ECON Biden's proposed gig worker rule could deal a major blow to small businesses

[20Gauge]

Biden's proposed gig worker rule could deal a major blow to small businesses

A new rule from the Biden administration could make it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors, a proposal that could hurt small businesses.

www.foxbusiness.com

The Biden administration has proposed a new rule that could re-classify millions of gig workers as employees, a move that could deal a significant blow to small businesses across the country.


The Labor Department on Tuesday unveiled a new proposal that would make it more difficult for companies to classify their workers as independent contractors — a change that could have major consequences for ride-hailing, delivery and other industries that depend heavily on gig workers.

Companies are required to provide certain benefits and legal protections to employees but not contractors, making employment of those types of workers more expensive. That includes minimum wage, overtime, Social Security and Medicare payroll taxes, unemployment insurance and workers' compensation insurance.

In determining whether a worker qualifies as an independent contractor or not, the Labor Department said it would take into consideration the worker's "opportunity for profit or loss, investment, permanency, the degree of control by the employer over the worker, (and) whether the work is an integral part of the employer’s business," among other factors.

The final rule is expected to come next year.

While the proposal could give millions of workers employee status, it could also have potentially catastrophic consequences for small businesses already struggling with the hottest inflation in four decades and a persistent labor shortage.

"This is a rule that's only going to make it more challenging for small businesses to operate in today’s already difficult economy," Beth Milito, executive director of the National Federal of Independent Business' legal center, told FOX Business.

Businesses say their operating costs could surge if they are required to classify gig workers as employees, and as a result, employers could be forced to cut payroll or freeze hiring in order to keep their bottom line strong. They have also noted that some employees like the flexibility that gig work provides, including the option to work for different companies if they choose to do so.

Milito noted the new rule comes as businesses are already grappling with a labor shortage that has forced them to raise wages exponentially as they compete with other companies for a limited pool of workers. According to recent Labor Department data, there are still roughly 1.7 jobs available for every person looking for one.

"It’s just all not good for small businesses," she said. "It's more expensive and a lot more uncertainty. … This rule is only going to make it more challenging for businesses to get the help they need to run their business."

Gig companies like Uber and Lyft have spoken out about the proposed change and warned that having to treat their drivers like employees could force them to modify their business practices. Some estimates show that the ride-sharing companies save up to 20% to 30% on labor costs by classifying their employees as independent contractors rather than employees.

On Tuesday, the acting head of the Labor Department's Wage and Hour Division told reporters that the rule is unlikely to result in large worker classification changes.

"What we anticipate is that this will really help provide guidance to both avoid and prevent misclassification," Jessica Looman said during a press call, according to Bloomberg News. "But this is a framework that has been used and has been well recognized and understood."

 

[20Gauge]

If you are a 1099 this year, expect that to change next year!

The admin is looking for revenue everywhere it can. The self employed is the perfect place to raise 100s of billions fast.

Why?

Companies are more likely to pay payroll taxes and be current in their taxes than a 1099. I know that from seeing thousands upon thousands of clients over the last decade.

People will come in and tell me constantly ( after the fact ) that they took an extra "job" and now have a 1099. I try and explain that they started a company and they now owe about 1/3 of that income to the feds/state and they get really pissed. Yes there is a small minority that know beforehand, but the majority by far don't.

These people usually they owe taxes for the 1st time in their lives.

This is what the feds are after. They want these people to pay and pay during the year. Forcing them to become employees is the way to do it.

If you don't believe me, look at the "new" rules..... they are all set on opinion. Such as how valuable or "integral" you are to the company. Why would you be there if you aren't important????

I can tell you from experience, the state DOL WILL ALWAYS (99+%) of the time find the 1099 is an employee. Why, they get more power.

Get ready folks

 

[223shootersc]

More stupid from the bedum and company!!

 

[Melodi]

I like the bill Colorado passed after an underage worker was killed on the job delivering newspapers and the paper hadn't paid worker's comp because they said he was an independent contractor. The judge did not agree, because the child didn't work for any other papers or anyone else delivering anything; he was a part-time worker but not an independent one.

To clarify things, Colorado passed a law (in the 1980s) that defined an independent contract as someone who works for at least three different employers doing the same job at the same time or has at least X, Y, Z (I forget the number) of contracts with different employers over the course of a year. This also stopped corporations at the time, from endlessly hiring real employees "under contracts" that they just kept renewing rather than making them employees.

