[HarryHirsch]

> MA, for instance, is very harsh on owners who hire 'contractors' who do the work that would normally be done by employees. Even if you have a written agreement to the contrary, the court could decide that you were in fact an employee and award you triple damages.

This is actually a good thing. See, there are cases like "independent" delivery drivers who work exclusively and full-time for one company and as contractors are denied benefits.

If these people are on sufficiently low income they can apply for Medicaid in case of illness, in which case the cost is borne by the taxpayer. I feel the cost should go to the company owner. You cannot make the argument that society should pay for the fact that such company offers lower prices on their product or that the owner should have a higher income.

[dhimes]

I agree that abuse is rampant and bad, and that without laws many business owners will be abusive. I just think that MA argues a little too strongly for the contractor. And it is definitely something he or she will worry about, which was my point to OP.

In the case I mentioned, being a contractor was never an issue or a problem for the person. But when she was let go, she got pissed off and used her leverage for revenge.

[HarryHirsch]

My point was that people shouldn't be shocked, shocked when they get busted for breaking the law.

Of course the fellow wouldn't complain while he was employed. People who live in illegal apartments tend not to complain either, until something goes seriously wrong.

[dhimes]

My point is that they aren't breaking the law- until a jury decides they are. They've entered into a consensual agreement for fee-for-work as contractor. Both agree. Both understand. Contractor has certain freedoms (work mostly from home on own schedule, etc.) and certain obligations (pay own taxes, etc).

But a jury decides that the agreement isn't right and that someone was actually an employee. And awards triple damages.

Yes, this can be abused by employers. But even when it's not- it can still give employers heartburn. Anyway, in OP's case it's moot because he was W-9.

[jt2190]

  > They've entered into a consensual agreement for 
  > fee-for-work as contractor.

It simply doesn't work like that. A worker isn't a contractor just because the employer and the worker have "agreed"... Both parties must be able to demonstrate that the worker is indeed operating like a contractor. See the IRS rules on this, for example: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Em...

[dhimes]

I know. I fully understand this. But certain jurisdictions rule differently. And in MA, it is a serious threat. In OP's case, again, it is irrelevant because he was a w-2 employee.