Slashdot Mirror
Ask Slashdot: Opinions on the State Breaking Its Own Law Against Employee Misclassification?
An anonymous reader writes: I've had the privilege of developing software as an independent contractor for various agencies of a particular state for many years. These past few, however, have seen changes: now I, and almost every other contractor I know, are being managed very differently. This state is now making a widespread practice of using the businesses it awards contracts to as staffing agencies, knowing full well that the people coming in are 1099s and receive none of the benefits or protections of regular employees. These contractors are expected to be on site full-time, are not allowed to use their own hardware or software, and are managed alongside, and perform substantially the same work as other, regular employees. This is apparently done to cut costs.
The State has no legal risk here — that rests solely on the businesses it awards contracts to. But given that this particular state takes a hard line against misclassifying employees, this strikes me as profoundly hypocritical. I am not here to ask for legal advice. Indeed, I have already retained counsel in this matter. Considering additional detail that I won't get into here, Federal law is likely being broken. Since this is also one of the states that have the strict 'three prong' test for classifying employees, the State's own law is definitely being broken.
I thought, maybe somebody should say something. But my lawyer's reaction surprised me. He said — this isn't a big deal, you could just go find another client. And you know what? He's right. I could totally do that. Maybe since we in the IT industry tend to be well paid, nobody should care, and there's no reason complain. I'm not asking for legal advice or a recommendation as to what I should do personally; I'm still forming an opinion on the larger issue here, and I'd like you to share yours.
The State has no legal risk here — that rests solely on the businesses it awards contracts to. But given that this particular state takes a hard line against misclassifying employees, this strikes me as profoundly hypocritical. I am not here to ask for legal advice. Indeed, I have already retained counsel in this matter. Considering additional detail that I won't get into here, Federal law is likely being broken. Since this is also one of the states that have the strict 'three prong' test for classifying employees, the State's own law is definitely being broken.
I thought, maybe somebody should say something. But my lawyer's reaction surprised me. He said — this isn't a big deal, you could just go find another client. And you know what? He's right. I could totally do that. Maybe since we in the IT industry tend to be well paid, nobody should care, and there's no reason complain. I'm not asking for legal advice or a recommendation as to what I should do personally; I'm still forming an opinion on the larger issue here, and I'd like you to share yours.
...what's the question?
Until you are all contractors, and they lower your rate accordingly. That ultimately is the danger.
The service you are providing ultimately when working for the state is to the customer (ie: the taxpayer). I always question the benefit of contracting out when it becomes a way to just hire more employees. If you are needed for that long, it is likely in the customer's best interest to actually hire you, even if that costs a little more (which I really doubt it does). I totally get the flexibility that is contracting for short periods of time when needed, but I've personally seen contractors doing the same work as employees for multi-year stints, just because it was easier to contract out than actually hire a permanent position. I've even seen positions intentionally left vacant, while contractors are hired to do that position's work.
The end game however, if I was to be cynical, is to contract everyone out, and then squeeze your rate down.
It is not true the state is free from legal risk. I was in a somewhat similar situation and I was arguing that the contracting company was a sham and I was actually an employee of the original company.
I received a big check to shut me up.
Wisconsin?
Someone is surely looking to make a name for themselves by making the government look hypocritical.
... yeah, funny, huh? The state doesn't judge itself harshly for that.
Unfortunately, I often find myself in the minority on points like this. But here's where I typically come out:
Everyone has a responsibility to report wrong-doing, when they see it. Even if this is not a legal responsibility, it is a moral one. Certainly, one can take this too far, and become a nitpicker. It's not one's responsibility to be a nitpicker. But it is one's responsibility to set a reasonable line in the sand, and when one sees that line crossed, then act accordingly.
I get the sense you wouldn't be asking the question if you thought this fell into the category of nitpicking. The fact you feel the need to ask the question in the first place probably provides the answer right there. I believe you have a moral responsibility to not just look the other way. And this might involve risk to you. But where would we be as a society if people were afraid to take such risks in order to fix wrongs?
First they came for the Socialists, and I did not speak out—
Because I was not a Socialist.....
"I asked my legal expert for advice, but I didn't like it. Hey, you folks on the internet got any better opinions?"
Don't waste your vote! Vote for whoever you want, unless you live in a swing state it won't matter anyways
this is a 1099-style post.
IANAL, but ...
Many years ago, I worked in the USA for a Canadian Corp. The Corp. routinely bounced payroll checks, delayed sending payroll checks, or wrote payroll checks for less than the amount owed. Every time theses things happened, the Corp. claimed it was difficulties with exchange rates and transfers to the USA bank from which pay checks were drawn for USA employees.
