Category Archives: Independent Contractor

09.11.23
by

Did New York State Just Make Independent Contract Misclassification a Felony?

When Johnny Cash recorded At Folsom Prison in 1968, he has performing for an audience of arsonists, kidnappers, and killers. But the inmate audience probably didn’t include any independent contractor misclassifiers.

Fast forward to 2023. There’s a new sheriff in town, and you wouldn’t believe what might now qualify a person for prison time.

Under a new law signed by Governor Hochul last week, wage theft in New York State is now larceny. The law amends section 155 of the penal code (larceny).

Section 155 defines larceny:

  2. Larceny includes a wrongful taking, obtaining or withholding of
another`s property, with the intent prescribed in subdivision one of
this section, committed in any of the following ways:

The definition then lists five subparts: (a) by embezzlement, (b) by taking lost property, (c) by issuing a bad check, (d) by false promise, or (e) by extortion.

Now there’s a subpart (f) “by wage theft.”

Wage theft is defined to include failing to pay overtime, if overtime is due, for work performed. That definition appears broad enough to include the failure to pay overtime because a worker was treated, incorrectly, as an independent contractor.

Larceny comes in different degrees, based on how much money is involved. The new law says that prosecutors can aggregate multiple instances of wage underpayment to one person into one count. It’s unclear to me whether underpayments to multiple people could be aggregated to create a higher degree of felony.

If the value of the property is up to $1,000, that’s petit larceny and a class A misdemeanor. But anything over $1,000 is grand larceny.

If the value of the property exceeds $1,000, that’s grand larceny in the 4th degree, which is a class E felony. More than $3,000 is 3rd degree grand larceny and a class D felony. More than $50,000 is 2nd degree grand larceny and a class C felony. More than $1,000,000 is 1st degree grand larceny and a class B felony.

These are serious crimes. Non-violent felonies can mean prison time. Conviction of a class E felony (for taking $1,001 to $3,000) can result in up to four years of prison time.

New York is not alone in seeking to classify wage theft as criminal conduct. Minnesota and Washington, D.C., are among other jurisdictions that have criminalized wage theft with laws that authorize jail time. California and Rhode Island are considering similar legislation. Rhode Island’s bill would criminalize the knowing misclassification of independent contractors as a felony.

Here’s a link to the new law in New York, created through two companion bills, A154A and S2832A.

Do I expect Riker’s Island to start filling up with accountants and corporate officers who misclassified independent contractors? Not exactly. But I do expect this new law to be used by the state as leverage.

Now that felony prosecutions are a new weapon in the enforcement arsenal, it would not surprise me to see the state threaten prosecution as leverage to force a company to settle disputes over whether independent contractors were misclassified. States can initiate proceedings through tax, unemployment, or workers compensation audits or as a result of worker complaints. Investigations can lead to findings of misclassification, along with hefty fines and back assessments, and companies naturally want to dispute these findings (sometimes causing my phone to ring).

Will the state use the threat of criminal prosecution to try to leverage settlements or capitulation? Yeah, probably.

This is a well-intentioned law because intentional wage theft from employees is obviously a bad thing. But the breadth of the law is a concern for companies that use independent contractors.

For those of you in New York City, there’s also the Freelance Isn’t Free Act, which imposes all sorts of contractual requirements when retaining solo independent contractors. Don’t forget about that.

There are lots of traps out there, and the dangers of misclassification keep growing.

I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
I got chains, chains around my feet
I got stripes, stripes around my shoulders
And them chains, them chains,
They’re about to drag me down.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.31.23
by

Today’s Question: “Should I Make This Person an Independent Contractor?” Consider These Three Factors

Rock history is filled with questions. There’s “Questions 67 and 68,” a 1969 release by the band then known as Chicago Transit Authority, about a girl that singer Robert Lamm was seeing in 1967 and ‘68. There’s “Question” by the Moody Blues, reflecting on the war in Vietnam. There’s even ? and the Mysterians, a typographically monikered pre-punk band that gave us “96 Tears.” (Fun fact: The band members were the children of migrant workers who had settled in Michigan.)

I can’t sing at all, but I can field questions. One question I get a lot is, “Should I make this person an independent contractor?”

