3 ms·

In New Zealand this would be considered illegal. You MUST get the minimum wage if you're an employee. Even if you're contract states that 100% of your earnings

by arfar 11y ago

In New Zealand this would be considered illegal. You MUST get the minimum wage if you're an employee. Even if you're contract states that 100% of your earnings are commission based, the average over every two week period MUST come to the minimum wage. It's exactly to protect against employment agreements/situations like the one described in the article. I can't speak for US or Australia, but in New Zealand if you're an employee minimum wage IS minimum wage. Some employers hate it and would rather that not be the case, but we have contract workers for that style of employment, which are more-or-less at will, but the rules are different surrounding those and it much harder to "prove" someone is a contractor rather than an employee (it'll come down to things like: having sick days=employee, having a uniform provided=employee, organizing your own leave=contractor, it actually get's quite complex to prove someone is a contractor even if it states they are one in their employment agreement).

Swizec 11y ago
> contract workers for that style of employment, which are more-or-less at will, but the rules are different surrounding those and it much harder to "prove" someone is a contractor Exactly the situation described in the article, people being forced to stay just under the legal limit of becoming proper employees. We have the same issue in Slovenia right now. If you're an employee, you get minimum wage (or more). Every month. But more and more people are being pushed into contracting because nobody will give them a job otherwise. It's not a problem for people who embrace contracting and like all the freedom it provides, but it's a big problem for the person folding discarded clothes at H&M who is technically a contractor. The government came up with a simple solution: if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you.
- arfar 11y ago
  > people being forced to stay just under the legal limit of becoming proper employees. I guess this is where New Zealand works things out differently, it's really not clear cut about where the legal limit is for employee/contractor which makes it harder to stay closely under it and if the individual case isn't clear cut, the governing body almost always sides with the employee being an employee. I suspect in the US, things are much more favored towards the at-will type employment. >if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you. That's quite an interesting solution, I really like it. I feel like it doesn't answer the fundamental legal meaning of contractor vs. employee, but practically it's way easier to test for and I think probably would work better than drawing some vague line in the sand about the meanings in law.
- thaumasiotes 11y ago
  > The government came up with a simple solution: if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you. This is bizarre. It gives contractors the power to unilaterally force companies to make them full employees by turning down work. Why?
  - simoncion 11y ago
    For the Wal-Marts-in-corporate-character of Slovenia that game the system to prevent providing their employees-in-all-but-name with the benefits due to an employee? Sometimes, you have to balance the damage done by two wrongs. :)
  - bandrami 11y ago
    It gives contractors the power to unilaterally force companies to make them full employees by turning down work. Why? Companies probably should have thought of that before they switched to JIT staffing and forced the government to do that...
ars 11y ago
I'm pretty sure the law is the same in the US. If your tips or whatever don't come to at least minimum wage they have to give you more to make up for it.
- pfranz 11y ago
  I've heard concerns about getting fired for under performing if your tips don't cover minimum wage and the company has to make up for it. So they keep quiet and don't make minimum wage.

by arfar 11y ago

Swizec 11y ago

> contract workers for that style of employment, which are more-or-less at will, but the rules are different surrounding those and it much harder to "prove" someone is a contractor Exactly the situation described in the article, people being forced to stay just under the legal limit of becoming proper employees. We have the same issue in Slovenia right now. If you're an employee, you get minimum wage (or more). Every month. But more and more people are being pushed into contracting because nobody will give them a job otherwise. It's not a problem for people who embrace contracting and like all the freedom it provides, but it's a big problem for the person folding discarded clothes at H&M who is technically a contractor. The government came up with a simple solution: if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you.

arfar 11y ago
> people being forced to stay just under the legal limit of becoming proper employees. I guess this is where New Zealand works things out differently, it's really not clear cut about where the legal limit is for employee/contractor which makes it harder to stay closely under it and if the individual case isn't clear cut, the governing body almost always sides with the employee being an employee. I suspect in the US, things are much more favored towards the at-will type employment. >if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you. That's quite an interesting solution, I really like it. I feel like it doesn't answer the fundamental legal meaning of contractor vs. employee, but practically it's way easier to test for and I think probably would work better than drawing some vague line in the sand about the meanings in law.
thaumasiotes 11y ago
> The government came up with a simple solution: if more than 80% of your income in a given year comes from a single company, they have to employ you. This is bizarre. It gives contractors the power to unilaterally force companies to make them full employees by turning down work. Why?
- simoncion 11y ago
  For the Wal-Marts-in-corporate-character of Slovenia that game the system to prevent providing their employees-in-all-but-name with the benefits due to an employee? Sometimes, you have to balance the damage done by two wrongs. :)
- bandrami 11y ago
  It gives contractors the power to unilaterally force companies to make them full employees by turning down work. Why? Companies probably should have thought of that before they switched to JIT staffing and forced the government to do that...

ars 11y ago

I'm pretty sure the law is the same in the US. If your tips or whatever don't come to at least minimum wage they have to give you more to make up for it.

pfranz 11y ago
I've heard concerns about getting fired for under performing if your tips don't cover minimum wage and the company has to make up for it. So they keep quiet and don't make minimum wage.