[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.