|
|
|
|
|
|
by danaris
1889 days ago
|
|
|
And it's fine to be a contractor—as long as that's genuinely and meaningfully what you are. If you're contracting out your services to only one company, and they have primary say over when and how you work[1], then that's not a genuine "contractor" relationship; you're an employee that they're taking advantage of by paying less and not providing benefits to. If you really do want to be a contractor, who sells their services to many companies, sets their own hours, and has primary control over their tasks and such, then by all means do so. But please don't try to make things worse for the vast majority who do not want these things by advocating for stripping away protections from people who are being abusively and illegally misclassified as contractors. [1] I don't recall offhand all the various specific aspects of a job that define whether you're logically a contractor or an employee, but I do remember that it's basically "if your livelihood depends entirely on one company paying you, and/or they have near-total control over how you do your work, you're an employee, whatever the paperwork says". |
|
|
The site says the IRS no longer uses it but it’s still generally a good rule of thumb. And yes I recognize the irony that both her and her employer used the terms contractor and employer when describing their relationship.