I happened to work right across the street from a US Federal Building, so one day, several co-workers and myself walked over to inquire about any remedies that might be possible. We provided documentation to the helpful FBI agent who said bouncing payroll checks could fall under FBI jurisdiction. I also happened to mention the situation to my congressman who I knew socially as a long time family friend. A few weeks later, a Treasury Department person called and told us that nothing could be done to induce better behavior by a Canadian Corp. with respect to USA "employees", and furthermore, we weren't employees. We were considered independent contractors from the point of view of the Canadian Corp. Apparently, a shell USA Corp. employed us as regular employees with benefits and then contracted with the parent Corp. for our time. We received W-2 instead of 1099, but we were effectively 1099 contractors. The Treasury representative seemed to be telling us that we were not protected by USA labor laws or banking laws.
Treasury representative's statements didn't seem right, and we asked many questions to clarify our understanding. Several of us asked a local lawyer about the situation, and the answer we got was that any court action would have to start in Canada, and any settlement would be consumed by attorney fees. In other words, it wasn't worth it.
After a while of continued mistreatment, all of the USA employees except a few salesmen who worked on commission moved on to greener pastures. Such is life.
Oh, you don't have a union? Why the fuck do you not have a union?
What are my options to stop it? That's all he's asking. It's especially scary because the same govt that should be looking out for these abuses is actively participating in them. This is what happens when workers lose solidarity. They'll come for you and your wages next.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
One of the genius aspects of Anglo-American common law is that as a general principle breaking a law doesn't matter if there are no damages. The rise of the regulatory state is a big exception to this principle, unfortunately.
Yes, theoretically there may be a problem in the future. But if nobody is being hurt now, nobody should care. _When_ people are hurt by this, then those hurts can bring a lawsuit.
Waiting for damages to occur might be foolish, but it's much less foolish than allowing people or the state to dictate behavior solely based on imagined harms.
I'm not an attorney, but generally speaking the distinctions between being a contractor and an employee don't matter independently of some other dispute, such as taxation, workplace regulations, etc. They're a form of status, the question of which is irrelevant outside of a real dispute.
You think states are misusing contractors and breaking the law. You've announced you already have retained counsel and plan legal action.
And now, just as a way of making conversation, you want people to share their stories of their experiences with you.
Slashvertizements take all forms, I guess. But at least be straight with us. You're looking for either witnesses or additional plaintiffs for your case. Man up and say so.
If you're dumb enough to respond to this "question," enjoy your subpoena. And Dice, enjoy all your subpoenas demand you reveal the identities of every poster who responds.
Take your "question" and stick it where the sun don't shine.
With luck you could make a fortune. Any time a business claims a person is an independent contractor numerous state and federal agencies are defrauded. Workman's Compensation can not charge the usual fees. Unemployment is also defrauded. Programs such as food stamps and welfare suffer losses and others I probably have not thought of. For example the supposed contractor will take all kinds of illegal deductions from his taxes. The fraud it enables is endless. In theory the various agencies could enforce existing laws and you would get a substantial living just on turning in the companies that violate the law. But here is the sad and demonstrable fact. Businesses who get caught get very mild punishments. The actual punishments are so few and so cheap that the businesses keep right on with the violations. Compare it with companies that make huge sums defrauding the public. They steal a billion bucks and are ordered to pay back only one hundred million. The message is loud and clear. Business is above the law and above the government. In my area the great offender is the phone sales and telemarketing racket. I could easily catch and turn in three companies every day of the week except Sunday. Almost none of these employees are in fact contractors. And pretty much every phone call they make is criminal. But make note that the government rarely shuts them down and when they do the punishments are so minor that they open up right away a few blocks down the street. American business is pretty much a criminal conspiracy and nothing more than that.
Private Prisons provide sub-standard food and medical care, that no state employee could possibly defend.
Charter schools sometimes provide religious instructions that the state could not get away with.
Private adoption agencies reject people based on illegal standards.
Charities insist on certain religious requirement that the states could not do.
One of the secrets is that when the private contractor gets caught, they lose the contract - and their senior employees start/join another company doing the exact same thing, and gets a new contract with the same state.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
This is exactly what Clinton did to reduce the size of the federal government.
It has the added benefit of giving his buddies the contract--which has to be the full motivation because it did not save any money.
The state has vast legal resources.
I am not a lawyer, but it seems like this matter likely has the potential to be turned into a class action matter.
