9 ms·
Still not understanding me. Currently the union might bargain for employment benefits. This is antiquated and treats all employees as though they want the sam
by 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 agoActually 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.