Note the phrasing of this question. It’s not “Can I?” — that’s a legal question — but “Should I?” That’s partly a legal question and partly a business question. The answer largely depends on your tolerance for risk.

When trying to decide “Should I?” ask yourself three questions:

1. What is the likelihood the IC relationship will be challenged?

If no one ever questions the relationship, it never becomes an issue. But it’s not enough to consider whether you think the contractor will ever challenge the relationship. You need to worry about federal and state agencies, auditors, and other similarly situated contractors who might not be as content with their classification. Consider also that a contractor who is happily working might be less happy if your company terminates the relationship. A contractor who wants to be a contractor now might have other ideas later if the relationship ends badly and the contractor seeks legal advice.

Here are a few situations where there’s a high likelihood of a classification challenge:

  • Volume: The company works with a lot of independent contractors.
  • Industry: The contractors are performing services in an industry that is under heightened scrutiny, such as rideshare, installers, delivery drivers.
  • High Dollars: The independent contractors are paid a substantial amount of money, either individually or collectively.
  • General Audit Risk: The company considers an audit to be likely for any reason, even if unrelated to worker classification.
  • Similar Employees: The company has employees who do the same or similar work as the independent contractor.

Here are a few situations where there’s a low likelihood of a classification challenge:

  • One-off. It’s a one-off retention, meaning there’s just one independent contractor; there are no other independent contractors who are similarly situated.
  • Shared Expectations: The independent contractor wants to be an independent contractor (although that can change if the relationship ends badly).
  • Low Dollars: Low dollar value of the contract.
  • No Similar Employees: There are no employees doing what the contractor has been retained to do.

2. If there’s a challenge, what is the likelihood of success?

This is the purely legal question. Is the independent contractor classification correct under all of the applicable laws (federal, state, and local)?

That’s the question we usually explore in this blog (see all other blog posts, haha), but the legal analysis is only part of the equation you should be considering when asking the “Should I?” question. The answer to the legal question will depend on the facts, the contract, the applicable law, and the jurisdiction. This is the part where you want to reach out to a lawyer.

3. If misclassification is found, what are the likely damages or adverse consequences?

Often it’s a close call whether a worker is misclassified. Do you want to take that risk? Sometimes the stakes are so low that a company might be more willing to take the risk. If there are only a few independent contractors and they are not paid much money, you might be more willing to take the risk if there are facts that could support IC status (even if there are also facts that go the other way).

In making this assessment, there are generally several factors to consider:

A) What laws might be violated if the contractor is misclassified?

Sometimes an IC classification seems questionable on the facts, but the impact of misclassification would be very low. Suppose the IC works 15 hours a week, never more than 8 hours in a day, is paid at a rate of $20/hour or more, performs non-manual labor, and has other clients. Even if this worker is misclassified:

  • There’s no federal minimum wage or overtime violation (hourly rate exceeds minimum wage, no overtime hours).
  • There’s no state or local minimum wage or overtime violation (same).
  • There’s no failure to provide employee benefits (probably not eligible because part-time).
  • The risk of a workplace injury and resulting workers’ compensation claim is minimal (based on the nature of the work).
  • An unemployment claim is unlikely because the IC would continue to have other work (has other clients).

There could be local wage statement violations, meal or rest break violations, or disclosure violations. There could be a failure to reimburse business expenses. There could be tax penalties for failure to withhold. There could be an unfair labor practice charge under the National Labor Relations Act (see point #3 in this post). There could be penalties for failing to comply with local freelancer laws. There could be assessments for failing to pay into the unemployment and workers compensation systems. But none of these adverse findings are likely to create significant economic exposure under this fact pattern.

On the other hand, suppose the IC works varying hours per week, perhaps up to 60 hours, is paid on a fixed per project basis that would result in an hourly wage below the minimum if the IC worked a high number of hours, has no other clients, and performs manual labor. Suppose there are several ICs doing the same kind of work with the same IC classification. Now the risks are much higher in each category. You’re looking at possible violations of many laws, with potentially significant economic consequences.

B) What does the statute say about damages?

What damages are available? Are there penalties? Liquidated or punitive damages? Attorneys’ fees?