Not to troll for work on /., but if you need counsel with experience in successfully litigating large scale class action suits, get in touch with me. (replace the ve with rmstrong at gmail in my name) We work with some of the largest law firms in the world and routinely handle class action suits. I cannot list specific disputes due to client confidentiality, but they are some of the largest matters that have been settled in the last decade and have received plenty of media attention. There are plenty of firms who are not representing the large state that you speak of and they can easily pass a conflict check.
If your attorney is advising you to go find another job and more or less ignore this, he is not the right person to be representing you. You are aware of the extent of the issue and the potential ramifications. Find a firm that also understands that and you all can make significant amounts of money.
...what's the question?
The big question is whether state misreporting of employees and IC's is a big deal. Anonymous poster sees gross hypocrisy by his government and is told by legal counsel that it's not a big deal, wants others to weigh in so that he can better conceptualize how he should feel about this--he's looking to third parties for feedback on something that strikes him as morally suspect and affects his life. That's actually an incredibly healthy, rational, and unusual attitude.
Is it a big deal? Yes and no. It's common to have people misrepresent employees as ICs in order to avoid the legal responsibilities of employment--that's *why* the IRS and various states crack down on it. So it's certainly not an *unusual* deal. And if you're making bank, it may not affect you much personally.
But it may affect a lower-income worker who gets treated the same way by the state and is denied overtime benefits, or the woman who's discriminated against by the state's hiring process and finds it much harder to sue, or the corrections officer who doesn't get a pension, for example. So there's some reason to call the state out on it for the public good.
There's *also* a strong argument that they should be called out on it because *they should have to put up with* the employment rules everyone else follows. They're the ones who change the rules, so they should experience having to live with them.
So there are reasons to responsibly disclose, but not much personal benefit to you. You risk a whistleblower sign over your head for the rest of your career unless you do it intelligently. You could sort of go a middle-ground, where you don't go to the press, for example, but do include a note on your taxes that the state has deliberately misclassified you as an independent contractor as part of a systemic process that affects many thousands of employees. I have no idea if the IRS would do anything with it (I'm guessing not), but you would be reporting it. Ah, here we go, the IRS has a way to report fraud:
http://www.irs.gov/Individuals...
this is your problem:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
of course, in a sane society, rather than tearing down state employees for their lavish benefits and income, people would be insisting their own salaries be raised to match, to reverse how their salaries and benefits have been gutted the last few decades so the CEO can buy more gold toilets and mistresses
look to scott walker's effort to gut unions: there's a lot more of that from his playbook coming across republican controlled state houses soon
unfortunately the average american is a hate filled small minded seflish bigot, and would rather tear others down to their level than work together and build a sane society. good job, crab mentality assholes. plutocrats take more and more, you get less and less, and all you can do is boil and hate and rage and tear everyone else down around you
question is why anyone sane and intelligent ever votes republican. not that the democrats are much better but they obvious ARE better
rather than holding out for ideological perfection that will never come, vote strategically: push society closer in the direction you want, don't expect to society to arrive at where you are automatically with one vote, and you're just holding out for that magic vote that will never come
almost as bad as hate filled propagandized fox news watching crab mentality bigots is ivory tower ideological dreamers who will never get involved and only judge in acid cynicism from a distance. the real world is about compromises and corners, never perfection you airheads
vote strategically
intellectual property law is philosophically incoherent. it is your moral duty to ignore it or sabotage it
So are you happy with the money or not?
If you're happy with the money, stay, if you're not, quit.
Even if the state is clearly in the wrong, this will be fought against tooth and nail, and the facts misrepresented as delaying tactic until the person(s) who lobbied for this corruption has retired with their pension (and most likely a big fat bonus for reducing costs), at which point, 10 years later, the state will relent, blame it all on a former employee, and quietly institute the same policy again after the heat has died down.
Rinse and repeat.
And don't expect the feds to be in your corner: odds say they are doing the exact same thing, and aren't looking forward to having their corruption called out either.
I have seen this scenario play out time and time again, with the same laws being broken over and over again, and ten years later after all the appeals have been exhausted; nothing changes. It has gotten so bad that certain parties in management support government employee unions as they are the least corrupt people in the room. Think about that for a moment.
*government employee*
Problem solved.
-- Tigger warning: This post may contain tiggers! --
Like classifying someone as your housekeeper when they are actually your mistress....
You clearly demonstrate this point
unfortunately the average american is a hate filled small minded seflish bigot
with this remark
question is why anyone sane and intelligent ever votes republican.
