|
|
|
|
|
|
by TomMarius
2174 days ago
|
|
|
No, I have the flexibility, and I have chosen to work for one client. This new unforeseen interpretation of my business contracts (are you even aware of the ramifications for my financial planning, insurance, etc?) is forcing me into things I don't want to do nor my client is interested in, thus making me less flexible, and forces me to pay for things I am absolutely not interested in. |
|
|
Most places that force these kind of treatments tends to do so only when people have no ability to set their schedule or no realistic prospect of negotiating terms etc. in ways that makes them indistinguishable from employees.
Most of the time there are ways out of this and/or all that ends up being required is for you to be an employee of your own company rather than exploit tax loopholes that were never intended to be used this way. Eg. this is the case in the UK where the dreaded IR35 closed tax loopholes that let people avoid paying themselves a salary for their contracting and instead cut costs by taking out dividends or making their spouses directors etc.. The change did not in any way stop contracting even for a single client, but it prevented people from using it as a way of avoiding tax.
In most of those instances "forcing you pay for things you're not interested in" boils down to not forcing society to take risks on your behalf because people are using contracting as a means to avoid e.g. social service payments and the like.
I'm sure there are places that are exceptions where some people get caught out, and that's a shame, but most of the time these rules benefit far more people, because of the extensive use of "contracting" as a way for employers to get out of obligations with people who have no effective leverage.