C) Is the potential misclassification systemic?

If the potential misclassification is of one person, the damages are going to be limited. If there are many ICs doing the same thing, the potential damages are multiplied. And, if there are many similarly situated ICs, a plaintiff’s lawyer might find the case attractive as a potential class action. If there are violations of law, your company may be liable for the plaintiff’s attorneys’ fees.

D) Is the use of contractors vital to the business?

For some companies, a finding of widespread misclassification could put the entire business model at risk. For other companies, a few adjustments can be made and life goes on.

E) Are there individual arbitration agreements in place?

Individual arbitration agreements can prevent class action litigation, but they don’t solve every problem. Is there a risk of mass arbitrations? Is your business still subject to California PAGA claims? Is the arbitration agreement enforceable as written?

F) Are there other practical or business considerations?

If there’s a finding of misclassification, what else might happen? Can you justify your decisions if questioned by your CEO or the board? Will there be adverse publicity? Would the business suffer reputational damage? Would the company’s value or stock price suffer? What would it cost to defend a claim, even if you win? If the company gets sued based on the decision to retain workers as contractors not employees, would your job be at risk?

That’s a lot of questions.

I know.

And we haven’t covered it all either. There are other factors to consider too, but hopefully this is enough to get you to start thinking about how to conceptualize the “Should I?” question.

The main point to remember is that “Should I?” is not purely a legal question. It requires business judgment and risk calculation too.

If you’ve had enough of the questions for today, I will leave you with this, courtesy of the best band to come out of Jacksonville, Florida.

 

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.24.23
by

Cry If You Want To: Individual Arbitration Agreements Can’t Stop PAGA Claims

A Nigerian comedian recently set out to beat the world record for continuous crying, seeking to cry for 100 consecutive hours. I expect that many new parents would object right here and point out that this record is bullsh@# because their infants have cried continuously for twice that long. But let’s assume the record here is for adult crying. Lacking the stamina of a newborn, the comedian failed miserably.

After six hours, the man experienced headaches, a swollen face, and lost his vision for 45 minutes.

A California Supreme Court decision last week may cause businesses to shed a few tears, but the ruling was no surprise, and companies just need to be prepared.

Remember how we love individual arbitration agreements as a tool for avoiding class action lawsuits? Companies that make widespread use of independent contractors should have these agreements in place, and most do. Courts generally enforce these agreements, which require claimants to bring any claims on an individual basis, not as part of a class action.

In California, there was an open question about whether an individual who is subject to an individual arbitration agreement could nonetheless bring a PAGA claim in California. PAGA refers to the Private Attorneys General Act, a California state law that allows “aggrieved individuals” to bring a claim on behalf of the state government, seeking relief for other employees. It’s not a class action but, to a defendant company, it feels like one.

In Adolph v. Uber, the California Supreme Court ruled that an individual whose claims are subject to an individual arbitration agreement may still be considered an “aggrieved employee” who can bring a PAGA claim seeking to remedy a defendant’s Labor Code violations against other employees.

The ruling was no surprise to the business community, but it clarifies an important point of law. You can read more about the decision here, in this BakerHostetler alert.

Businesses do not need to do anything differently on the preventive side, as a result of this ruling.

Businesses making widespread use of independent contractors should continue to require the contractors to sign individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers. While these agreements cannot prevent PAGA claims, they can often be used to delay PAGA claims. The agreement can include a clause requiring the parties to jointly request that any PAGA claim be stayed while the individual claim is arbitrated. This delay may frustrate the purpose of the PAGA claim, especially if your business prevails in arbitration against the individual.

So for now, nobody needs to follow the lead of the temporarily blind Nigerian comedian. Instead, follow the advice in this song:

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.17.23
by

Free Lancers? Fourth Major US City Now Requires Written Contracts for Freelance Workers

In ancient and medieval warfare, cavalrymen who fought battles with lances were known as lancers. Actually, they were probably known as whatever Assyrians or Normans or Persians called lancers in their languages, but that’s not important right now.