It could be worse, you could be vested in their pension program. The fact is that human beings are not well equipped to manage 7 billion human souls on earth today. The economics is too complex and dynamic for our mammalian lives and tribal clans to fully conceive. Even IF everyone was fair and agreed to a system, it would likely fail to function for very long before short stick ends were everywhere. Perhaps the idea that there are perhaps one billion jobs for seven billion people should be a clue. The fact that half of those are not profit driven is the next clue. There will never be enough money around for society to be smooth and steady for long. If money is what we lack, then everyone is poor. We need to learn to exchange a little more social currency, because central banks will always be hoarders. Quantitative easing is a numbers game, but its hardly sufficient at building highways or educating brain surgeons for very much longer. My point is that, yes you're absolutely right, it ain't like it was, and its not even close to how you think it might be. Its a dynamic force that is frankly getting to be too much to manage without tremendous flexibility and open mindedness, until we simply surrender to nature. Nature is, after all, where this all started. Human nature may be where it stands, for the time being. Like in Cairo, Athens, Rome - the Golden Ages come and go. The Empire must be getting a little week at the knees if they outsource IT.
The state can do whatever it wants. If you think laws apply to the state and federal departments then you were either born yesterday or have no clue as to how the real work actually works.
Do not look at laser with remaining good eye.
Usually in these situations the government agency issues a 1099 to a staffing company. The staffing company issues W-2's to these people because they are employees of the staffing company. How do you know these people receive 1099's?
Get stuck in the elevator and bill $100HR rounded up. So 61 min = 2 hours.
Your own comment is surprisingly hate filled. There are effectively no private sector employers who offer pension plans. There is no way to ask for or get the same benefits as public employees in the private sector. Unions in the private sector were unable to protect those benefits and ultimately unable to preserve their own existence in most cases. Economists who study the issue have concluded that the benefits of union membership come at the expense of non-union workers. In the case of public sector unions it is obvious to see since they are tax payer supported. Given that public sector unions get those benefits primarily through directly influencing the political process, primarily of the Democrat party, it is perfectly reasonable for the tax payers to revolt against being exploited. People who vote Republican are voting strategically.
Obviously the real issue is that you didn't
negotiate a contract that compensated
you financially for the benefits you think
you deserve but are not getting.
So when faced with a situation like this I use my own laptop (virtualize theirs) and show up when I darn well please - when they complain I show them the IRS page. And instruct them they should consult with the IRS.
"You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed." http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employed/Independent-Contractor-Defined
I tell them that I, as an independent contractor, "has the right to control or direct only the result of the work and not what will be done and how it will be done", we can renegotiate the contract if they would like changes
$1200 is not a high deductible, and hasn't been for some time.
I was a W-2 contractor for 7 years until corporate policy forced them to convert me. Got my 2009 15% pay cut back, fully covered the difference in health insurance, and got paid vacation - net win. No more or less job security.
But I've also done 1099 work, and it took me a while to get the hang of it. When I did, I focused exclusively on getting the work done. This gave me really mornings, really early end of days, and most Fridays off. And, I know kinda weird, but I terminated my own contract when there was no more to do. They never intended to hire me on full time, which I knew..
A 1099 should be able to:
Use whatever tools they choose to do the work, with reasonable accommodations for systems, languages, platforms, etc in the IT world.
Work wherever hours they find necessary, while being available for reasonable meetings, collaborations, and reports.
Be expected to deliver a definable project, product, or service with a definable timeframe or deadline.
Not be expected to manage employees or other contractors unless part of aaaspecific team defined in advance.
Not be expected to perform work that can be defined by hours worked, especially if that definition could lead to defining some work as overtime.
It is possible that the state may exempt itself from federal law, but I wouldn't count on it. I've also been part of three DOL enforcement actions, two for overtime and one for disclosure and failure to pay benefits and severance according to contract. It's not always a good idea to try to rat out an employer. Labor may also audit you. And then the IRS piles on. It does not get better very fast.
Given a choice, I might prefer 1099 in the future, but a W-2 contractor is not a bad gig, so long as you understand that you probably have lightly or no wage security, no tenure, and so no real security at all other than the client's integrity and your agency's lack thereof.
deleting the extra space after periods so i can stay relevant, yeah.
If you're through a consulting company that sells your time to the state and managed like an employee then you're not an employee of the state. You're an employee of that consulting company. The arrangement between the state and your employer is one thing, and your arrangement with the consulting company is another. Your company can't sell your time on a regular schedule to the state and then tell you you're a contract employee. That doesn't mean the state can't contract for a company's employees to be assigned to work on-site at the state's offices, though.