There were exemptions for temporary workers and a lot of large companies got around the laws by just using temp agencies in the same way that today many "contract out" work to avoid any responsibility.

In my experience working in the Colorado Worker's Compensation board, it was actually small businesses that were the most likely to be bankrupted when an employee was hurt or killed on the job (most often by car accidents). They would think their employees were "independent" and they were not (even before the law changes); the larger companies could handle the fines and pick up the tab for lawyers to try and reach a "settlement." Smaller places just ended up handing over the keys essentially to the injured employee and sometimes their personal property like houses.

 

[Blacknarwhal]

Just what every writer wants to hear....

 

[nwillitts]

if you work you owe the feds,that is slavery.if you do not work you are not under the thumb of the feds,that is freedom.
i don't work to give my money away to a useless entity.i owe them nothing.

 

[Thinwater]

I think this is to push more employers into the "50 employees" and up bracket that requires them to provide full health care insurance. Under 50 employees does not as of the last time I checked.

I provided my 30 employees health care until this (Obamacare) law passed, then they doubled my rates since most companies were required to pay for it and they had guaranteed customers as required by law.

I tried to give the employees checks to cover their obamacare premium but that is illegal also. They screw the small company any way that they can. It makes it hard to compete with big companies for employees.

 

[Melodi]

Just what every writer wants to hear....

Publishing and writing are different because you effectively are your own business. At least most publishers I ever dealt with or saw Nightwolf deal with, you signed contracts per book or for a series of books. There was often an "understanding" that you wouldn't shop for a book to anyone else and a few publishers had clauses like your next book they got to make an offer on first, but they don't employ the writer (or even the agent directly).

Now it gets a bit greyer when it comes to things like writing for newspapers, media outlets, or other larger companies. I do know that the BBC got into terrible trouble when it was discovered they had been letting their "stars" become "independent contractors" (because they made more money that way than the stars did). The UK courts (different legal system) rule they were really employees, and the BBC would probably have been bankrupted if it wasn't the government broadcaster by all the fines and back payments they had to make. The "employees" had to pay out quite a bit too, but their situation was a bit different, they all had to immediately sign contracts with the BBC and I forget how the rest of it worked out.

My guess would be if you write for multiple publications or media outlets you are fine, if you work only for one company or newspaper, then you might be considered a part-time employee depending on how the law handles things.

In reality, this should probably be left up to the States rather than trying to make a federal law about it - but the courts have ruled over and over again most of the time in the US and almost always in the UK and Europe that if you work exclusively for one employer, you are an employee.

There is also starting to be some (in my opinion vastly needed) crackdown on big corporations who "hire out" their entire workforce so they are "not liable" for anything that goes wrong in the factories, warehouses, or delivery services. That situation is a lot more complex and will take a lot more time to sort out.

I would point out that in most other countries (so far) where it comes up - Uber and other "apps" like that have been found to be employers and responsible for their employees. How much and to what degree varies, but I suspect the growing number of crimes committed by some rotten apple drivers as well as their payment practices had something to do with that.

 

[Blacknarwhal]

Publishing and writing are different because you effectively are your own business. At least most publishers I ever dealt with or saw Nightwolf deal with, you signed contracts per book or for a series of books. There was often an "understanding" that you wouldn't shop for a book to anyone else and a few publishers had clauses like your next book they got to make an offer on first, but they don't employ the writer (or even the agent directly).

Now it gets a bit greyer when it comes to things like writing for newspapers, media outlets, or other larger companies. I do know that the BBC got into terrible trouble when it was discovered they had been letting their "stars" become "independent contractors" (because they made more money that way than the stars did). The UK courts (different legal system) rule they were really employees, and the BBC would probably have been bankrupted if it wasn't the government broadcaster by all the fines and back payments they had to make. The "employees" had to pay out quite a bit too, but their situation was a bit different, they all had to immediately sign contracts with the BBC and I forget how the rest of it worked out.

My guess would be if you write for multiple publications or media outlets you are fine, if you work only for one company or newspaper, then you might be considered a part-time employee depending on how the law handles things.

In reality, this should probably be left up to the States rather than trying to make a federal law about it - but the courts have ruled over and over again most of the time in the US and almost always in the UK and Europe that if you work exclusively for one employer, you are an employee.

