So, I interviewed with an architect several days ago. He and his business partner are splitting the biz effective immediately. His "righthand man", or woman in this case, just came down with a brain hemmorhage or some such thing. He needs someone to come in, fill her shoes and do all the heavy lifting she did and must be "flexible".
At the end of the interview, he asked me if I had any problem coming on board as an indepedent contractor for 3-6 months. You know, to see "if it's a good fit for him and for me". Um, er, um. I guess so. Now, this wasn't mentioned in the job listing and I found it odd he would spring it on me after asking me about my salary requirements. He made specific reference to the fact that this position would be long-term and permanent and would perhaps even lead to a partnership way down the road. Then, what's with the 1099 form, pal? He wants a righthand man and even used that term.
My gut tells me he wants his go-to gal to get all healthy and better. That way, he can kick me, or whomever he actually hires, out the door with no strings attached. This job would be far from a CAD jockey position. He wants someone who can be CAD monkey, office manager, receptionist, project coordinator, in-the-field person, client contact, etc. and even manage one or two other people on top of everything else. So, what's with the tenant-at-will contract? Hell, why doesn't everyone do that to avoid having to pay health and unemployment insurance, vacation, holiday and sick time, etc.?
What choice do I have? It's not like opportunities are dripping from the branches around here. It's either this or work part-time at the local Trader Joe's, ya know?
people don't do it because it's illegal. it makes me sick that architects continue to try to get away with this shit. (plus, they ask you on taxes now if you were coerced into filling out a 1099 and I've heard the feds are finally starting to come down on these sleaze-bags...)
however - if you can stomach it, you should ask for an up-front start-up cost so you can purchase equipment and software, hire an accountant to make sure you're putting enough away for taxes, and retain a lawyer to help you draw up your contract. see if he's willing to pay for those costs since you're unprepared to start your own business.
also your billing rate is going to be close to triple your normal hourly rate if you were a full-time employee (he should know this if he were being legal about his accounting). Personally, if someone is going to screw around with you like that, then you stand your ground and protect yourself.
oh yeah - you can bill him for commuting costs, lunches while you're in his office. if you're a contractor, you don't work from his office - you get to set meetings "whenever you are available." - you can hire your own people and you get to do the work however the hell you want. you don't "manage" any of his staff - you don't answer his phones, you don't fetch him coffee.
Well, I've never done the independent contractor thing, but my gut is telling me he's either too cheap to pay the taxes or pay unemployment when he has to fire you if his partner comes back, or too lazy to fill out forms to make you an employee because he's assuming his partner will be back. Do you really want to work for someone that is either cheap or lazy? Especially since it sounds like he brought it up at the last minute, and since it seems he made it sound like it was long-term.
The way I see it, being an independent contractor is for short-term only, when both parties are fine with the contract ending. Using it to test drive employees I find unethical.
Either way, odds are very high this guy is trying to scam somebody for some cheap labor, either you, the government, or both.
It appears as if the general concensus is that this is unethical, if nothing else. And this is the way my compass needle is pointing as well. Now, it isn't his partner he's waiting for here. They're done. That partnership is dissolved. It's his "right hand" that has suddenly taken ill. Whether or not this is even true is impossible for me to confirm. For all I know, she's simply on maternity leave and will be back in 3-months time and this is one of the cards he's refusing to show me. A brain hemmorhage? Really? Why not say she was bitten by a green mamba while trudging through the Congo on her quest to find some legendary dinosaur fossil that contains the marrow of ancient aliens who left the Sphinx here as a peace offering to the keepers of the Colonel's secret recipe?
I, too, find it very sketchy for one to "take me for a test drive" for 3 to 6 months But for the last 2+ years, that's exactly what's happened with my last three jobs. Although in those instances, I was brought on as a full-time, permanent employee. I was let go when work either was shelved or when the owner realized he didn't need "someone like me" like he originally thought he did.
In any event, I was eligible for unemployment benefits because I was not an independent contractor. I have played this role before, however it was understood from the get-go. I worked in firm 'X' for 5 months and was shown the door at the termination of the contract. However, I was a job captain on a specific project, not a PM and/or Swiss Army knife as this man is hoping to get. That's why this whole thing is not sitting well with me. He's doing it to cover his a$$. Period.
My real question is: is this even legal?? As I stated in my original post, if it is, then why doesn't everyone do it? Why not hire everyone as an indie contractor and simply cut 'em when you see fit? I have a call into the State Attorneys General office. I don't think someone can have someone perform managerial duties and the like under the guise of simply being a hired gun. And the fact that this was NOT stated in the job listing makes it even more questionable. I think that little tidbit might have been useful to know.
After doing a cursory search on the IRS' website, I found that it all comes down to "control" in determining whether or not one is considered an actual employee or an indie contractor. Long story short, if a company owner is telling you what results are to be achieved and has the right to direct and control the work you're doing, you're their employee.
"A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the worker. The business does not have to actually direct or control the way the work is done – as long as the employer has the right to direct and control the work.
An employee is generally subject to the business’s instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work."
*When and where to do the work.
*What tools or equipment to use.
*What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
*Where to purchase supplies and services.
*What work must be performed by a specified individual.
*What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.
"Degree of Instruction means that the more detailed the instructions, the more control the business exercises over the worker. More detailed instructions indicate that the worker is an employee. Less detailed instructions reflects less control, indicating that the worker is more likely an independent contractor.
The amount of instruction needed varies among different jobs. Even if no instructions are given, sufficient behavioral control may exist if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved. A business may lack the knowledge to instruct some highly specialized professionals; in other cases, the task may require little or no instruction. The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right."
is this even legal?? As I stated in my original post, if it is, then why doesn't everyone do it? Why not hire everyone as an indie contractor and simply cut 'em when you see fit?
the way you described the position my informed guess is that it is definitely not legal. most places do not do this because they know the law and are trying to run legit businesses. anyone who tries to convince you to do the "independent contractor" thing in an interview when you were expecting something else is not only being highly unethical, but are also flaunting the law. IMO - it's similar to predatory lending in sleaziness - except they can get in a lot more trouble with the feds.
geesh - they should really teach this as part of pro-practice courses.
there are legitimate indie contractors in architecture, but often they are brought on to do very specific things on a project - like renderings, producing specs, or CD production - usually because they have specialist skills that their regular full-time employees do not have... it's called "freelancing."
good luck... I'm sorry anyone has to experience this, but the more people who are informed about this illegal practice, the better.