If you're on contract with the state directly, then they should treat you like a contractor. If they manage you as an employee, they need to employ you internally. If they want to keep you as a contractor, they should give you those freedoms.
You need to know that this isn't just about you. Allowing yourself to be treated as an employee and compensated as a contractor weakens everyone else's position, too. In fact, there's probably a union like AFSCME that would be very interested to talk to you about this.
By making strict laws about classification of workers, the state has decided that a high level of protection for workers is more important that the freedom of business and private citizens to make their own decisions about how they buy and sell their time. The state should lead by example, showing that their rules are not overly onerous while protecting workers. If they do not, how can the citizens be sure that the state is correct in its assessment?
You should pursue this matter as a form of civil action. If, eventually, any money is recovered beyond lawyers' fees, you can always donate it to charity (a jobs training program would be a good fit).
You are probably out of luck.
flsaovertimelaw.com/tag/eleventh-amendment-immunity/
--AC
the whole point of having a State is that there is one set of rules for State actors and another set of rules for everybody else. Qualified immunity, massive pollution, wasting resources, welching on promises, breaking every damn law on the books when it furthers wealth and power; how about you go work for a business that's not so wildly corrupt? - heck, even on Wall Street you'd do better.
My God, it's Full of Source!
OUTSIDE_IP=$(dig +short my.ip @outsideip.net)
Every single contract I worked on save for one required that you use the company's equipment on site due to security requirements of the job. Every single one.
This isn't some weird "breach of regulations" -- it's the norm.
WTF are you bothering with a lawyer for? Aren't you paid enough to just do your damned job and STFU? You think you're going to "cash out" with some big lawsuit?
Even if you do cash out, expect to be blacklisted by every agency across the country when they find out what you've done, and never to work again.
I do not fail; I succeed at finding out what does not work.
Stop complaining become a corp you and wife are empolyees of the corporate. Pay yourself a salary. Setup has and be done.
Talk like you know the score, but don't do the math.
Rampant.
Illegal.
Despicable.
Unless you really want to be a poster child, your lawyer is giving you good advice. Advice, which, BTW, is against their short term financial interest. Good attorneys often suggest not suing, and just moving on, particularly when you can do so with minimal/no cost to you.
Still, I'm with you on this - I really hate when politicians and agencies or anyone for that matter imposes rules on others, then exempts or ignores the rules themselves.
Since you are a 1099 you are able to deduct business related expenses from your tax return that you cannot otherwise take as a W-2. Eg, a computer at home, internet access, cell phone, professional memberships, publications, conferences, all to keep up with your profession. You might be able to deduct some car expenses but since you drive to the same location every day this is generally not allowed. Are you required to wear any specific clothes, like no jeans or shorts? If so then those can be expensed. Also the costs of some insurance can be expensed. And you don't need to be an LLC or have a fed tax ID. There's a long list of expenses, and I suspect your income is modest so the chance of an audit is very low.
... look it up. The idea is that lawmakers are not bound by the very laws they write because they could have written themselves immunity. IOW, the boss rules.
This is deeply unAmerican and rooted in fealty to power rather than all power flowing from the people and laws (& Constitutions) first and foremost binding governments. That states (and the Feds too!) [ab]use this convenient feature merely shows them to by tyrants, perhaps fearsome but unworthy of respect.
(Standard Operating Procedure). It's what all big institutional rule-makers do: break the rules they apply to everybody else. Examples:
Centuries ago, the Catholic Church (acting as a quasi-federal government of Europe) was telling everybody how to live, but then its rich members (who like rich people everywhere think they have the right to buy everything) were allowed to purchase "indulgences" (certificates authorizing them to sin) - this was one of the things that led the German monk Martin Luther to rebel, and started the Protestant movement.
The Supreme Court and the Congress have ordered all Americans to participate in "Obamacare", but the Court exempted itself (there is a small effort underway in Congress to force the justices and their staffs into the system) and the members of congress hoped the public would not notice that the biggest bi-partisan act in congress of the past four years was that the thousands of Capitol Hill staffers were all quietly classified as small business employees working for businesses (a new fiction that each office on the Hill is a small business) small enough to be exempt from all those employer mandates.
The congress passed laws decades ago which banned stock trades based on information not available to the public (insider trading) - but they exempted themselves even though they (via closed-door hearings, tips from their campaign backers, etc) have access to more data than anybody else in the country including the knowledge of all the future regulations they plan to pass, products and services they plan to ban, and subsidies they plan to award.
