[eli_gottlieb]

>How to Fix- Labor laws would need to change, making it clear to companies how they can hire contractors without becoming liable to be held as employers.

Except that the entire reason these laws exist is because tech companies have been caught using people as contractors permanently, "laying them off" on a consistent seasonable basis, and then "rehiring" them again as "contractors". A permanently-employed worker needs to legally be considered a full-time employee and be taxed/benefited as such.

[usernamepc]

I believe these laws were first put in place to prevent factory owners from exploiting poorly paid workers- and weren't really meant for highly paid tech workers. The problem with requiring companies to hire everyone as employees is exactly the reason companies try to find ways to dodge it in my opinion. If the Govt has a problem collecting taxes from contractors that is a different problem and should be addressed separately.

[WildUtah]

What's wrong with that? Lots of people love working seasonally. Teachers, fishermen, hospitality workers, and forest rangers can work seasonally. Why should programmers be denied the privilege by law?

[usernamepc]

I'm not aware of how it works in those fields, but as I see it, trying to burden companies with unclear laws and force artificial behavior is what is causing the problem in this case.

For example- A large company needs a contractor and is willing to pay $75/hr for 12 months.

Option 1- Hires you as a contractor directly for $75/hr on 1099. You get paid well, but if they are not very savvy about independent contractor compliance, you can still go after them in the future stating you should have been an employee for various reasons. The IRS could also go after them for not classifying you correctly and claim taxes missed. Good for you- Risky for Client.

Option 2- Give the req to their staffing agencies and offer to pay them the $75/hr. A Staffing agency finds and hires you as a permanent employee- pays you $40/hr with benefits. Terminates you after 12 months. Large Company ended up paying the same but has much lower risk of being considered employer because the staffing agency was paying you and taking care of your healthcare, etc. Same deal for Client but low risk- Bad deal for you - Good deal for Staffing Agency.

In the quest to try and force the law upon a company, we successfully complicated and introduced a middle-man into this process.

[judk]

Now the law can be improved to regulate these well understood staffing companies.

[usernamepc]

There's already plenty of laws to regulate them and they work pretty well for the most part.

The problem is if a large company wants to hire contractors directly- and not use a staffing agency. Thats where the laws are unclear and contractors are the ones paying for it.

[lotsofmangos]

Is common in games, what has happened to people I know is they get a job and then build the mechanics of a game, they then get fired while the art is discussed and worked on, then rehired to finish the work as nobody else knows how it fits together anyway.

[smm2000]

What's wrong about it? You should just charge more in expectations that the job won't last long and you can work at different company on different game mechanics after getting fired. Employing people you do not need is not efficient for both the company and economy.

[lotsofmangos]

Nothings wrong about it at all if the employer is up front about it.