There is also starting to be some (in my opinion vastly needed) crackdown on big corporations who "hire out" their entire workforce so they are "not liable" for anything that goes wrong in the factories, warehouses, or delivery services. That situation is a lot more complex and will take a lot more time to sort out.

I would point out that in most other countries (so far) where it comes up - Uber and other "apps" like that have been found to be employers and responsible for their employees. How much and to what degree varies, but I suspect the growing number of crimes committed by some rotten apple drivers as well as their payment practices had something to do with that.

That's where it gets interesting. First off, writers write for companies that aren't even in the US routinely. I spent years writing for Australians. I wrote for an Israeli firm once.

Then there are companies who don't want you writing for other firms in their sphere. That would probably change if there were rule changes that made multiple gigs available instead of proscribed.

 

[Samuel Adams]

“Could” ?

Did I read “could” in the thread title ?



*chuckle*

 

[20Gauge]

I like the bill Colorado passed after an underage worker was killed on the job delivering newspapers and the paper hadn't paid worker's comp because they said he was an independent contractor. The judge did not agree, because the child didn't work for any other papers or anyone else delivering anything; he was a part-time worker but not an independent one.

To clarify things, Colorado passed a law (in the 1980s) that defined an independent contract as someone who works for at least three different employers doing the same job at the same time or has at least X, Y, Z (I forget the number) of contracts with different employers over the course of a year. This also stopped corporations at the time, from endlessly hiring real employees "under contracts" that they just kept renewing rather than making them employees.

There were exemptions for temporary workers and a lot of large companies got around the laws by just using temp agencies in the same way that today many "contract out" work to avoid any responsibility.

In my experience working in the Colorado Worker's Compensation board, it was actually small businesses that were the most likely to be bankrupted when an employee was hurt or killed on the job (most often by car accidents). They would think their employees were "independent" and they were not (even before the law changes); the larger companies could handle the fines and pick up the tab for lawyers to try and reach a "settlement." Smaller places just ended up handing over the keys essentially to the injured employee and sometimes their personal property like houses.

I can not speak for other states, but in GA if the rules are followed, there really are no "independent 1099 workers"

The laws are written in such a manner that 99.9% of people are actually employees. Yet they haven't pushed the issue.

 

[20Gauge]

Just what every writer wants to hear....

Yeah, you would become an "employee"

 

[20Gauge]

Publishing and writing are different because you effectively are your own business. At least most publishers I ever dealt with or saw Nightwolf deal with, you signed contracts per book or for a series of books. There was often an "understanding" that you wouldn't shop for a book to anyone else and a few publishers had clauses like your next book they got to make an offer on first, but they don't employ the writer (or even the agent directly).

Now it gets a bit greyer when it comes to things like writing for newspapers, media outlets, or other larger companies. I do know that the BBC got into terrible trouble when it was discovered they had been letting their "stars" become "independent contractors" (because they made more money that way than the stars did). The UK courts (different legal system) rule they were really employees, and the BBC would probably have been bankrupted if it wasn't the government broadcaster by all the fines and back payments they had to make. The "employees" had to pay out quite a bit too, but their situation was a bit different, they all had to immediately sign contracts with the BBC and I forget how the rest of it worked out.

My guess would be if you write for multiple publications or media outlets you are fine, if you work only for one company or newspaper, then you might be considered a part-time employee depending on how the law handles things.

In reality, this should probably be left up to the States rather than trying to make a federal law about it - but the courts have ruled over and over again most of the time in the US and almost always in the UK and Europe that if you work exclusively for one employer, you are an employee.

There is also starting to be some (in my opinion vastly needed) crackdown on big corporations who "hire out" their entire workforce so they are "not liable" for anything that goes wrong in the factories, warehouses, or delivery services. That situation is a lot more complex and will take a lot more time to sort out.

I would point out that in most other countries (so far) where it comes up - Uber and other "apps" like that have been found to be employers and responsible for their employees. How much and to what degree varies, but I suspect the growing number of crimes committed by some rotten apple drivers as well as their payment practices had something to do with that.

You are correct under the old rules. This is changing the rules. I would see a writer being an employee under the new rules. Don't like it for sure, but that is the way they are writing it.

 

[Blacknarwhal]

Yeah, you would become an "employee"

No no, you would become "fired." The whole reason to have contractors is to save money.