The presidents of the United States have, for nearly a century, denied security clearances to users of hard drugs like cocaine - Our current president has exempted himself.
The federal government in the US has gone insane regulating so-called wetlands to the extent that bits of personal property that get water on them once in a decade have been labelled as wetlands and construction on them banned - but half of Manhattan and most of Washington DC are sited on ACTUAL swamps and the government says nothing.
This is illustrative of two points:
1. Big organizations are corrupt and dangerous by nature (Democrats refuse to accept this about government, and Establishment Republicans refuse to accept this about corporations).
2. By their own actions, these organizations prove that their rules are unjust, unworkable, contrary to efficiency, etc. When asked, they will always explain that they HAD to avoid their rules for some good reason, but often those reasons are the very same ones the people they apply the rules to would also cite for needing relief!
Either you're an employee and get loaded up with benefits of being an employee, or you're a contractor and you get loaded up with benefits of being an employee for the contracting company. That is not a misclassification.
Now if you're a one man contractor then I would question your own policies. Not sure what the laws are like where you are but in some countries even if you act as your own sole contractor you are effectively your own employee and have an obligation to pay your own retirement fund, pay your own sick leave / holidays and provide yourself benefits. Naturally all this is made up by the higher fees contractors charge companies compared to how much an employee is paid. The difference is overhead and benefits.
Or am I missing something.
where the hell have you been? Plus you're not paying into unemployment. It's not there for when _you're_ laid off, it's there to keep you from competing with desperate people when _they_ get laid off.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
Once the status quo becomes set, there are no other clients who would pay properly or provide benefits. Everyone pays unsustainably and the workers become indentured due to an inability to gather the resources to be independent.
I know it probably doesn't affect you now (hell, you can *afford* legal advice) but in the long run it'll affect everyone.
The federal government and universities do the same. For all the talk about fair employment, I don't know that many leaders of large bureaucratic organizations have the ability to enforce fair employment practices on their people.
The bottom line is that offices that do this are not going to be good places to work, whether you're a contractor or an employee. I've worked in government for really great managers who were required by law to do stupid things to their employees. Government managers are often balancing contradictory requirements, and you end up with situations like this all the time.
I've worked two state jobs as a permanent employee. One with the RI Department of Attorney General, the other with the RI Department of Secretary of State.
But I'll lay dollars to donuts you're talking about a state in the south.
now what happens when you're 50 an you actually need medical care? You've been in and out of contract gigs your whole life and you're past your "sell-by" date now. Good luck getting one of those cushy jobs with benefits after your relentless pursuit of a quick dollar causes them all to go away.
You're also skirting unemployment insurance. Remember, unemployment is _not_ for you to take. It's there so you don't end up competing in a race to the bottom with desperate wage slaves when the economy takes a minor dip. That way when you're contract comes up for renewal they don't say "that's great cayenne8, but we've got 80 folks with your same skill set offering to do the job for 1/3 the pay. Will you take 1/6?".
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The Republican party intentionally underfunded them to prevent enforcement. They also gave them a directive to audit a certain percentage of low income tax earners as part of the "compromise" that came with the earned income tax credit from the 90s. Both of these are verifiable facts. We've got a substantial part of the political power base that wants to lower wages. Discuss amongst yourselves if that's a good thing or not.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
If you agreed to be an employee and they classified you as a contractor, then sue them. if you agreed to be a contractor knowing full well that you would be responsible for your own FICA, then live with it.
I don't understand why the government gets to decide if somebody is an employee or a contractor. If two parties agree to an employee or contractor relationship, then their agreement should determine the status of their relationship. A lot of these lawsuits involve people who knowing signed up as a contractor and even got paid extra, then later, after not paying their taxes, decided to sue the company for, well, abiding by the terms of their contract.
This has made it difficult for people who want to be contractors to enjoy long term contracts. I have multiple clients myself, but if I wanted to have one client that I worked for 40 hours per week at their office with their equipment, at their direction for 50 years and be paid on an hourly contract basis and pay my FICA, why should I not be allowed to do that? Nanny State-ism. That's why.
If you are not allowed to question your government then the government has answered your question.
there was a time after WWII that we didn't tolerate it. It's also coincidentally the best time in US History economically.