Toasteroven is correct. There are many legitimate cases where independant contractor status makes sense. Usually its on a project by project basis with very limited or defined scope.
The big distinction between employee and indie contractor is usually when/where you do the work. At your house on your own schedule = indie contractor. At his office on his schedule = employer.
Nevertheless, if you do it, be sure you will be able to write off alot of your income because you will get hammered on self employment taxes if not. If you work from home you can write off a significant portion of your rent/mortgage and utilities. If you work in his office using his resources, you will have limited write offs.
i'm going to be contrarian here, but that definition given two posts up is pure crap. by that definition, every engineer we work with is an 'employee', since we maintain the right to 'control' their outcome (and yes, that's what's happening if i tell them to change their ducting route).
the parts that do make more sense is the near daily control over where, how, when to show up for work. that said, if i'm working with a web developer on our new site and ask him to come work in our office for a week to wrap up the project, is he now my employee for consenting?
look, you're using the irs as a shield in terms of making a much harder decision. if you take this guy at his word that he's truly looking for a new partner, you'll want to have your own company. make it a limited time joint venture to see how you work together and then formalize an agreement a year or so from now.
if you're doing this to just have a job, then that's fine. but tell him (and yourself) that upfront and ask that he hire you with full benefits. but i'm going to maintain that if you can't manage your own affairs, with your own structure (and company - which is all being an 'independent contractor' means), then you're not really there as someone ready to own a firm (and if that's not your intention taking this, then i've misunderstood and apologize in advance).
either way, the main point is this: enter into the situation treating him as an equal, not with you being a subordinate. equals don't get all the fall back safety nets. if they're that important to you, then this doesn't sound like the right kind of situation at the time.
btw - unemployment insurance payments can be huge to a small firm, without them being 'cheap' or whatever. hiring someone as a fte for 3 months and then having to let them go because a client/project flaked out could add a few thousand to my taxes the next year (especially if the full term benefits are pulled). you wonder why small firms aren't hiring more full time? i'll tell you straight up: the tax implications, paperwork, and other hassles aren't worth it unless i'm very, very confident the work's going to be there 6-12 months out. anything less just isn't enough. if that's 'sleazy' or 'predatory', well, that's your perspective.
The only 'real' legal separation between an independent contractor and an employee is that an independent contractor cannot necessarily be fired or terminated in violation of your own company policies.
What's even worse is that if you fire an independent contractor after a contract has been signed, you must fulfill your contractual duties if the contractor is not in breach of his contract.
So, if you get 1099'd... have fun trash talking around the office, showing up late and wearing short shorts!
Nice points Outed. Don't assume this guy is a sleeze just because he is looking for an 'independant contractor'. It sounds to me that he is in a pickle right now (splitting with his partner at the same time his right hand has fallen ill) and looking for a temporary fix and minimal commitment until things shake out and are more known. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute.
What soleproprietor wants to take on the tax liability of hiring an employee in this environment unless they are absolutely sure of what is ahead?
It is your choice if you want to step in and try to fill her shoes. It sounds a heck of alot more promising than a career at trader joes. What do you have to lose....other than your self respect If you can't cut it.
If you need the job take it, but don't have a sense of loyalty towards the guy. Continue to actively seek another better job and when you find it, you have the freedom to drop him like a rock. In the meantime its a paycheck.
If he's willing to use / test drive you, then do the same back.
The "convenience" of hiring and independent contractor works both ways.
Much stink was made about tech companies hiring everyone as 'contractors' back in the '80's. Laws got changed to address that, and everyone has been affected since.
Litmus test done by IRS is simple: if your income had multiple sources, ie you had proper 'clients', then yes you are an independent contractor and you can claim business expenses. If all your income came from a single source, you are technically an employee, and you'll be on hook for taxes you underpaid. They can audit you 3 years from now.
A lot of small companies really want to hire 'contract' work since the tax burden gets shifted to the employee. Most of them say it up front though. When IRS starts cracking on this, they tend to fine both companies and the employees.
My advice to CADalackey is that, if you've already held a position at a different company this year, you could use this to your advantage. Buy that new laptop you've wanted so much before the end of the year, and then write it off as a business expense.
The only way for you to get in trouble with IRS is if you end up working for that company for an entire fiscal year as a contractor while not having other sources of income.
Also, if you take the gig, get a good accountant. That $500-$1K fee will actually save you thousands. Everything from meal allowances to car depreciation starts making sense once you talk to a good pencil head.
ug - that's fine. let the guy show up in shorts. is it really how you'd hold yourself out to be a 'professional'? eh, i don't know the submarket, so what do i know.
what's unbelievably frustrating to read up to my post is the whiny, sniveling damn near entitlement position the various posters were taking towards any owner who would be so fricking insensitive towards your needs as an employee. suck it up - and, absolutely as druf said, be a mercenary if you have to - but approach it like a business decision and be mature about it. if it fits what you want, take it. if not, move on. but quit whining that someone offered you a bagel when you feel entitled to nothing less than a boston creme pie.
outed, you sound angry. For some reason this is an emotional topic for you.
The law is very clear about these things. It's only when emotions and wishful thinking get introduced that the topic becomes complex.
Your examples of engineers and web developers is poor. Both have multiple clients that they provide services for. If they exclusively work for you, then yes, they are your employees. It's that simple.
Tax laws were written to address the distinction between an employee and a freelancer. There are benefits to being either. Some percentage of people will always try to circumvent the rules for self benefit. And then they'll cry about 'it being unfair' when they get caught.
As for the original poster's employer, there is nothing legally stopping him from hiring contract work for 3-6 months. Anything longer than that would be pushing it. The problem of doing this is that either: a)you are pissing off your new hires by nickle and dimming them and thus risking their long term loyalty to your company; b)you are only interested in having people work for you short term in a confused belief that constantly retraining new staff is cheaper than paying payroll taxes or providing benefits.
outed - the OP explicitly states that this position is essentially a cad-monkey/admin assistant - not a potential business partner - also it appears the OP is unprepared to become an independent contractor.