 

[Melodi]

That's where it gets interesting. First off, writers write for companies that aren't even in the US routinely. I spent years writing for Australians. I wrote for an Israeli firm once.

Then there are companies who don't want you writing for other firms in their sphere. That would probably change if there were rule changes that made multiple gigs available instead of proscribed.

I know there are grey areas, which is why I mentioned this - but a law change simply lets publications and publishers know they have a choice. If the employee say me (ha, ha) to write a weekly column for XYZ salary per week/month/year and they don't want me to write for anyone else - I am an employee. Or, in theory, I am also allowed to write for other publications doing the same sort of work.

A lot of those "death clauses" are kind of iffy anyway, Nightwolf's very first publisher had one (they did it to all the newbies) and it actually wasn't legal, a good agent was able to send them a letter with a lawyer's backing. Now that one was illegal because it tried to make them able to buy anything the person ever wrote, any time in the future.

You are talking about a different situation, like the newspaper columnist (BoJo used to make 100,000 pounds a year or something like that writing one newspaper piece I think a day and he would be an Employee under such a law unless he was writing for another paper).

In reality, as you know, publishing has gone through so many changes in the last 30 years it has almost destroyed itself anyway, which is why we have so many independently published books and why so few people can make a living writing anymore (also something like THREE and it is almost down to TWO major megacorporations own every mainstream publisher in the world - they look like they are independent but they are not and all decisions are made by accountants and not much by editors). Again, that's books I'm talking about, they might have to change to make certain authors employees under such a law if they required them to only write for their company.

Publishing almost needs its own thread the situation is such a mess at this point.

 

[Melodi]

No no, you would become "fired." The whole reason to have contractors is to save money.

Well, the publishing houses already pretty much did that en mass in the early 2000s. Up until then, most publishing houses really were independent (there were like 50 of them) and each kept a "stable" of "mid-level" writers who got paid to write about one book a year. These people were the ranks of where most bestsellers came from, usually on the fourth book or the ninth, but they always sold well enough to keep the authors on board.

In the early 2000s, the publishers started to be bought up by mega-corporations whose only goal was making money, they fired almost all the "mid-level" writers overnight and kept only the mass best sellers or new writers they could pay pennies two but looked like they had a "product" that could sell a movie script perhaps before the book was even published.

Fast forward and now just three mega-corporations worldwide own all the major publishing houses and there was a lawsuit to try to get it down to two during a "buy-out" last year. Now there are hundreds if not thousands of small publishers (like mine) who are one step above doing it yourself and even more people that do it themselves.

I won't go into more details, just say that the publishing houses had their power to edit taken away from them and it was replaced by only one question "will it sell?" So now a few very lucky writers have contracts (and would probably be considered employees) but most still have to have agents shop each book to the different "divisions" of those three companies (with the old names of former companies still on them) or they just have to go to a small press or do self-publishing.

Now again that's different from periodicals, writing for professional journals and other stuff - again the question would be, do you write for more than one? You're a contractor, if not, yep you're probably an employee.

 

[bassgirl]

Wonder how this will affect Nursing agencies.

 

[20Gauge]

No no, you would become "fired." The whole reason to have contractors is to save money.

Both actually.

1st You would be fired.
2nd You would be an retro employee who gets the UE bennies....

 

[Dobbin]

The Biden administration has proposed a new rule that could re-classify millions of gig workers as employees, a move that could deal a significant blow to small businesses across the country.

THAT is the point. Small business competes with large (connected) business. And how exactly is "The Big Guy" going to get his 10 percent from large business if small business steals away market?

Joe and particularly his minions can't steal what they don't control. And their control on small business is still tenuous - but growing stronger. This is but one "grow."

I know Owner has thought about his "under the table" enterprises. The only thing that makes this work is the fact that Owner's investments and his social security bring him enough "normal income" to allow him "plausible deniability" about padding his income outside of the system. He says he looks good on paper regarding the formal financial reports of W2s, 1099s, and everything else - and the IRS leaves him alone.

If the Fed trashes the dollar - then these plausible deniabilitys disappear. And Owner is reduced to the "hand-out" he gets through Social Security - which make no mistake will be "adjusted" for inflation. Of course, that is inflation as the government reports it.