One thing I know for sure, the "State" is really our only hope. I can't think of anything that can stand up to the might of a Mega-Corp. Maybe the won't; maybe they'll always just be in cahoots. But I'm watching local gov'ts get picked apart one by one. They just don't have the power. If you want to get something done in America you use the federal gov't. That's how we got rid of Apartheid (we called it "Separate but Equal") and that's how we got Gay Marriage. I've never once seen a bunch of small disconnected states do anything about real oppression. It always took a bigger, better organized power stepping in.
Hi! I make Firefox Plug-ins. Check 'em out @ https://addons.mozilla.org/en-US/firefox/addon/youtube-mp3-podcaster/
The "managed very differently" aspect is just a new set of fancy expensive contractors with new security products to sell or rent.
Gov using contractors to watch over skilled contractors as they help gov upgrade to expensive new security.
The covert side of the gov and mil wanted the skills but no questions, no paper trail, no project names, multiple social security numbers, social media magic and an instant job interface between the public and private sector. That was harder to create but offers stories to different covert groups long term.
The private sector also needed ways to escape of paying all the local wages. Why not just hire a local cleared front company and have a long tail of cheap supply globally while meeting all the paper work. Disassembled and recreated with all the local paperwork. Multi nationals could then front for mil/gov grade work using lower wages and have the same legal standing for any mil/gov contract without traditional domestic costs.
The result is a perfect method of hiding projects, hiding global support by contractors for different projects, keeping costs hidden, reducing local wage claims and making top staff feel they are not been tracked.
At their level as they have passed all the tests and are trusted alone, with vast plain text databases...
Cleared staff feel they have an open database to transverse looking up projects and names without been logged. How they use access has been watched for decades.
The freedom to look at open, plain text databases allow 'everyone' to look at fake names, fake projects, fake tasks, fake support requests that are all traps waiting for any sign of been searched for at any level on any network.
The national media attention about leaks might induce random cleared staff to look up a wide variety of projects and names... and that can be noted.
The new classifying system is not designed to be understood. It is designed to understand and test every cleared worker all the time while offering freedom to the private sector, hide covert needs from all and keep security contractors funded.
Its not a new idea. The UK tried it in the 1910-40's, rapid expansion, new technology, experts, rushed language support. The win was understanding most embassy work/codes in use in Europe as used. The downside is the loss of internal vetting control long term.
Domestic spying is now "Benign Information Gathering"
I think someone has to do something about that. Should do something about that. Because it is wrong, and because governments need to be held to the letter of the law if we're to be safe from them.
I managed a software development shop for a state agency until I retired, and we had contractors in the shop for large development projects, as there was a huge resistance to actually hiring people. So we would spend $140,000/year for really good developers, instead of hiring someone as a FTE for $50,000.
One governor had the HR agency implement a requirement that we ask interviewees what their minimum salary would be to join our shop, and then would approve a max offer several thousand dollars lower than that minimum. That made it kind of impossible to hire anyone with good skills and an understanding of their market worth.
I think you should hang these law breakers out to dry. But you need to understand that whistle-blowers often are hung out to dry themselves, and frequently have career ending events as that process winds up.
Think of the Irony!
Government employees have a very strong union that would probably love to have you (and all people in similar positions) as members (which would be required if you are declared employees). So they'd have their legal team handle it for you. Don't care to be a union member? Better drop the question then ...
It is people that would listen to what this lawyer says that are responsible for the rest of their fellow man having to suffer such bullshit treatment.
You shouldn't be asking shit of us, here. You should be suing and forming a class-action against the state, despite what your counsel has said (they don't want you to file because if you refuse to settle and win, you just cost them a fuckton of possible future work. They are NOT going to look out for your best interests. If they did, our legal system would not be as fucked as it is now.)
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Just vote them out.
It's not like you're in a two party system without options.
This is a necessary evil to maintain any semblance of government. Without the concept that the government would be able to do approximately bugger-all. Jail time? Suddenly the goverment can't do that because it's kidnapping. Compelled to follow a judicial ruling against you? Your options are jail (kidnapping) or fines (theft/mugging.) How exactly do you intend to have a functional government without the concept of sovereign immunity? The idea is that the people agree on where the government is allowed to break the laws, that's where you get the idea of power stemming from the people.
I've been there, and the tax rules where I live drove me out. I think it was a requirement that I get no more than 70% income from a single source per quarter that drove me back to being an employee - full time plus more than 30% extra time somewhere else sucks along with juggling two employers who want you NOW when anything more than trivial turns up. Expect something like that in your area some day when tax authorities want to crack down.
Welcome to the new Normal people. This is what a criminal government looks like and does.
What's good for you, is.
