[sneak]

I think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.

I think the heart of the issue is the entirely artificial split between the concept of employee and contractor. (Much like the arbitrary split between taxi and car service in nyc.)

Making everyone a contractor for every job, with the terms of the job specified in the contract, seems much more straightforward. I don’t think that the concept of “employment” needs to be one size fits all, like standard W-2 is today in the US.

It’s an artifact of tax law, the scam that is withholding (make most people not “feel” their taxes), and a dominant manufacturing economy model that no longer exists in the US.

[treis]

> think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.

It's not mandated but Obama care did introduce tax penalties for those that don't. Exact rules are complicated.

[dmoy]

> I think you can employ W-2-style employees without providing them healthcare. It’s a perk, but not legally required to have a W-2 employee.

If you have fewer than 50 full time employees, yes (depending on the state).

If you have 50 or more employees, you have to offer healthcare (or pay penalties).

[aidenn0]

Does that mean that when I remodel my house, I would have to negotiate on time and materials terms, lest the contractor accidentally underbid and end up with less than minimum wage?

I think the law rightfully distinguishes between truly negotiable contracts and take-it-or-leave-it terms offered by a party with more negotiating power.

[lostcolony]

Of course not. The prices someone sets are not related to the wages they're paid. You're paying a price; you're not paying a wage. The contractors are paid a wage by the business owner; if he pays them less than minimum wage it's illegal; if he pays them more, but does not recoup that cost on the job because he underbid it, that's a business loss.

[sneak]

Why do we treat these things differently? Why is the GC permitted to make bad business decisions and earn below minimum wage, but the people he employs are not?

This is entirely arbitrary.

[aidenn0]

Because one is assumed to be negotiated in good faith while the other is an adhesion contract?

[aidenn0]

I'm not talking about a general contractor, I'm talking about when I hire one guy to do some work on my house.