I do agree that the OP's second post sounds somewhat entitled, though... not really thinking about why they might have been laid off...
what is more frustrating to me (and the reason I went all preachy) is that there are people who prey on the naivety of youngsters just so they can save a buck or two on insurance and taxes... I know it's business and you need to watch out for yourself - but there are people who try to convince a recent grad to be a contractor because "they'll be independent!" knowing damn well they have no f-ing clue what you are doing, and you're all too happy to exploit their obvious lack of knowledge to your financial advantage. it's disgusting. this is what I meant by the predatory lending comment.
and this is what I'm assuming the OP was more upset about - the ol' bait and switch - there was no up-front about the fact this position was a contract position (and not technically a legal one at that) - it suspiciously sounds like someone trying to exploit a youngster's inexperience to get around paying taxes and unemployment insurance. maybe sleaze is too strong a term, but this potential "client" doesn't seem very honest.
IMO - if the OP wants to do the independent contractor thing - that's fine, but she/he needs to know their rights and what this means. it's not something you just sign on to do because it's your "only option."
do people prey on the young? sure. you a sleaze if you're doing so willingly? yep. should the original ad have mentioned contract? i have no context to judge. perhaps the needs changed between the time it was posted and they interviewed (had that one happen to me - i had an interview with a junior partner in a firm in which the name partner died suddenly two days before i flew out for the meeting. it didn't work out like he or i had planned). perhaps the employer is a slimebag. perhaps, though (and i'm just reading the op's own description), there were about 500 things going on that didn't involve him, this guy is a bit of a mess (i mean, he's splitting up a partnership and his go-to ace goes down), and he doesn't even know where he'll be in 6 months. you think that his main concern then is your well being? probably not. is it a situation you really want to walk into? for myself, probably not.
look, i can't advise cadalackey what to do. what i can say is that instead of whining (and that is exactly what they're doing), be an adult, figure out what's best for you, and make that decision. what they seem to be sour grapes over is not the fact that the firm was potentially taking advantage of them (and, by the way, nothing that post suggests they are a naive waif of a recent grad - perhaps they've disclosed that elsewhere; it's not in the post itself), but that it wasn't offering some desired level of security and longevity for the level of responsibility being assumed. guess what? not very many people have that luxury themselves, especially the people running a firm right now.
if it were me, i'd either keep looking or embrace the contractor bit, go in telling them that you're also going to be working for other firms as the opportunities come up and/or doing competitions on the side. if employer 'a' has an issue with that, then force the indie contractor discussion and see what they want.
finally, as noted, the second post by cad really seems to betray the unemployment angle, without thinking at all what the implications would be to an employer. i noticed that no one else seems interested in addressing that subject....
Well, uh, wow! What can I say?? Some fantastic responses here, to be sure. I do feel compelled, however, to at least express that I didn't feel like I was whining about this situation nor do I feel like I'm entitled to anything but a little up front honesty.
outed, I'm all too aware of the implications of unemployment to a prospective employer. That ain't no cheap expense. However, they are laws in place to protect workers from unscrupulous business owners who feel that paying exhorbitant expenses such as unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, worker's comp insurance, etc. are too much of a burden to bare.
Look, I get it. This guy's breakin' out on his own and times are uncertain for everyone; me, you, everyone. But, this shouldn't give rise to a whole new business practice wherein businesses get to selectively pick which portions of the law suits their needs. It doesn't work like that. This not not my skewed view of the world through the lenses of entitlement. It's the freakin' law! I think I would've been more amenable to this man's proposition had he stated it at the outset, but he didn't. Okay. Fine. Whatever. It's there on the table. So, what now?
I can see both sides of the coin here, literally. I can also see this man's situation. However, he's the one who told me that he's busy as hell, has tons of work, needs someone who can hit the ground running on day one, can do it all from meeting with clients to unjamming the plotter to reviewing specifications and supervising, potentially, other staff. "And there's the possibility that this relationship could evolve into your taking on a partnership-like role".
The prospect is very exciting. It really is! I think I just feel a bit punk'd here. The honesty factor is really what's at stake and as such, the level of trust I have in this man is a bit lower than when I first sat down with him. It's hard to shake that. Let me know if I'm whining again. ;)
On the one hand, I could admire this guy for his business savvy. On the other, I sorta feel like going to the store manager because I caught him shoplifting.
If this guy is as busy as he says he is with work lined up until the middle of next year, then what's the big deal? And if his need is as dire as it is, then it should be no problem to sign me on as a perm. Why am I the heavy in this situation? I see a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a brand new firm. I would simply like to do it with a greater level of trust and confidence, that's all.
...can do it all from meeting with clients to unjamming the plotter to reviewing specifications and supervising, potentially, other staff.
If this is the job description, then this is NOT a contract position. All other nuances of this discussion aside, you need to tell this person that if he wants to hire you to do these things, then you need to be an employee.
If your job description is as you convey it, you're an employee. If you're brought in to do nothing but hammer away on cad all day, that's one thing--when you start handling all facets of the biz, that's another.
The way I was always introduced to the subject of Independent Contracting is that is like hiring a plumber to come fix something at your house. You tell him what needs fixed (ie. the end result) and he decides the rest--how to do it, what tools to use, when he can get around to doing it, etc.
This practice seems to be on the rise lately--purely based on the unpredictability of the market. People need help right now, but perhaps not in 6 months. You can't fault small firms for using the practice, but you do need to know your rights. As everyone has already pointed out, there are obvious benefits to both sides.
I would accept the position, but with a heaping dose of skepticism.
For the record - and having personally been in this situation multiple times - steelstuds' description above is incorrect: Litmus test done by IRS is simple: if your income had multiple sources, ie you had proper 'clients', then yes you are an independent contractor and you can claim business expenses. If all your income came from a single source, you are technically an employee, and you'll be on hook for taxes you underpaid. They can audit you 3 years from now.
There is in fact a very easy way to tell if you have been incorrectly listed (and taxed, or in fact, NOT taxed) as a contractor - it's spelled out on your income tax forms. If you were:
- expected to report to work at set times every day (aka 9-5)
- expected work in the office at all times during your work hours
- something about oversight - I think it's that you're expected to have your work reviewed by a superior or something... can't remember this one
...then you are an employee. I actually had to file a claim on this once so I used to know the definition backwards and forwards. I'm sure it's on the IRS website but I'm too lazy to check at the moment.
In any case - although I agree that it's technically unethical to use this as a way to test-drive an employee - frankly I think there are some advantages to both sides on this one, and I haven't minded it when I was given contractor status (AS LONG AS IT IS SPELLED OUT IN ADVANCE and you are able to take an active hand in the contracting process, and negotiate your rates, hours of work, etcetera):
- you get paid WAY more - not just because your rate is much higher (in order to include taxes), but because you get paid for every hour that you work which, in the architecture world, is pretty sweet.