Now shut up and sit down before I rendition your ass to Guantanamo indefinitely!
(really, if they're willing to 'disappear' so many people, do you really think your piss-ant employment contract means anything to the powers that be?)
You say the goal is "to cut costs", but what costs?
If the cost-savings comes from undermining a union, they probably would have sued already, so I'm guessing it's not that.
This shouldn't be a tax dodge, because 1099s should end up paying roughly the same federal and state tax, so it must be a reduction in actual compensation. Assuming that's the case, those being harmed look to be the 1099 employees themselves. As such, it would seem like a class action suit would be the appropriate course of action. If the state itself isn't willing to abide by the rule, it shouldn't expect others to either. The state should either follow the rule or repeal it.
set softtabstop=4 shiftwidth=4 expandtab nocp worlddomination
This behavior is nonsense and must be objected to!! What does allowing this and going along with it say about your belief in your own worth and the worth of others. By going along with this, you support a belief that you are worthless, a cog in the machine. You get to keep what you give away, which means you get to experience for yourself what you belive and pass on to others. You are MUCH more than it, and if you could see yourself in the totality of what the universe sees you as, you would be amazed. Object in whatever way you can, for your sake and everyone else's sake. Ask the universe to see what is TRUE (not what they "believe" and agree to") about yourself and everything around you. You do need to get very quiet and listen, but by persistence you will ultimately see it. If a sufficient number of people object, at least meantally, this kind of behavior can be undone.
See Venture Insurance Services' "Independent Contractor Criteria" at http://ventureins.com/index.php/faqs-mainmenu-29/16-faqs/107-independent-contractor-criteria
Regardless of who actually hands over the paycheck, it looks like "The State" is the actual employer here, and so is probably liable for pension, insurance, sick leave, vacations, and holiday pay.
This can make a huge difference later in life, or if a "contractor" (i.e., an actual if unacknowledged employee) has an accident or falls ill. (Who's gonna pay for your chemotherapy, for example - you, out-of-pocket, or your actual employer's health insurance plan?)
See the 20-item list at the link above for clarification.
A good point even if it is reductio ad absurdam. The key concept is "due process". Yes, sometimes a goverment (really the adminstration) may have cause to break some laws in the furtherence of law enforcement. These should be strictly limited and subject to open judicial and legislative oversight. "Sovereign immunity" is the analog to writs of assistance (general warrents) which the Courts have partially quashed with the interesting doctrine of "fruit of the poisoned vine".
Quod licet Iovis, non licet bovis ...
What is legal for Jupiter, is not legal for an ox ...
2bits.com, Inc: Drupal, WordPress, and LAMP performance tuning.
A nuclear plant has 600-700 on staff year round but when they shut down for maintenance; they bring in 1500-2000 workers for the project.
In the 1990s; The IRS came down hard on the companies that were contracted to fill such slots. For a long time Health Physics personnel were "independent consultants" and paid with a 1099 classification. There is a line between "consultants" and "employee at will". Two companies were fined to bankruptcy over improper classification of workers. These days when I take a contract; withholding taxes, FICA, and insurance are automatically taken out. Big whoop, but less paperwork for me than getting a 1099.
The IRS has probably changed their interpretations of the tax code multiple times since the early 1990s but back then they applied the standard that if you worked over 90 days for a company in a calendar year doing the same or similar work you could not be considered a 1099 employee but a "temporary: employee complete with income tax withholding, employer contribution to FICA, etc.
Given the way employment law works, employer is screwed!. Can work under their rules and RETROACTIVELY complain years later. Burden of proof against any employee claim is on the employer. It is their responsibility to keep records. So can work and retroactively file a claim for damages/compensation. They will be liable for FICA taxes. I do not know if you can get any payments you make back though. They will be liable for retroactive overtime pay(burden of proof of hours is on the employer--they need to disprove your hours claimed), if applicable as well as any state required employee benefits. If injured, you file for workman's comp and make the retroactive employee claim at that time. This is likely to end in a class action against the state when the potential fees become high enough. Unfortunately, the taxpayers get screwed in this process and not the incompetent government officials responsible.
It's a race to the bottom, unfortunately.
I think there are employers (mostly small and medium sized) who want to offer better benefits and pay to their employees but they can't because it would make them too un-competitive.
This is where legislation can play a role, by forcing companies to have things like pensions, minimum wages, paid vacation time etc. It allows companies to be on the same level playing field. Obviously it can't go too far; a $100/hr minimum wage with 100 paid vacation days per year is taking a bit far.
European style centre right here btw.