I can imagine it now. The Social Credit System tracks not only your conformance "socially" but also your conformance financially.

"Um. Mr. Owner - your purchases exceed your Guaranteed Income by a factor of 1.6 - Where exactly is the extra money coming from?"

Dobbin

 

[Blacknarwhal]

Both actually.

1st You would be fired.
2nd You would be an retro employee who gets the UE bennies....

Well, that would certainly help. I've never been able to claim UE before. But still, I'd rather be able to find work.

 

[kyrsyan]

I could think of a few jobs and places that will fold. My current job would be one of them. My future job... don't know.

I pay my taxes each year. But I know of many who didn't because the company did not send 1099s. And there are plenty that won't be happy when services like PayPal send 1099s this year.

 

[Countrybumpkin]

I clean part time for a small church-1099 at end of year...not much, but it sure helps! If they make me become an employee, I'll be let go for sure. Only pastor and I get paid, and I don't know if he is 1099 or not.

 

[20Gauge]

I clean part time for a small church-1099 at end of year...not much, but it sure helps! If they make me become an employee, I'll be let go for sure. Only pastor and I get paid, and I don't know if he is 1099 or not.

Pastors can opt out of the SS program under certain circumstances.

 

[Publius]

Until they get dragged into court because some one made more money as an independent contractor than they could forced under this law as an employee for one of the many companies he did contract work with.

 

[Dobbin]

I don't know if he is 1099 or not.

This horse imagines he is 1099.

Otherwise it would be "annual audit time" for the Minister. Like Owner, the 1099 shows he's "in the system" - and gives the IRS the "legitimate" number.

You can go to the IRS website and "look up" what they have electronically on you.

For a while access to this was limited to those who had established a "ID Me" account with the IRS. Owner did this - it took for him a video "audit" where he literally had to show his face AND his Driver's License ID in his hand PLUS scan and send the Driver's License. I overheard the audit (next room) and the IRS representative was nice - but obviously filling out the boxes.

Now I believe the ID Me requirements have been scrapped and the IRS is now back to the system they've used in past years.

Lessee if there is an update online...

Google Query: Do I have to use ID Me for IRS?

If you are a new Online Account user, you must create an ID.me account at the IRS and verify your identity. ID.me is a trusted credential service provider selected to support IRS.gov login services.

More at The IRS Changes ID.me Requirements | Philadelphia Legal Assistance

So I guess the answer is if you have an existing account with the IRS, you don't need ID Me to access it. New accounts you have to go through ID Me.

Dobbin

 

[rob0126]

Everyone see one reason for a cashless society?

 

[CaryC]

No no, you would become "fired." The whole reason to have contractors is to save money.

There is also starting to be some (in my opinion vastly needed) crackdown on big corporations who "hire out" their entire workforce so they are "not liable" for anything that goes wrong in the factories, warehouses, or delivery services. That situation is a lot more complex and will take a lot more time to sort out.

That's exactly right from a big business POV.

Cooper/now Goodyear to cut expenses, contracted out several "classes" of jobs. The old jobs paid in the mid 20.00 an hour, The new jobs paid minimum wage for the state of MS, no medical, no vac. no 401, no nothing.

Even having to hire more employees at minimum wage to cover the 20.00 employees. they saved money.

The actual cost to the company for the 20.00 an hour employee was in the mid 30.00 an hour for health, vacation, matching 401K funds, etc., but they can't keep anyone working at minimum wage rates for very long, and in some cases not even a 12 hours. Saving money with a big headache.

The first contractor hired non english speaking mexicans, went from 6 to 12, and had to hire an interpreter. Then one day none of them showed up. Must of thought a visitor was coming.

Next they hired work release prisoners. Which turned into fights and stabbings on the line. One guy had just gotten out and was in on a murder charge. He carried a knife and gun on the job, and didn't mind showing you either.

Next they hired folks who would only work long enough to go back on unemployment. If they could take the hard work until then.

But the company was saving money.

 

[hiwall]

If this does become the law of the land the federal government would need a huge number of more IRS agents likely 87,000 more. And they would have to be armed because people will not willingly give up their hard earned money.

 

[20Gauge]

If this does become the law of the land the federal government would need a huge number of more IRS agents likely 87,000 more. And they would have to be armed because people will not willingly give up their hard earned money.

No you would not.