I should share that my junior high, Palmetto, was also known as the Lancers when I attended in the 1980s. I don’t know if they are still the Lancers, but I do know that they are no longer Palmetto Junior High. Instead, the school is now known as Palmetto Middle School, which is unfortunate and a bit cruel to the teenage cheerleaders who must wear the school’s initials across their chests.

Medieval lancers might have been paid, or might not. Don’t know, don’t care. I know that PMS Lancers are not paid. But this post is not about free lancers. It’s about freelancers. And that space makes a lot of difference.

Los Angeles is the latest major city to pass an ordinance that imposes several strict requirements when retaining freelancers. The Freelance Worker Protection Ordinance took effect July 1, and L.A. now joins NYC, Seattle, and Minneapolis as cities that require a written contract when retaining a solo independent contractor.

This L.A. law is not a TV drama where “office politics and romance often distract the legal staffers from matters in the courtroom.” No, this L.A. law is more boring. This law applies when retaining a solo contractor who will earn $600 or more in a calendar year. If that’s the case (see what I did there?), then these rules now apply:

  • Must have a written contract that includes:
    • name, mailing address, phone, email of both hiring party and freelance worker,
    • itemization of services to be provided,
    • rate and method of compensation, and
    • date by which payment is due, or manner for determining due date.
  • Payment must be made by the due date or, if none is specified, within 30 days after services are rendered.
  • Both the hiring party and freelancer must retain records for 4 years.
  • Any waiver of these requirements is unenforceable.

The NYC, Seattle, and Minneapolis ordinances also require written contracts with similar contents when retaining solo independent contractors who will earn about the same amount. The NYC law applies to work worth $800 in one project or in the aggregate over 120 days. The Minneapolis law applies to work valued at $600 in a calendar year or $200 in a single week. The Seattle law applies to work valued at $600 in a calendar year.

Businesses and individuals who retain solo independent contractors in these cities need to be aware of these laws, which apply even if the hiring party is located elsewhere.

Hiring parties who fail to comply may be liable for double damages, fines for not providing a written contract, penalties for late payments, and attorneys’ fees. The most egregious violators may also be subjected to cavalry charges and lance attacks. Maybe.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.10.23
by

Not 1925: Another Court Upholds Arbitration Agreement for Rideshare Driver Misclassification Disputes

In 1925, the first motel opened in San Luis Obispo, California, according to The People History. It was originally called the Milestone Mo-Tel and charged $1.25 per night. The term motel was created to shorten the phrase Motorists’ Hotel, the defining feature of which was the ability of visitors to park their vehicles directly outside their room.

Why are we focused on 1925? Because laws written in 1925 continue to directly impact legal disputes over misclassification in 2023, even though the facts being applied to those laws were so far beyond what lawmakers could have even imagined at the time. The application of outdated laws is something we deal with all the time, including with the Fair Labor Standards Act, enacted in the 1930s. The intersection of old laws with new technologies creates sticky legal problems. And today’s post is about one of these sticky situations.

In a recent decision, the Third Circuit Court of Appeals joined the First, Seventh, and Ninth in ruling that rideshare drivers with individual arbitration agreements are required to arbitrate misclassification disputes, as set forth in the Federal Arbitration Act (FAA). In other words, the FAA’s transportation exception does not apply.

I’ll explain why that’s important, and you’ll see where 1925 fits in.

For companies engaging large numbers of independent contractors, misclassification class actions pose a significant risk. Individual arbitration agreements with class action waivers provide important protections against that risk. Generally, the FAA requires the enforcement of arbitration agreements.

But the FAA has an exception. Under section 1 of the FAA, the Act does not apply to “contracts of employment of seamen, railroad employees, or any other class of workers engaged in foreign or interstate commerce.”

Historically, this exception was created because seaman and railroad workers were subject to a different set of federal requirements for dispute resolution. Remember, the FAA was enacted in 1925. People still said “seaman” without giggling.

In 1925, Calvin Coolidge was sworn in for a full term, in the first inauguration to be be broadcast on the cutting-edge new technology of radio. The Scopes Monkey Trial captivated the nation, following the indictment of Tennessee schoolteacher John Scopes for daring to teach human evolution. In other Tennessee news, the Grand Ole Opry debuted on Nashville radio, with the less-catchy name, the “WSM Barn Dance.”

