[Iftheshoefits]

Every single role I've had as an "independent contractor" through a third-party has involved contract verbiage substantially similar to this: "Contractor is an employee of ConsultancyX. Contractor is not an employee of WidgetCorp. Contractor will perfom duties on behalf of ConsultancyX as assigned by supervisor employed by WidgetCorp at the times and places specified by WidgetCorp using tools and equipment as directed by WidgetCorp". I've been required to work on-site, using the client's equipment, during their normal hours of business, and been required to adhere to and sign client's various compliance standards: that is, I've been acting in the same capacity as employees of the client, but been required to sign documentation explicitly denying this fact ("contractor agrees he is not an employee of WidgetCorp").

That is to say, it's a farce. The consultancy pays the employee/contractor, but the contractor is acting, by any reasonable interpretation of the relevant laws and regulations, as an employee of the consultancy's client. The involvement of the third-party is superficial and, in my opinion, borderline fraudulent. There is such an imbalance of power in the US that very few employees would actually dare to challenge it, and as a result the downside for challenging it (implicit blacklisting) carries far more weight than the upside (marginal compensation for the disparity in treatment).

[jlaswell]

I do have to agree to your point on the use of 'independent contractor' here. It'd be interesting to see what they are basing that on.

My state provides some 'tips' for small businesses. One is employee types, and this sort of a relationship is not an independent contractor. They make a point to say that simply calling someone an independent contractor has no baring on their status, exactly as you have said.

Thanks for the reminder.