a firm to do the same work. Few companies have on staff janitors any more. Instead they hire out to a general purpose janitorial firm. There are plenty of structures that incentivised people could find that would not violate or skirt any labour protection laws in a max salary scenario. How about creating a separate strategic consulting firm that hires the executives? Then contacting with that firm for the work the executives are expected to perform.

by rtpg 13y ago

Tohhou 13y ago

Require in the contract that you are not their only client, but lawyer it well. "We only work with contractors with a diverse set of clients as we believe that diversity promotes excellence." Create buffer companies for those contractors to also work for indirectly for you if necessary. You might still have to pay some taxes, but you won't have the same problem as the Swiss salary cap is trying to prevent if it were implemented. There will always be ways to exploit systems. You see it as exploitation, but those running the companies see it as necessary to compete.

rtpg 13y ago
all those extra layers are going to end up making it more costly in some cases. Also, parts of contracts can be invalidated. Just because you put something like that in the contract doesn't mean you're not violating labor laws. Some jobs make more sense to be outsourced, in which case contractors will usually already exist and offer "reasonable" prices that will be cheaper than having a full-time employee around. Other times it doesn't make sense, but employers will try and convince employees to become contractors, so that a lot of employee taxes end up coming out of the employee's side of things. Of course, the employee thinks that this is necessary to keep their job. The construction and taxi industries are very bad at this. It's exploitation, plain and simple.
- Tohhou 13y ago
  I agree that min/maxing is easily exploitation, but it's also what those companies see as necessary to compete, and it is what high relative fitness companies do to not fail. One company gets a competitive advantage from doing perfectly legal activities which can allow them to edge out their competition from the market. See: Walmart.
deleted 13y ago
[deleted]
- Tohhou 13y ago
  Company A wants to hire another company to do things for them based on a contract. Company A hires company B, which is completely independent - naturally occurring due to demand, to do the work. Company A is highly profitable and only has high earners in pay. Company B is barely profitable and only has lower earners in pay. How does the law have any power over this situation? You are telling me that that government would decide that an employee of another company is also your employee because they don't get paid as well as your company's average?
rmc 13y ago
Require in the contract that you are not their only client, but lawyer it well. "We only work with contractors with a diverse set of clients as we believe that diversity promotes excellence." In some countries (I think UK is like this), they will actually look at the amount of work a "contracter" does for a client. Do too much (i.e. only work for them) and they (the taxman) treat you as an employee. Doesn't matter what you put in the contract. It's not nearly that simple.

philwelch 13y ago

The typical workaround is for their contract to "end" after nine months.

jacobr1 13y ago

but you could also hire a firm to do the same work. Few companies have on staff janitors any more. Instead they hire out to a general purpose janitorial firm. There are plenty of structures that incentivised people could find that would not violate or skirt any labour protection laws in a max salary scenario. How about creating a separate strategic consulting firm that hires the executives? Then contacting with that firm for the work the executives are expected to perform.