So this was a different time. No one was thinking you could order a car on your cell phone, track your route on your cell phone, then pay and rate your driver by cell phone. In 1925, we were still a year away from the first trans-Atlantic phone call.

Anyway, plaintiffs’ lawyers attempting to bring misclassification class actions frequently argue that rideshare drivers fall within the transportation exemption, and therefore the FAA does not require enforcement of the drivers’ signed arbitration agreements. In Singh v. Uber Transp., a three-judge panel in the Third Circuit held that the transportation exception does not apply (and therefore the FAA does apply) because the vast majority of rides were intrastate, not interstate. The decision was issued in April, but there was a petition asking for a rehearing by the full circuit. Earlier this month, that petition was denied, and the Third Circuit’s decision therefore will stand, assuming there is no Supreme Court review.

The takeaway for companies making widespread use of independent contractors is to continue to use arbitration agreements, even in industries that may involve transportation. The scope of the transportation exemption is constantly being tested, but so far for rideshare, the outcome of most court decisions has been that the FAA still applies and the transportation exception does not apply.

For those interested in how the opening story ends, the Milestone Mo-Tel was renamed the Motel Inn, then closed in 1991. The building is now the administrative building for the Apple Farm Inn next door. The Apple Farm Inn charges a bit more than $1.25 per night, but it promises “the excitement of creating future memories.”

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.03.23
by

Still a Chunky Stew: California’s ABC Test Survives Supreme Court Challenge

The song “Rock & Roll Stew” was released by Traffic as a single, off its excellent 1971 album, The Low Spark of High Heeled Boys. The stew is a reference to the messy life of playing gigs in clubs around the world. (This stew, of course, refers to the meal, not the anthropomorphic similar-sounding Stu, as referenced in Led Zeppelin’s “Boogie with Stu,” with this Stu being a real person, namely Ian Stewart, who was the Rolling Stones’ road manager and piano player and who sat at the keyboard one day to help Jimmy Page tune his guitar, a collaboration that resulted in this mostly improvised song, which is catchy and fun.)

Stew, according to allrecipes.com, is like a soup but chunkier. When making a stew, you can toss in meats and vegetables and whatever else you’re trying to get rid of in your refrigerator to make room before you go to Costco.

A messy chunky stew also seems like a good description of California’s ABC Test, which seems straightforward enough at first but, in reality, is chock full of meaty exceptions, most of which seem completely arbitrary.

The exceptions to the ABC Test are laid out in California Labor Code sections 2776 through 2785. The structure of the California law goes basically like this: When determining if someone is an employee or an independent contractor, use the ABC Test except in a whole bunch of situations or professions or circumstances, in which you would not use the ABC Test. There are dozens and dozens of exceptions to the ABC Test, and you just about need a decision tree to figure them out. The lines that have been drawn to determine whether some of the exceptions apply can also be maddening to understand, and they too seem arbitrary.

In a case brought by Mobilize the Message LLC, some of these lines were challenged on the grounds that they violate the First Amendment.

More specifically, the argument was that the law creates two classes of canvassers and distributors of literature, with different outcomes depending on whether they are engaging in political speech. The law allows promoters of consumer goods and distributors of newspapers to be classified as independent contractors, but it subjects promoters of political campaigns to the ABC Test, making it much more likely that they would be deemed employees.

Mobilize the Message LLC argued that the law discriminated against political speech by imposing more substantial burdens on those who engage in it than those who do not.

In October 2022, the Ninth Circuit rejected the challenge, ruling that there was no First Amendment violation. The petitioner then sought review by the U.S. Supreme Court. But late last month, the Supreme Court declined to take the case.

That means the Ninth Circuit ruling will stand, and the ABC Test — with its arbitrary lines — lives another day, even if the law subjects workers engaging in political speech to a different set of rules.