- you get to set your own hours and working style, and you don't have to deal with as much office politics, etcetera
- you get to the same ability to walk away as the employer does. If you get in there and the place sucks, you can end your contract and still file for unemployment, whereas if you quit a salaried job, you don't get unemployment.
So, although this is technically kind of a shabby thing to do, in practice it can be quite beneficial to both sides. You just have to know about all the implications in advance, and be provided with the ability to take an active hand in crafting your contract.
To be clear - you can absolutely have all your income come from a single source and still be considered a contractor - it has nothing to do with who writes you checks. It has to do with your actual relationship to the person you're under contract to. If they get to direct how you do your job, then you are an employee. If you are hired to produce a specific product and the rest is up to you, you are a contractor. - like your structural engineer, for example. Hired to produce the drawings but you have no clue what time he spends on them, where he's sitting when he does it, etc. - you aren't watching over his shoulder.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey, when we talked about salary requirements, you had not mentioned that this would be as an independent contractor. I'm sure you understand that I told you the number I did with an expectation of a certain arrangement, and if I get hired on full-time I would stand by that number, but for the period that I work as an independent contractor I would need to be making $X/hr."
Bump up your salary requirements, and give it a go.
And I've not had employers tell me that something was a 1099 position until AFTER I was already in their office, doing work. For some reason, bosses continue to think this is ok. Or, they continue to try and scam people because they know they can.
so, based on the last description, then, yeah, i'm saying it's probably a true 'employee' they're looking for.
however,
that doesn't undercut my points about cada taking more 'charge' of the situation. the response is still a subordinate/superior type of reaction. i'm arguing that we take this mentality far too often - in employment contracts, in client relationships, etc. no matter what or how a response is constructed, do so as an equal.
you get to the same ability to walk away as the employer does. If you get in there and the place sucks, you can end your contract and still file for unemployment, whereas if you quit a salaried job, you don't get unemployment.
manta, I don't think this is right. Isn't the opposite true: a salaried employee gets unemployment (because his/her employer has been paying into the unemployment insurance fund as required), a contract worker does not (because no one has been paying on his/her behalf)? Or am I misreading your post?
Well let's see - I've only filed for unemployment once, and that was after a salaried position, so I may have thrown that out there too quickly. Let's see. They ask you how your last job ended and the reason why it ended (for example: they ran out of money, you had to move, whatever). It seems to me that if your work contract is terminated (due to the contract ending) then you could certainly file for unemployment, no? I suppose it's a grey area - I don't know for sure.
You're correct, Donna. Sort of. Certain extenuating circumstances may almost "require" one to quit their job and as such, they may actually qualify for unemployment benefits.
An independent contractor gets nada IF they are actually and legally construed as such. Additionally, an IC can't call it quits until AFTER the requirements of the contract are filled, or they can be held in breach of contract. Now, the key word here is 'IF'.
Let's say I sign this contract and 6 months fly right on by. This guy realizes that while I may do good work, it's not gonna work out in the long run. You know; it's close but no cigar. I could, in this particular case, apply for unemployment benefits. Why? Because, despite this contract that has my signature on it, in the eyes of the IRS et al, the responsibilities of my position point in the direction of my being his employee. The contract wouldn't be enforcible because the premise of it wasn't legal to begin with.
True. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the two of us. In the end, however, I would most likely prevail. The IRS has an independent contractor checklist. You answer 'yes' to even a handful of the questions and you're considered an employee.
It's quite simpe really. If I push the issue on this guy, he'll simply yank the offer off the table and go find someone else. Who wants a "trouble maker" right out of the gate? "Who does this guy think he is?? Freakin' Norma Rae??" On the other hand, I could shut up, sign the contract, make some decent money for a few months and perhaps be asked to stay on board permanently. What's the harm? The harm is that there is a part of me that felt like I needed to take a shower after putting all of the pieces together. No one wants to feel like they're being "flim-flammed" as Foghorn Leghorn used to say.
When you sold your last car, did you reveal every little rattle that it had? Did ya go out of your way to tell the buyer that it got crappy gas mileage? Whatever happened to being up front with people instead of keeping a poker face and holding them at arm's length on a need-to-know basis only?
If the employer just actually wants a contract worker and does not necessarily want to invest the time or the money in having a temporary employee, why does the employer not just hire a temp?
I mean, the cost difference between a regular employee and a temp isn't that much!
I have no clue why the employer just doesn't go through Aecom, Aerotek or some other headhunter/talent pool!
Maybe next time you'll be better prepared to jump or maybe you've decided its not for you. Nevertheless, working on contract certainly has its pitfalls. If you don't have appetite for risk or IRS boogeymen would keep you up at night, you might be better off where you are now. Just wait for the right opportunity to come along....
IMO - going into an interview and getting the independent contractor sprung on you is kinda like going to rent an apartment and the person tries to sell you a house. if you've gone through the process before you'll know what to do (some extra work, and a lot more negotiating) - if not, it's scary as hell and feels like someone is trying to pull a fast one on you (and they should know better). It could be that it's a good deal for everyone involved, but if you aren't ready to buy a house, you shouldn't buy a house - and you shouldn't feel forced into it.
I think the OP will be prepared for next time - and this is for the benefit to all you kids looking for work - if someone says to you "are you ok with it being an independent contractor" be honest and say you've never thought about it and don't really know what it means. that gives you an opportunity to do your research so you can actually negotiate a fair contract. if the person is reasonable, they'll allow you time to figure out if it works for you. if they are a sleaze, they won't and will try to pressure you into doing it. I think this is what outed is alluding to by "taking charge of the situation" - you don't just agree to do something if you have no idea what you're getting into.
that aside - independent contracting isn't all that bad if you are prepared and know what you are doing, and I think more people really need to consider whether or not it's a viable option for them right now since there isn't a whole lot out there. it is NOT something you just jump at without doing your research and knowing your rights, though... you can get totally screwed over if you aren't careful.
Sep 28, 10 10:25 am ·
·
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.
An Independent Contractor, but with potential to.....
So, I interviewed with an architect several days ago. He and his business partner are splitting the biz effective immediately. His "righthand man", or woman in this case, just came down with a brain hemmorhage or some such thing. He needs someone to come in, fill her shoes and do all the heavy lifting she did and must be "flexible".
At the end of the interview, he asked me if I had any problem coming on board as an indepedent contractor for 3-6 months. You know, to see "if it's a good fit for him and for me". Um, er, um. I guess so. Now, this wasn't mentioned in the job listing and I found it odd he would spring it on me after asking me about my salary requirements. He made specific reference to the fact that this position would be long-term and permanent and would perhaps even lead to a partnership way down the road. Then, what's with the 1099 form, pal? He wants a righthand man and even used that term.
My gut tells me he wants his go-to gal to get all healthy and better. That way, he can kick me, or whomever he actually hires, out the door with no strings attached. This job would be far from a CAD jockey position. He wants someone who can be CAD monkey, office manager, receptionist, project coordinator, in-the-field person, client contact, etc. and even manage one or two other people on top of everything else. So, what's with the tenant-at-will contract? Hell, why doesn't everyone do that to avoid having to pay health and unemployment insurance, vacation, holiday and sick time, etc.?
What choice do I have? It's not like opportunities are dripping from the branches around here. It's either this or work part-time at the local Trader Joe's, ya know?
I find it interesting that he brought out the 1099 AFTER you talked about salary requirements. Does not sound like he is very honest or sophisticated.
My crystal ball says he is going to hire someone else.
people don't do it because it's illegal. it makes me sick that architects continue to try to get away with this shit. (plus, they ask you on taxes now if you were coerced into filling out a 1099 and I've heard the feds are finally starting to come down on these sleaze-bags...)
however - if you can stomach it, you should ask for an up-front start-up cost so you can purchase equipment and software, hire an accountant to make sure you're putting enough away for taxes, and retain a lawyer to help you draw up your contract. see if he's willing to pay for those costs since you're unprepared to start your own business.
also your billing rate is going to be close to triple your normal hourly rate if you were a full-time employee (he should know this if he were being legal about his accounting). Personally, if someone is going to screw around with you like that, then you stand your ground and protect yourself.
oh yeah - you can bill him for commuting costs, lunches while you're in his office. if you're a contractor, you don't work from his office - you get to set meetings "whenever you are available." - you can hire your own people and you get to do the work however the hell you want. you don't "manage" any of his staff - you don't answer his phones, you don't fetch him coffee.
Well, I've never done the independent contractor thing, but my gut is telling me he's either too cheap to pay the taxes or pay unemployment when he has to fire you if his partner comes back, or too lazy to fill out forms to make you an employee because he's assuming his partner will be back. Do you really want to work for someone that is either cheap or lazy? Especially since it sounds like he brought it up at the last minute, and since it seems he made it sound like it was long-term.
The way I see it, being an independent contractor is for short-term only, when both parties are fine with the contract ending. Using it to test drive employees I find unethical.
Either way, odds are very high this guy is trying to scam somebody for some cheap labor, either you, the government, or both.
It appears as if the general concensus is that this is unethical, if nothing else. And this is the way my compass needle is pointing as well. Now, it isn't his partner he's waiting for here. They're done. That partnership is dissolved. It's his "right hand" that has suddenly taken ill. Whether or not this is even true is impossible for me to confirm. For all I know, she's simply on maternity leave and will be back in 3-months time and this is one of the cards he's refusing to show me. A brain hemmorhage? Really? Why not say she was bitten by a green mamba while trudging through the Congo on her quest to find some legendary dinosaur fossil that contains the marrow of ancient aliens who left the Sphinx here as a peace offering to the keepers of the Colonel's secret recipe?
I, too, find it very sketchy for one to "take me for a test drive" for 3 to 6 months But for the last 2+ years, that's exactly what's happened with my last three jobs. Although in those instances, I was brought on as a full-time, permanent employee. I was let go when work either was shelved or when the owner realized he didn't need "someone like me" like he originally thought he did.
In any event, I was eligible for unemployment benefits because I was not an independent contractor. I have played this role before, however it was understood from the get-go. I worked in firm 'X' for 5 months and was shown the door at the termination of the contract. However, I was a job captain on a specific project, not a PM and/or Swiss Army knife as this man is hoping to get. That's why this whole thing is not sitting well with me. He's doing it to cover his a$$. Period.
My real question is: is this even legal?? As I stated in my original post, if it is, then why doesn't everyone do it? Why not hire everyone as an indie contractor and simply cut 'em when you see fit? I have a call into the State Attorneys General office. I don't think someone can have someone perform managerial duties and the like under the guise of simply being a hired gun. And the fact that this was NOT stated in the job listing makes it even more questionable. I think that little tidbit might have been useful to know.
After doing a cursory search on the IRS' website, I found that it all comes down to "control" in determining whether or not one is considered an actual employee or an indie contractor. Long story short, if a company owner is telling you what results are to be achieved and has the right to direct and control the work you're doing, you're their employee.
"A worker is an employee when the business has the right to direct and control the worker. The business does not have to actually direct or control the way the work is done – as long as the employer has the right to direct and control the work.
An employee is generally subject to the business’s instructions about when, where, and how to work. All of the following are examples of types of instructions about how to do work."
*When and where to do the work.
*What tools or equipment to use.
*What workers to hire or to assist with the work.
*Where to purchase supplies and services.
*What work must be performed by a specified individual.
*What order or sequence to follow when performing the work.
"Degree of Instruction means that the more detailed the instructions, the more control the business exercises over the worker. More detailed instructions indicate that the worker is an employee. Less detailed instructions reflects less control, indicating that the worker is more likely an independent contractor.
The amount of instruction needed varies among different jobs. Even if no instructions are given, sufficient behavioral control may exist if the employer has the right to control how the work results are achieved. A business may lack the knowledge to instruct some highly specialized professionals; in other cases, the task may require little or no instruction. The key consideration is whether the business has retained the right to control the details of a worker's performance or instead has given up that right."
looks like you found your answer.
is this even legal?? As I stated in my original post, if it is, then why doesn't everyone do it? Why not hire everyone as an indie contractor and simply cut 'em when you see fit?
the way you described the position my informed guess is that it is definitely not legal. most places do not do this because they know the law and are trying to run legit businesses. anyone who tries to convince you to do the "independent contractor" thing in an interview when you were expecting something else is not only being highly unethical, but are also flaunting the law. IMO - it's similar to predatory lending in sleaziness - except they can get in a lot more trouble with the feds.
geesh - they should really teach this as part of pro-practice courses.
there are legitimate indie contractors in architecture, but often they are brought on to do very specific things on a project - like renderings, producing specs, or CD production - usually because they have specialist skills that their regular full-time employees do not have... it's called "freelancing."
good luck... I'm sorry anyone has to experience this, but the more people who are informed about this illegal practice, the better.