That is what everyone is missing. Perhaps, my fault for not explaining well.

This is a Federal Department of Labor change. With it, EVERY single state will now have the ability to force companies to change the status of the 1099 contractors.

The states will do the work.

The feds will benefit the most from the extra revenue.

There is NOTHING in the IRS codes that enforce the difference. It is only at the state level that it matters. States will also get revenue / penalties / interest from each company that converts.

 

[Macgyver]

Is this the same thing California did or was trying to do?

 

[Griz3752]

If you are a 1099 this year, expect that to change next year!

The admin is looking for revenue everywhere it can. The self employed is the perfect place to raise 100s of billions fast.

Why?

Companies are more likely to pay payroll taxes and be current in their taxes than a 1099. I know that from seeing thousands upon thousands of clients over the last decade.

People will come in and tell me constantly ( after the fact ) that they took an extra "job" and now have a 1099. I try and explain that they started a company and they now owe about 1/3 of that income to the feds/state and they get really pissed. Yes there is a small minority that know beforehand, but the majority by far don't.

These people usually they owe taxes for the 1st time in their lives.

This is what the feds are after. They want these people to pay and pay during the year. Forcing them to become employees is the way to do it.

If you don't believe me, look at the "new" rules..... they are all set on opinion. Such as how valuable or "integral" you are to the company. Why would you be there if you aren't important????

I can tell you from experience, the state DOL WILL ALWAYS (99+%) of the time find the 1099 is an employee. Why, they get more power.

Get ready folks

I was a contractor off and on for years; sometimes repping 2 or 3 non-competing companies in the same vertical (Natural Resources). Yes I paid my taxes quarterly which is likely the root issue here; I think most entities prefer consistent monthly contributions to their pot. I would have but my income was project based so, I got some big cheques periodically and had to manage expenses between those peaks.

I'm pretty sure Govt. doesn't like that: it likely interferes with their "freebies-for-all" approach.

Not sure what the total end game is here unless it’s just to create more dependency on Govt. Svce/Programs and of course, to exert more control over taxpayers in general. As 20Gauge is deeply involved in the Tax Prep business, I'll defer to his much-better, more informed statement above.

The proposed changes of course make perfect sense to Marxists. The Freelancing spirit that contributed so much to the growth of America is an anathema to the current Cabal-in-Power.

JMO

 

[Melodi]

I've noticed that at least once a decade, employers (especially corporations) try and come up with new and fun ways to "save" money by not actually counting or paying employees. Starting in the 80s it was a trend to make everyone an "independent contractor" states cracked down on doing that outright for most jobs but every time the laws catch up there's a new twist.

The most recent version has been "the gig economy" which is a version of the old "make everyone an independent contractor" only with even less security. For a time in the last decade "zero-hours contracts" were big at least on this side of the water. This was a catch-twenty-two situation where people were called employees, not allowed to work for anyone else (via contract) but might get a few or zero hours in any given week.

States with basic welfare benefits like England or Ireland cracked down on that one first, making it illegal to have contracts that didn't provide work but forced a person to not work anywhere else except again for very special circumstances. People were being "hired," no longer qualified for "benefits" and/or the State was having to pay the "benefits" of employed people for all the hours they were not working in some "work-fare" type programs.

The really big one in the last few years isn't totally new, but the breadth and scale of it are and that is really giant corporations having almost no employees as I mentioned and so did others. I don't know about the US States but I know over here countries are looking at this situation and mulling ways to crack down on it and/or basically say that if an employee is wearing the uniform and acting in the name of XYZ company they are in fact an employee of XYZ company.

Most importantly XYZ company is liable for those employees. This came up big time in Ireland with Facebook during COVID when most of the "employees" were paid to watch and screen "content" for removal (like murders, rapes, snuff films really horrific stuff) and were starting to have physical and mental problems from the work and Facebook said, "not our problem, not our employees)."

That one kind of started the pushback rolling over here, which is still ongoing and nowhere near settled yet - but in the UK courts have ruled Uber is an employer and is a taxi company. They are also seen as liable for things like drivers who rape or murder their passengers, needless to say, their business there has tanked.

 

[Melodi]

Unless I am misreading something (and with a Federal law that is totally possible) people can still work as independent contractors, they just have to be real independent contractors like plumbers, independent builders, IT jobbers, or whatever; work for more than one employer and really be running themselves as a business.