The ABC Test remains a messy stew, chock full of meaty (and vegetable-y) exceptions. But businesses operating in California have no choice but to learn it and digest it, no matter how chunky and confusing the mystery meat may be.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.26.23
by

What if Everything You Knew…? DOL Targets Fall 2023 for New Independent Contractor Test

In school we all learned that the longest river is the Nile. But some say the Amazon is longer. In the atlas “Maps of Useful Knowledge” (1846), the Amazon was listed as 3200 miles and the Nile 2750 miles. The current U.S. Geological Survey shows the Nile at 4132 miles and the Amazon at 4000 miles. Brazilian researchers claim the Amazon is 4331 miles long and the Nile a mere 4258 miles.

So which is it, and how can it be changing? Apparently the controversy involves disputes over where the rivers start, where they end, and how to track changes in the rivers’ course.

Whatever you learned about the test for who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is subject to change too.

Remember October 2022? Elon Musk completed a $44B deal to take over twitter. Germany took steps to legalize marijuana. And the DOL released a proposed new regulation to modify the independent contractor test.

The proposed rule received more than 50,000 comments. We’ve been speculating about when the DOL might issue a final rule.

We’ve now learned that the DOL is targeting this fall for release of the new rule. The latest version of the regulatory agenda lists August as the target release date. August may be a bit ambitious, but the fall seems likely. On June 9, a federal court of appeals granted a motion by the DOL for a 120-day stay in a pending lawsuit. The DOL asked for the stay to allow it time to release the new rule.

You can read more about the proposed rule here.

So it seems that whatever we know now about the length of the Nile River, the length of the Amazon River, and the independent comntractor test under the FLSA is subject to change. Hopefully we’ll know more about all three by sometime this fall.

We can be pretty sure the final rule will closely resemble the multi-factor balancing test released in October 2022. Businesses can plan accordingly by being proactive in assessing their relationships with independent contractors and taking steps to reduce risk now.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.19.23
by

No Need to Panic: NLRB’s Atlanta Opera Decision Unlikely to Have a Major Impact on Misclassification Disputes

Photo by Kilyan Sockalingum on Unsplash

As I wrote a few days ago in the BakerHostetler blog, The Bargaining Table…

The sky is not falling.

When the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB or Board) issued its Atlanta Opera decision on June 14, I read the decision. Then I read some of the commentary issued quickly by news outlets right after the decision dropped. I’m not sure whether all of those commentators read the actual decision. To those who think this decision will have any significant impact on independent contractor classification under the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA or Act), I disagree.

In Atlanta Opera, the Board purported to revise the test for determining employee status under the Act. The Board said it was overruling the 2019 SuperShuttle DFW case and readopting the FedEx II standard from 2014. But is there really any practical difference? I think not.

Click here to read the full story.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.05.23
by

Should Independent Contractors Receive an Employee Handbook? (Don’t Ask Rojakorn)

Rojakorn Nanon is a businessman in Thailand. He used to feel weak and tired but then started drinking something each day that wakes him up and gives him energy.

Thailand, you see, is one of the top 25 coffee producers in the world, growing mainly arabica beans (the good kind) in the north and robusta beans (icky bitter) in the south. It would not be surprising if our friend Rojakorn discovered the wonders of a morning cup of coffee.

But no.

Twice each day, Rojakorn drinks crocodile blood mixed with alcohol. He gets the concoction from a nearby crocodile farm owner (largest croc farm in Trang province!), who sells the wonder drink for 200-300 baht per glass, about $6-9. A latte would be cheaper, even with a few extra shots, and it would be a much more traditional way to stay focused at work. When you live in a country where coffee is plentiful, there’s no need to think so far outside the box.

The same advice applies when addressing this commonly asked question: Should I give the company’s employee handbook to independent contractors?

The answer is almost always no. Don’t think outside the box on this one. An employee handbook is for employees. It explains employment policies. It provides detail about employees’ attendance rules, vacation time, leaves, exempt/non-exempt classification, and other terms that apply only to employees. These items don’t apply to independent contractors, and if you’re telling your independent contractors that you expect them to follow the policies in the handbook, you may be suggesting that all sorts of things apply them that should not apply to them.

Yes, it’s true that there are some workplace rules you’ll want your contractor to follow. Your discrimination and harassment policies, for example, can and should apply to contractors. But most of that other stuff doesn’t apply. You can include a clause in the independent contractor agreement that the contractor will not engage in any unlawful discrimination or harassment. A simple contractual requirement should be sufficient. Or you can provide a standalone copy of that policy, but you may need to modify it a bit to remove inapplicable parts or to change the terminology.

