4 ms·

You misrepresent my argument. It's not about stripping people of benefits, it's about not forcing contractors to become employees. Paying a gross salary and l

by brc 11y ago

You misrepresent my argument. It's not about stripping people of benefits, it's about not forcing contractors to become employees. Paying a gross salary and letting the person choose their own benefits from that is better for all involved. If someone wants to be tax efficient for retirement contributions, vehicles, whatever, then let them do so. Others may prefer to claim all their income and just pay the tax. Separating the makeup of compensation and benefits is separate from organizing to negotiate for higher pay. You do t need a permanent union to organize for benefits.

danieltillett 11y ago
No you don't need a union, but when the group you are negotiating with is in a union (trade association) and you aren't then you might find yourself at a major disadvantage. You are not in a strong position to argue for benefits or salary on your own. Unions are neither all good nor all evil. They are one way that employees can gain some leverage in the negotiation process. If they didn't make sense then companies would certainly not form their own to argue for their interests. I should mention that I am an employer not an employee.
- brc 11y ago
  Still not understanding me. Currently the union might bargain for employment benefits. This is antiquated and treats all employees as though they want the same things, which cannot be true. Why would you collectively bargain for things that each person values differently? So it's better to agree to a rate of gross pay, and get paid as a contractor. The individual can then choose what benefits to award themselves, whether it is a higher level of healthcare or retirement payments, or just take the maximum up front income and pay taxes accordingly. From an employers point of view, a whole piece of headache goes away if the people you pay sorts out their own benefits packages. The Orignal article is about trying to reclassify contractors as employees, and do so in the name of 'benefits' as though contractors can't get the benefits themselves. Well, that's simply not true. Whether you organise for higher pay is another thing, and you can form a union to do that, or not.
  - danieltillett 11y ago
    Actually many unions argue for flexibility of how their members are paid - it is the overall pay that is important. Once you have settled on a gross pay, how it is paid needs to take into account the tax system. In the case of some benefits it is better for the employer to pay since the effective tax rate is lower. The whole issue of contractors verse employee is quite complex and even from a employers perspective it is not clear cut that one is better than the other in all cases. I think we can agree that in general it is best if people have the maximum flexibility possible without creating external costs.

by brc 11y ago

danieltillett 11y ago

No you don't need a union, but when the group you are negotiating with is in a union (trade association) and you aren't then you might find yourself at a major disadvantage. You are not in a strong position to argue for benefits or salary on your own. Unions are neither all good nor all evil. They are one way that employees can gain some leverage in the negotiation process. If they didn't make sense then companies would certainly not form their own to argue for their interests. I should mention that I am an employer not an employee.

brc 11y ago
Still not understanding me. Currently the union might bargain for employment benefits. This is antiquated and treats all employees as though they want the same things, which cannot be true. Why would you collectively bargain for things that each person values differently? So it's better to agree to a rate of gross pay, and get paid as a contractor. The individual can then choose what benefits to award themselves, whether it is a higher level of healthcare or retirement payments, or just take the maximum up front income and pay taxes accordingly. From an employers point of view, a whole piece of headache goes away if the people you pay sorts out their own benefits packages. The Orignal article is about trying to reclassify contractors as employees, and do so in the name of 'benefits' as though contractors can't get the benefits themselves. Well, that's simply not true. Whether you organise for higher pay is another thing, and you can form a union to do that, or not.
- danieltillett 11y ago
  Actually many unions argue for flexibility of how their members are paid - it is the overall pay that is important. Once you have settled on a gross pay, how it is paid needs to take into account the tax system. In the case of some benefits it is better for the employer to pay since the effective tax rate is lower. The whole issue of contractors verse employee is quite complex and even from a employers perspective it is not clear cut that one is better than the other in all cases. I think we can agree that in general it is best if people have the maximum flexibility possible without creating external costs.