Toasteroven is correct. There are many legitimate cases where independant contractor status makes sense. Usually its on a project by project basis with very limited or defined scope.
The big distinction between employee and indie contractor is usually when/where you do the work. At your house on your own schedule = indie contractor. At his office on his schedule = employer.
Nevertheless, if you do it, be sure you will be able to write off alot of your income because you will get hammered on self employment taxes if not. If you work from home you can write off a significant portion of your rent/mortgage and utilities. If you work in his office using his resources, you will have limited write offs.
i'm going to be contrarian here, but that definition given two posts up is pure crap. by that definition, every engineer we work with is an 'employee', since we maintain the right to 'control' their outcome (and yes, that's what's happening if i tell them to change their ducting route).
the parts that do make more sense is the near daily control over where, how, when to show up for work. that said, if i'm working with a web developer on our new site and ask him to come work in our office for a week to wrap up the project, is he now my employee for consenting?
look, you're using the irs as a shield in terms of making a much harder decision. if you take this guy at his word that he's truly looking for a new partner, you'll want to have your own company. make it a limited time joint venture to see how you work together and then formalize an agreement a year or so from now.
if you're doing this to just have a job, then that's fine. but tell him (and yourself) that upfront and ask that he hire you with full benefits. but i'm going to maintain that if you can't manage your own affairs, with your own structure (and company - which is all being an 'independent contractor' means), then you're not really there as someone ready to own a firm (and if that's not your intention taking this, then i've misunderstood and apologize in advance).
either way, the main point is this: enter into the situation treating him as an equal, not with you being a subordinate. equals don't get all the fall back safety nets. if they're that important to you, then this doesn't sound like the right kind of situation at the time.
btw - unemployment insurance payments can be huge to a small firm, without them being 'cheap' or whatever. hiring someone as a fte for 3 months and then having to let them go because a client/project flaked out could add a few thousand to my taxes the next year (especially if the full term benefits are pulled). you wonder why small firms aren't hiring more full time? i'll tell you straight up: the tax implications, paperwork, and other hassles aren't worth it unless i'm very, very confident the work's going to be there 6-12 months out. anything less just isn't enough. if that's 'sleazy' or 'predatory', well, that's your perspective.
The above post is pure crap, too.
The only 'real' legal separation between an independent contractor and an employee is that an independent contractor cannot necessarily be fired or terminated in violation of your own company policies.
What's even worse is that if you fire an independent contractor after a contract has been signed, you must fulfill your contractual duties if the contractor is not in breach of his contract.
So, if you get 1099'd... have fun trash talking around the office, showing up late and wearing short shorts!
Nice points Outed. Don't assume this guy is a sleeze just because he is looking for an 'independant contractor'. It sounds to me that he is in a pickle right now (splitting with his partner at the same time his right hand has fallen ill) and looking for a temporary fix and minimal commitment until things shake out and are more known. Put yourself in his shoes for a minute.
What soleproprietor wants to take on the tax liability of hiring an employee in this environment unless they are absolutely sure of what is ahead?
It is your choice if you want to step in and try to fill her shoes. It sounds a heck of alot more promising than a career at trader joes. What do you have to lose....other than your self respect If you can't cut it.
If you need the job take it, but don't have a sense of loyalty towards the guy. Continue to actively seek another better job and when you find it, you have the freedom to drop him like a rock. In the meantime its a paycheck.
If he's willing to use / test drive you, then do the same back.
The "convenience" of hiring and independent contractor works both ways.
This issue has led someone to crash their little planes into an IRS building.
NY times has an article on the issue.
Much stink was made about tech companies hiring everyone as 'contractors' back in the '80's. Laws got changed to address that, and everyone has been affected since.
Litmus test done by IRS is simple: if your income had multiple sources, ie you had proper 'clients', then yes you are an independent contractor and you can claim business expenses. If all your income came from a single source, you are technically an employee, and you'll be on hook for taxes you underpaid. They can audit you 3 years from now.
A lot of small companies really want to hire 'contract' work since the tax burden gets shifted to the employee. Most of them say it up front though. When IRS starts cracking on this, they tend to fine both companies and the employees.
My advice to CADalackey is that, if you've already held a position at a different company this year, you could use this to your advantage. Buy that new laptop you've wanted so much before the end of the year, and then write it off as a business expense.
The only way for you to get in trouble with IRS is if you end up working for that company for an entire fiscal year as a contractor while not having other sources of income.
Hope that helps.
Also, if you take the gig, get a good accountant. That $500-$1K fee will actually save you thousands. Everything from meal allowances to car depreciation starts making sense once you talk to a good pencil head.
ug - that's fine. let the guy show up in shorts. is it really how you'd hold yourself out to be a 'professional'? eh, i don't know the submarket, so what do i know.
what's unbelievably frustrating to read up to my post is the whiny, sniveling damn near entitlement position the various posters were taking towards any owner who would be so fricking insensitive towards your needs as an employee. suck it up - and, absolutely as druf said, be a mercenary if you have to - but approach it like a business decision and be mature about it. if it fits what you want, take it. if not, move on. but quit whining that someone offered you a bagel when you feel entitled to nothing less than a boston creme pie.
outed, you sound angry. For some reason this is an emotional topic for you.
The law is very clear about these things. It's only when emotions and wishful thinking get introduced that the topic becomes complex.
Your examples of engineers and web developers is poor. Both have multiple clients that they provide services for. If they exclusively work for you, then yes, they are your employees. It's that simple.
Tax laws were written to address the distinction between an employee and a freelancer. There are benefits to being either. Some percentage of people will always try to circumvent the rules for self benefit. And then they'll cry about 'it being unfair' when they get caught.
As for the original poster's employer, there is nothing legally stopping him from hiring contract work for 3-6 months. Anything longer than that would be pushing it. The problem of doing this is that either: a)you are pissing off your new hires by nickle and dimming them and thus risking their long term loyalty to your company; b)you are only interested in having people work for you short term in a confused belief that constantly retraining new staff is cheaper than paying payroll taxes or providing benefits.
outed - the OP explicitly states that this position is essentially a cad-monkey/admin assistant - not a potential business partner - also it appears the OP is unprepared to become an independent contractor.