Many large companies, especially global companies, have Codes of Conduct that apply to vendors and suppliers. You can give those to independent contractors. They are intended to apply to non-employees, and they are written in a way that does not suggest an employment relationship.

You can also subject a contractor to premises rules that do not include control over how the work is done. You could require a contractor to comply with a weapons rule or a violence rule. You could require a contractor to comply with a rule prohibiting unauthorized visitors onsite. But don’t provide the full list of employee workplace rules that may be attached to your disciplinary policy, since many of those prohibitions are specific to employees.

When it comes to employee handbooks and independent contractors, keep it simple. Employee handbooks are for employees. In this situation, there’s no need to think outside the box.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
05.30.23
by

In the Staffing World, What Is MSP and VMS, and How Can they Help?

In 1979, my sister and I watched a kids’ movie called C.H.O.M.P.S., a “comic science fiction family film” (according to Wikipedia), which featured a Benji-lookalike border terrier named CHOMPS. Except the dog wasn’t really a terrier, and wasn’t even really a dog.

C.H.O.M.P.S. was an acronym for Canine Home Protection System, and the terrier was a robot [insert plot of every children’s movie here] invented by a brilliant kid, who then outsmarts bumbling adults who try to kidnap the dog but prove inept and not nearly as clever as our young hero.

The movie scores an abysmal 29% on Rotten Tomatoes and I don’t remember much about it, except that my sister and I still talk about it.

Although we’re all grown up now, we’re still overrun with acronyms. Two acronyms often appear in the context of retaining contingent labor, and if your company makes frequent use of temp staffing or other contingent workers, these may be good to know.

First, there’s MSP. An MSP is a Managed Service Provider. MSPs can manage many different things, but in the context of employment law and the contingent workforce, they can manage temporary staffing needs for a business. Generally, they will contract directly with multiple staffing agencies and taking the laboring oar in overseeing those relationships. MSPs can also identify and retain independent contractors. They will monitor spend and can produce all sorts of nifty reports. If your business uses an MSP, then when you need temp labor or other contingent workers, you tell the MSP what you’re looking for, and the MSP does the rest.

Next, there’s VMS. VMS stands for Vendor Management System. It is an online portal through which contingent workforce staffing needs can be arranged and managed. MSPs generally use VMSs, but a company can also use a VMS without an MSP.

When beginning a relationship with an MSP, sophisticated businesses will take a hand-on approach in negotiating the terms of service with the MSP, as well as negotiating (or providing) the form agreements that the MSP will enter into with staffing agencies and independent contractors. Your company is not a direct party to those agreements but, rather, is a third party beneficiary.

Those staffing agency agreements should generally include the same protections against joint employer liability that you’d include if you contracted with the staffing agency directly. Click here for Ten Things That Should Be in your Staffing Agency Agreements But Probably Aren’t.

You’ll also probably want all contingent workers retained through the MSP to sign arbitration agreements with classs action waivers, as well as individual agreements addressing the protection of your confidential information and ownership of any IP created during the assignment.

Bonus tip: Be careful not to say that all deliverables are “works made for hire.” Under some laws, including in California, declaring deliverables to be “works made for hire” automatically converts the relationship into employment. Bummer. Use assignment instead. You can read more about that topic here.

For companies that make frequent use of contingent labor, MSPs and VMSs can save a lot of time and aggravation. When engaging MSPs, it’s worth the up-front investment to renegotiate and modify the template agreements that the MSP will use on your company’s behalf.

If you’re later alleged to be a direct or joint employer of the contingent workers, well-drafted agreements will provide vital home protection — even better than you could get from C.H.O.M.P.S.

Bonus Fun Fact: Red Buttons was in this movie. It’s fun to say Red Buttons. Try it. Really. Say it aloud. But say it quietly in case someone is listening. You’ll like it and will probably keep saying it quietly to yourself all day, with a slight smile, because no one else is in on your little secret.

Enter your email address to subscribe to this blog and receive notifications of new posts by email.

© 2023 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge