08.23.21
by

Spurs and Chickens: California Judge Says Prop 22 Is Unconstitutional; Appeal to Follow

There’s a fight brewing over cockfighting, and it may be headed to the Supreme Court. The dispute is over who can regulate the bloodsport and how. The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico has joined a cadre of cockfighting enthusiasts to ask the Supreme Court to rule that it’s unconstitutional for the federal government to ban the contests.

In 1933, Puerto Rico changed its laws to allow the sport, in which gamecocks are often fitted with spurs and battle until death or dismemberment. The federal government later stepped in to ban the fights. People bet on this stuff, really. On chickens. Wearing spurs.

Closer to home, another fight is brewing, and it’s on a subject familiar to readers of this blog – Prop 22 in California. Passed in late 2020 through a ballot initiative, Prop 22 exempts app-based drivers from the ABC Test and allows them to maintain independent contractor status, so long as the app companies provide certain types of benefits to drivers.

But on Friday, an Alameda County Superior Court judge ruled that Prop 22 is unconstitutional. Wait, what?

Even though Prop 22 passed with 58% support, the SEIU and a vocal group of drivers weren’t too happy and sued. The matter initially went to the California Supreme Court, but the Court dismissed the petition and said it would not hear the case. The SEIU tried again, this time starting in Superior Court, which is where cases are supposed to start. The union found a sympathetic ear in Judge Frank Roesch, who issued this 12-page opinion, which is confusing, hard to follow, and seems to me to be just plain wrong.

What was the basis for the ruling? Two things.

First, Judge Roesch concluded that Prop 22 was unconstitutional because it limits the legislature’s ability to regulate workers’ compensation. Prop 22 defines app-based drivers as contractors, and contractors don’t get workers comp coverage. The law limits the ability of the legislature to undo Prop 22, which was smart since the legislature hated the bill.

The judge found that these limitations made Prop 22 unconstitutional because the California constitution grants the legislature “plenary” power to oversee workers’ compensation. Prop 22 allows the legislature to make limited amendments to Prop 22 but not to undo the whole thing or reclassify the drivers as employees. In making his ruling, the judge essentially concluded that if the legislature couldn’t undo the law, then the law unduly restricted the legislature. But wait! Just a few pages earlier, the judge conceded that “The term ‘legislature’ in [the California constitution] includes the people acting through the initiative power.” Yes, that’s quite the internal contradiction. If the term “legislature” includes initiatives by the people, then initiatives by the people are the equivalent of legislative action. They are acting as the legislature. An appeals court will likely take care of that confusing mess.

Second, the judge concluded that Prop 22 violated the state constitution’s rule that legislation can only be about one subject. Judge Roesch pointed to the part of Prop 22 that gave app-based drivers the right to collectively bargain in a quasi-union environment. He concluded that the bargaining piece of the law is “utterly unrelated” to the law’s purpose. Huh? That utterly makes no sense. The whole point of Prop 22 was to grant app-based drivers various concessions in exchange for clarity on their status as contractors. These concessions include a minimum rate of pay, contributions to healthcare funds, automobile insurance, and the right to collectively bargain in a specified manner. How could the right to collectively bargain be unrelated to these other rights, all of which were part of the quid pro quo in exchange for preserving independent contractor status? The ruling makes no sense, and this too is likely to be cleaned up on appeal.

So what’s the status of Prop 22? Is it dead? Dismembered? The judge may have tied spurs to his feet and kicked the law around a bit, but I am cautiously optimistic that this law will live to see another day.

The case is now headed to the Court of Appeal, and it may end up back with the California Supreme Court.

Meanwhile, for those of you wagering on whether cockfighting will return to legal status, I’d say the odds are against. I don’t think the Supreme Court will take the case and, if it does, I don’t think the Court will say the federal government lacks the power to regulate chicken gladiator shows. I’d put my money on Prop 22 to survive on appeal. I think Judge Roesch’s analysis is incorrect and will be overturned on appeal. But I can’t say I have the same sense of optimism for our cockfighting aficionado friends.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.16.21
by

The Abruzzo Agenda: Like a Good Hyena Story, the NLRB Giveth Then Taketh Away

Not a dog.

I had a great intro all ready for this week. I really did. WXYZ.com reported last week that Monica, a Detroit woman, took home a free puppy, only to learn days later that it was not a puppy at all, but a hyena.

I was about to share this great piece of investigative journalism with you when I was hit with this surprise: The woman’s story is now in doubt, and WXYZ has retracted the story. Thanks to the Wayback Machine, you can read the original story here and (to my great disappointment, because I so badly wanted this to be true) the retraction here.

Sometimes we are given something that seems wonderful — say, a puppy, or even a fun story about a woman who mistook a hyena for a puppy — but then it gets taken away. For all of you who were pleased with any NLRB pro-business decisions over the past four years, get ready to see those taken away too.

Last week new NLRB General Counsel Jennifer Abruzzo issued a Memo listing roughly 40 decisions and principles that she’d like to undo. She has a more diplomatic way of saying it — let’s just say we’ll “carefully examine” these. But expect many of these principles to be toast, now that the Board features a 3-2 Democratic majority.

You can see the full list here, but I’ll focus on three:

(1) “Cases involving the applicability of SuperShuttle DFW,” a case that made it easier to be classified as an independent contractor. You can read my post about SuperShuttle here.