I do agree that the OP's second post sounds somewhat entitled, though... not really thinking about why they might have been laid off...
what is more frustrating to me (and the reason I went all preachy) is that there are people who prey on the naivety of youngsters just so they can save a buck or two on insurance and taxes... I know it's business and you need to watch out for yourself - but there are people who try to convince a recent grad to be a contractor because "they'll be independent!" knowing damn well they have no f-ing clue what you are doing, and you're all too happy to exploit their obvious lack of knowledge to your financial advantage. it's disgusting. this is what I meant by the predatory lending comment.
and this is what I'm assuming the OP was more upset about - the ol' bait and switch - there was no up-front about the fact this position was a contract position (and not technically a legal one at that) - it suspiciously sounds like someone trying to exploit a youngster's inexperience to get around paying taxes and unemployment insurance. maybe sleaze is too strong a term, but this potential "client" doesn't seem very honest.
IMO - if the OP wants to do the independent contractor thing - that's fine, but she/he needs to know their rights and what this means. it's not something you just sign on to do because it's your "only option."
do people prey on the young? sure. you a sleaze if you're doing so willingly? yep. should the original ad have mentioned contract? i have no context to judge. perhaps the needs changed between the time it was posted and they interviewed (had that one happen to me - i had an interview with a junior partner in a firm in which the name partner died suddenly two days before i flew out for the meeting. it didn't work out like he or i had planned). perhaps the employer is a slimebag. perhaps, though (and i'm just reading the op's own description), there were about 500 things going on that didn't involve him, this guy is a bit of a mess (i mean, he's splitting up a partnership and his go-to ace goes down), and he doesn't even know where he'll be in 6 months. you think that his main concern then is your well being? probably not. is it a situation you really want to walk into? for myself, probably not.
look, i can't advise cadalackey what to do. what i can say is that instead of whining (and that is exactly what they're doing), be an adult, figure out what's best for you, and make that decision. what they seem to be sour grapes over is not the fact that the firm was potentially taking advantage of them (and, by the way, nothing that post suggests they are a naive waif of a recent grad - perhaps they've disclosed that elsewhere; it's not in the post itself), but that it wasn't offering some desired level of security and longevity for the level of responsibility being assumed. guess what? not very many people have that luxury themselves, especially the people running a firm right now.
if it were me, i'd either keep looking or embrace the contractor bit, go in telling them that you're also going to be working for other firms as the opportunities come up and/or doing competitions on the side. if employer 'a' has an issue with that, then force the indie contractor discussion and see what they want.
finally, as noted, the second post by cad really seems to betray the unemployment angle, without thinking at all what the implications would be to an employer. i noticed that no one else seems interested in addressing that subject....
Well, uh, wow! What can I say?? Some fantastic responses here, to be sure. I do feel compelled, however, to at least express that I didn't feel like I was whining about this situation nor do I feel like I'm entitled to anything but a little up front honesty.
outed, I'm all too aware of the implications of unemployment to a prospective employer. That ain't no cheap expense. However, they are laws in place to protect workers from unscrupulous business owners who feel that paying exhorbitant expenses such as unemployment insurance, payroll taxes, worker's comp insurance, etc. are too much of a burden to bare.
Look, I get it. This guy's breakin' out on his own and times are uncertain for everyone; me, you, everyone. But, this shouldn't give rise to a whole new business practice wherein businesses get to selectively pick which portions of the law suits their needs. It doesn't work like that. This not not my skewed view of the world through the lenses of entitlement. It's the freakin' law! I think I would've been more amenable to this man's proposition had he stated it at the outset, but he didn't. Okay. Fine. Whatever. It's there on the table. So, what now?
I can see both sides of the coin here, literally. I can also see this man's situation. However, he's the one who told me that he's busy as hell, has tons of work, needs someone who can hit the ground running on day one, can do it all from meeting with clients to unjamming the plotter to reviewing specifications and supervising, potentially, other staff. "And there's the possibility that this relationship could evolve into your taking on a partnership-like role".
The prospect is very exciting. It really is! I think I just feel a bit punk'd here. The honesty factor is really what's at stake and as such, the level of trust I have in this man is a bit lower than when I first sat down with him. It's hard to shake that. Let me know if I'm whining again. ;)
On the one hand, I could admire this guy for his business savvy. On the other, I sorta feel like going to the store manager because I caught him shoplifting.
If this guy is as busy as he says he is with work lined up until the middle of next year, then what's the big deal? And if his need is as dire as it is, then it should be no problem to sign me on as a perm. Why am I the heavy in this situation? I see a great opportunity to get in on the ground floor of a brand new firm. I would simply like to do it with a greater level of trust and confidence, that's all.
If this is the job description, then this is NOT a contract position. All other nuances of this discussion aside, you need to tell this person that if he wants to hire you to do these things, then you need to be an employee.
Donna hit the nail on the head.
If your job description is as you convey it, you're an employee. If you're brought in to do nothing but hammer away on cad all day, that's one thing--when you start handling all facets of the biz, that's another.
The way I was always introduced to the subject of Independent Contracting is that is like hiring a plumber to come fix something at your house. You tell him what needs fixed (ie. the end result) and he decides the rest--how to do it, what tools to use, when he can get around to doing it, etc.
This practice seems to be on the rise lately--purely based on the unpredictability of the market. People need help right now, but perhaps not in 6 months. You can't fault small firms for using the practice, but you do need to know your rights. As everyone has already pointed out, there are obvious benefits to both sides.
I would accept the position, but with a heaping dose of skepticism.
For the record - and having personally been in this situation multiple times - steelstuds' description above is incorrect: Litmus test done by IRS is simple: if your income had multiple sources, ie you had proper 'clients', then yes you are an independent contractor and you can claim business expenses. If all your income came from a single source, you are technically an employee, and you'll be on hook for taxes you underpaid. They can audit you 3 years from now.
There is in fact a very easy way to tell if you have been incorrectly listed (and taxed, or in fact, NOT taxed) as a contractor - it's spelled out on your income tax forms. If you were:
- expected to report to work at set times every day (aka 9-5)
- expected work in the office at all times during your work hours
- something about oversight - I think it's that you're expected to have your work reviewed by a superior or something... can't remember this one
...then you are an employee. I actually had to file a claim on this once so I used to know the definition backwards and forwards. I'm sure it's on the IRS website but I'm too lazy to check at the moment.