But again, I'm not sure this is something the Federal Government should be doing under the US system, I would think it should be handled by the States.

 

[Dux]

To clarify things, Colorado passed a law (in the 1980s) that defined an independent contract as someone who works for at least three different employers doing the same job at the same time or has at least X, Y, Z (I forget the number) of contracts with different employers over the course of a year. This also stopped corporations at the time, from endlessly hiring real employees "under contracts" that they just kept renewing rather than making them employees.

I done learned that after a WC audit in Colorado. I paid piece work to a guy to drive by and inspect properties. He had 2 other jobs, but they were different kinds of work. Sometimes a law makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. After the audit and the lesson, I had to pay $6. Government run amok.

 

[Kathy in FL]

What this means for us is that we will hire companies rather than individuals. It will create more expense which we will then pass along to our customers/tenants.

So, if you don’t want your rent and other stuff to go up, I suggest IC’s follow the rules and then vote against Biden et al and anyone that supports this nonsense. Of course, people being by and large stupid as hell, they want the free crap without realizing that they’ll pay for it one way or another.

 

[Melodi]

I done learned that after a WC audit in Colorado. I paid piece work to a guy to drive by and inspect properties. He had 2 other jobs, but they were different kinds of work. Sometimes a law makes sense, sometimes it doesn't. After the audit and the lesson, I had to pay $6. Government run amok.

This is why I think these sorts of rules need to be clarified (by the States) so you know up front and in readable English what your responsibility as an employer is and what an independent contractor's responsibilities are when they present themselves for work under those rules.

You were lucky though, I saw some really sad stuff when I worked for the Worker's Compensation oversight board; things that really were overreach or not defined well. The saddest case was a woman who hired her neighbor's teenage son to help her load and show her llamas at the local fair. The boy was around 16, and the work was age appropriate and just for the day.

Unfortunately as often happens working around animals, something went wrong and an animal bolted and stampeded on him and he was pretty badly injured (his arm was bitten). The boy's parents were understanding and everything seemed OK until their HEALTH INSURANCE company told them if they didn't file a worker's compensation claim they would be personally responsible for all of their son's medical bills because the health insurance wouldn't pay it (and we are not talking a small amount).

Ultimately the woman, who had no idea she was an "employer" in any real sense or that technically she had to buy insurance for the kid ended up losing her home, her farm and all of her animals. The kid's parents felt horrible but couldn't have afforded to pay all the costs for surgery and hospitalization themselves if their insurance didn't.

That was almost 40 years ago, and today people wonder why no one will employ teenagers anymore to do things like mow the lawn or other small chores like chopping wood or light farm work that might, in some rare cases, result in an injury. Because the law then defines you as an employer as if you were running a small business rather than raking leaves in your garden.

 

[Kathy in FL]

Oh yeah, and remember those 87,000 IRS workers that wouldn’t be going after anyone that makes less than 400K? Yeah, they lied.

 

[Dux]

If the parents had said that their kid was a guest of the neighbor, not that he was performing "work", it would have been a better result. So health insurance is ravaging the young workers' opportunities.

 

[Kathy in FL]

And yeah, all of those people that just want to get by because they can in an economy driven by the worker? Be prepared to watch them get laid off when a business has to decide whether they are going to pay for a go-getter contractor or a barely-productive currently employee.

Be prepared folks, and stay prepared. The Dems are telling you how they are going to screw you over … and over, and over, and over.

 

[20Gauge]

I was a contractor off and on for years; sometimes repping 2 or 3 non-competing companies in the same vertical (Natural Resources). Yes I paid my taxes quarterly which is likely the root issue here; I think most entities prefer consistent monthly contributions to their pot. I would have but my income was project based so, I got some big cheques periodically and had to manage expenses between those peaks.

I'm pretty sure Govt. doesn't like that: it likely interferes with their "freebies-for-all" approach.

Not sure what the total end game is here unless it’s just to create more dependency on Govt. Svce/Programs and of course, to exert more control over taxpayers in general. As 20Gauge is deeply involved in the Tax Prep business, I'll defer to his much-better, more informed statement above.

The proposed changes of course make perfect sense to Marxists. The Freelancing spirit that contributed so much to the growth of America is an anathema to the current Cabal-in-Power.

JMO

The purpose is to get everyone working for the man.