4 ms·

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the li

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".

AJ007 11y ago
Books could be written to answer this. A contractor could be viewed as a business relationship -- here is the contract, do what it says or don't get paid/the money back from you. Certainly there is value for having work done on a contract. The contractor should be able to do it themselves or subcontract it out. An employee could be seen as a single individual who shows up on time and is paid for doing so. It is the employer's job to make sure the individual is doing something productive whatever those tasks may be. That is a very simple separation and not really correct, but certainly there are good reasons for there to be legal separations. Also consider there are so many legal expectations for the two depending on where one is located. A big challenge for startups riding the line. Personally I am more concerned about basic labor rights & employer abuse rather than guarantees of benefits and minimum wages. One only has to look at migrant labor abroad to get a good idea of just how bad it gets -- slavery alive and well.
fragmede 11y ago
> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? Yes, the US Department of Labor has to decide there's no such distinction and must decide to reorganize various structures. > Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? Arguably, yes. The issue is that technology has brought on changes that don't fit neatly into the two boxes. An employer provides everything for an employee who performs a very broad function. Think front-desk receptionist where a computer is provided. Health-care is sometimes provided, but they may be paid as little as minimum wage (sometimes less). A contractor, on the other hand, is expected to provide everything themselves. Think plumber or locksmith. They bring their own tools, perform a specific task and they're done and free to move onto the next contract. They provide their own health-care, which, since they're traditionally paid far about minimum wage, is perhaps fair. (There's a lot more to it and it quickly becomes quite involved with tax code, but suffice to say the plumber is recognized as owning their own business and performing their own trade.) Does the distinction still serve a useful purpose in this day and age? As long as we rely on employers to provide necessary benefits that (eg preschool), and not the government, it serves a useful purpose.
dragonwriter 11y ago
> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? Sure, convince the Congress and state legislatures to do so (employment and tax law that makes such distinctions--and not, IIRC, on exactly the same criteria--exists at both levels.)
s54b32dd 11y ago
It's primarily a tax and insurance related designation. It helps determine agency, it grants both individuals and corporations certain rights, etc. It's all very legalese.

AJ007 11y ago

Books could be written to answer this. A contractor could be viewed as a business relationship -- here is the contract, do what it says or don't get paid/the money back from you. Certainly there is value for having work done on a contract. The contractor should be able to do it themselves or subcontract it out. An employee could be seen as a single individual who shows up on time and is paid for doing so. It is the employer's job to make sure the individual is doing something productive whatever those tasks may be. That is a very simple separation and not really correct, but certainly there are good reasons for there to be legal separations. Also consider there are so many legal expectations for the two depending on where one is located. A big challenge for startups riding the line. Personally I am more concerned about basic labor rights & employer abuse rather than guarantees of benefits and minimum wages. One only has to look at migrant labor abroad to get a good idea of just how bad it gets -- slavery alive and well.

fragmede 11y ago

> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? Yes, the US Department of Labor has to decide there's no such distinction and must decide to reorganize various structures. > Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? Arguably, yes. The issue is that technology has brought on changes that don't fit neatly into the two boxes. An employer provides everything for an employee who performs a very broad function. Think front-desk receptionist where a computer is provided. Health-care is sometimes provided, but they may be paid as little as minimum wage (sometimes less). A contractor, on the other hand, is expected to provide everything themselves. Think plumber or locksmith. They bring their own tools, perform a specific task and they're done and free to move onto the next contract. They provide their own health-care, which, since they're traditionally paid far about minimum wage, is perhaps fair. (There's a lot more to it and it quickly becomes quite involved with tax code, but suffice to say the plumber is recognized as owning their own business and performing their own trade.) Does the distinction still serve a useful purpose in this day and age? As long as we rely on employers to provide necessary benefits that (eg preschool), and not the government, it serves a useful purpose.

dragonwriter 11y ago

> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? Sure, convince the Congress and state legislatures to do so (employment and tax law that makes such distinctions--and not, IIRC, on exactly the same criteria--exists at both levels.)

s54b32dd 11y ago

It's primarily a tax and insurance related designation. It helps determine agency, it grants both individuals and corporations certain rights, etc. It's all very legalese.