In any case - although I agree that it's technically unethical to use this as a way to test-drive an employee - frankly I think there are some advantages to both sides on this one, and I haven't minded it when I was given contractor status (AS LONG AS IT IS SPELLED OUT IN ADVANCE and you are able to take an active hand in the contracting process, and negotiate your rates, hours of work, etcetera):
- you get paid WAY more - not just because your rate is much higher (in order to include taxes), but because you get paid for every hour that you work which, in the architecture world, is pretty sweet.
- you get to set your own hours and working style, and you don't have to deal with as much office politics, etcetera
- you get to the same ability to walk away as the employer does. If you get in there and the place sucks, you can end your contract and still file for unemployment, whereas if you quit a salaried job, you don't get unemployment.
So, although this is technically kind of a shabby thing to do, in practice it can be quite beneficial to both sides. You just have to know about all the implications in advance, and be provided with the ability to take an active hand in crafting your contract.
To be clear - you can absolutely have all your income come from a single source and still be considered a contractor - it has nothing to do with who writes you checks. It has to do with your actual relationship to the person you're under contract to. If they get to direct how you do your job, then you are an employee. If you are hired to produce a specific product and the rest is up to you, you are a contractor. - like your structural engineer, for example. Hired to produce the drawings but you have no clue what time he spends on them, where he's sitting when he does it, etc. - you aren't watching over his shoulder.
There's nothing wrong with saying, "hey, when we talked about salary requirements, you had not mentioned that this would be as an independent contractor. I'm sure you understand that I told you the number I did with an expectation of a certain arrangement, and if I get hired on full-time I would stand by that number, but for the period that I work as an independent contractor I would need to be making $X/hr."
Bump up your salary requirements, and give it a go.
And I've not had employers tell me that something was a 1099 position until AFTER I was already in their office, doing work. For some reason, bosses continue to think this is ok. Or, they continue to try and scam people because they know they can.
so, based on the last description, then, yeah, i'm saying it's probably a true 'employee' they're looking for.
however,
that doesn't undercut my points about cada taking more 'charge' of the situation. the response is still a subordinate/superior type of reaction. i'm arguing that we take this mentality far too often - in employment contracts, in client relationships, etc. no matter what or how a response is constructed, do so as an equal.
manta, I don't think this is right. Isn't the opposite true: a salaried employee gets unemployment (because his/her employer has been paying into the unemployment insurance fund as required), a contract worker does not (because no one has been paying on his/her behalf)? Or am I misreading your post?
Sorry, if you QUIT a salaried job you're correct, you don't qualify for unemployment. But if you quit a contract position you don't either, right?
Well let's see - I've only filed for unemployment once, and that was after a salaried position, so I may have thrown that out there too quickly. Let's see. They ask you how your last job ended and the reason why it ended (for example: they ran out of money, you had to move, whatever). It seems to me that if your work contract is terminated (due to the contract ending) then you could certainly file for unemployment, no? I suppose it's a grey area - I don't know for sure.
You're correct, Donna. Sort of. Certain extenuating circumstances may almost "require" one to quit their job and as such, they may actually qualify for unemployment benefits.
An independent contractor gets nada IF they are actually and legally construed as such. Additionally, an IC can't call it quits until AFTER the requirements of the contract are filled, or they can be held in breach of contract. Now, the key word here is 'IF'.
Let's say I sign this contract and 6 months fly right on by. This guy realizes that while I may do good work, it's not gonna work out in the long run. You know; it's close but no cigar. I could, in this particular case, apply for unemployment benefits. Why? Because, despite this contract that has my signature on it, in the eyes of the IRS et al, the responsibilities of my position point in the direction of my being his employee. The contract wouldn't be enforcible because the premise of it wasn't legal to begin with.
True. It would be a bureaucratic nightmare for the two of us. In the end, however, I would most likely prevail. The IRS has an independent contractor checklist. You answer 'yes' to even a handful of the questions and you're considered an employee.
It's quite simpe really. If I push the issue on this guy, he'll simply yank the offer off the table and go find someone else. Who wants a "trouble maker" right out of the gate? "Who does this guy think he is?? Freakin' Norma Rae??" On the other hand, I could shut up, sign the contract, make some decent money for a few months and perhaps be asked to stay on board permanently. What's the harm? The harm is that there is a part of me that felt like I needed to take a shower after putting all of the pieces together. No one wants to feel like they're being "flim-flammed" as Foghorn Leghorn used to say.
When you sold your last car, did you reveal every little rattle that it had? Did ya go out of your way to tell the buyer that it got crappy gas mileage? Whatever happened to being up front with people instead of keeping a poker face and holding them at arm's length on a need-to-know basis only?
Get the fucking job.
The better question is:
If the employer just actually wants a contract worker and does not necessarily want to invest the time or the money in having a temporary employee, why does the employer not just hire a temp?
I mean, the cost difference between a regular employee and a temp isn't that much!
I have no clue why the employer just doesn't go through Aecom, Aerotek or some other headhunter/talent pool!
I'm sure by now the guy has found someone else.
Maybe next time you'll be better prepared to jump or maybe you've decided its not for you. Nevertheless, working on contract certainly has its pitfalls. If you don't have appetite for risk or IRS boogeymen would keep you up at night, you might be better off where you are now. Just wait for the right opportunity to come along....
cc
IMO - going into an interview and getting the independent contractor sprung on you is kinda like going to rent an apartment and the person tries to sell you a house. if you've gone through the process before you'll know what to do (some extra work, and a lot more negotiating) - if not, it's scary as hell and feels like someone is trying to pull a fast one on you (and they should know better). It could be that it's a good deal for everyone involved, but if you aren't ready to buy a house, you shouldn't buy a house - and you shouldn't feel forced into it.
I think the OP will be prepared for next time - and this is for the benefit to all you kids looking for work - if someone says to you "are you ok with it being an independent contractor" be honest and say you've never thought about it and don't really know what it means. that gives you an opportunity to do your research so you can actually negotiate a fair contract. if the person is reasonable, they'll allow you time to figure out if it works for you. if they are a sleaze, they won't and will try to pressure you into doing it. I think this is what outed is alluding to by "taking charge of the situation" - you don't just agree to do something if you have no idea what you're getting into.
that aside - independent contracting isn't all that bad if you are prepared and know what you are doing, and I think more people really need to consider whether or not it's a viable option for them right now since there isn't a whole lot out there. it is NOT something you just jump at without doing your research and knowing your rights, though... you can get totally screwed over if you aren't careful.
Block this user
Are you sure you want to block this user and hide all related comments throughout the site?
Archinect
This is your first comment on Archinect. Your comment will be visible once approved.