(2) “Cases involving the applicability of Velox Express,” a case in which the NLRB ruled that independent contractor misclassification, by itself, is not an automatic unfair labor practice. You can read my post about Velox Express here.

(3) “Cases involving the applicability of UPMC,” which relates to the standard for the Board to accept settlements voluntarily entered into by the parties. What she’s really talking about here is the McDonald’s franchise joint employer case, in which her predecessor as NLRB General Counsel settled a case against McDonald’s that she (and an Administrative Law Judge) didn’t think should have been settled. The NLRB eventually approved the settlement. Here is an amicus brief I wrote for the Restaurant Law Center in that case, arguing that the settlement should be approved.

The General Counsel for the NLRB is the equivalent of its chief prosecutor. These are Abruzzo’s priorities. With a sympathetic 3-2 majority on the Board, you can be sure that many of these desired changes will take place.

Like a good hyena story, the pro-business Board decisions from the last four years aren’t likely to last.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
08.09.21
by

Now is the Time to Add These Safe Harbor Clauses to Your Independent Contractor Agreements

Image by Luca Falvo from Pixabay

I just finished reading The Longest Day, the 1959 book by Cornelius Ryan that tells the story of the D-Day landing from Allied, French, and German perspectives. The book covers June 6, 1944 and the days leading up to it, but it doesn’t get into what happened next. To facilitate supply lines into Europe right after D-Day, the British built two artificial harbors off the Normandy coast. Mulberry Harbours A and B allowed for the transport of up to 7,000 tons of vehicles and supplies to the mainland each day.

A harbor is a place where ships can seek shelter from the open ocean. Switching our focus to peacetime and the law, a “safe harbor” is the legal term for a provision that protects against liability if you meet certain conditions. No ships are required. Know the required conditions, and you can find shelter from a legal storm.

Two states recently passed laws that create safe harbors against claims of independent contractor misclassification.

Businesses using independent contractors in West Virginia and Louisiana should update their contracts immediately to take advantage of these new statutes.

Each state’s law provides a list of conditions that, if met, will make someone an independent contractor, providing a safe harbor against claims that these workers are misclassified and should be employees. The LA law creates a presumption of contractor status; the WV law is conclusive.

One of the conditions in WV, for example, is that the written contract “states…that the person understands” a list of five specific facts. The contract needs to “state” these five things. The WV law has other requirements too.

The LA law requires that 6 of a possible 11 conditions are met to fall within the safe harbor.

Other states are considering similar laws. Missouri and North Carolina are considering similar bills. Oklahoma was headed down the same road during the last legislative section but has not yet passed a bill.

Businesses using independent contractors in these states should amend their agreements to take advantage of these safe harbor opportunities.

At a time when the federal government is pledging to crack down further on independent contractor misclassification, it’s important to have contracts that are built to withstand classification challenges by any governmental body. Even under federal law, which doesn’t have these safe harbors, these recitations can be helpful when trying to meet the Right to Control and Economic Realities Tests used in federal law and in most states.

Your agreements with independent contractors provide an opportunity to build your defense against claims of misclassification. They should not be treated as a mere formality.

You want to be able to point to your agreements as Exhibit 1 in your defense against a misclassification claim. Play offense, not defense. Adding the WV and LA clauses — and even the proposed NC and MO clauses — can go a long way toward protecting your independent contractor relationships.

You might not be into reading books about World War II and that’s ok. But please read your contracts carefully. Now is a great time to amend and improve independent contractor agreements.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.29.21
by

Welcome to Turkmenistan: Joint Employment Rules Rescinded, Leaving Massive Crater in FLSA Regulations

Tormod Sandtorv – Flickr: Darvasa gas crater panorama CC BY-SA 2.0

No visit to Turkmenistan would be complete without a visit to the Darvaza Crater, more commonly known as the Door to Hell. This massive crater formed decades ago after a Soviet drilling rig collapsed. Roughly 40 years ago, the Soviets lit the crater on fire to burn off the methane. But Turkmenistan has some of the largest gas reserves in the world, which meant you couldn’t just make the gas go away.

The fire still burns today, and the massive fiery hole is an impressive sight.

A massive hole can also describe what the Wage and Hour Division (“WHD”) just created.

On July 29, the WHD formally announced the rescission of all of the regulations that define when joint employment exists under the Fair Labor Standards Act (“FLSA”).

The regulations, which can be found in Part 791 of 29 C.F.R., have existed in some form since 1958, which is right around the tenth anniversary of a magnitude 7.3 earthquake that killed up to 10% of the entire population of Turkmenistan.

In 2020, the Trump Administration revised the regulations to provide more clarity about who is a joint employer and when. The 2020 regulations listed specific factors that should be applied. The new rule sought to create consistency in place of the patchwork of different factors used by different courts in different circuits. The 2020 regulations also included 11 helpful illustrations of how the new rules would be applied in various situations.

Pro-business groups liked the new rule because it provided clarity and made it harder to be a joint employer. Pro-employee groups hated the rule because it provided clarity and made it harder to be a joint employer.

In March 2021, the Biden Administration announced an intent to rescind the 2020 regulations. On July 29, the rescission was formally announced. The rescission takes effect September 28, 2021.

In the formal rescission notice, the WHD notes that few courts had followed the new test and that a federal district court in New York had ruled that the 2020 regulations were invalid. (That case is now on appeal to the Second Circuit.)

What does the rescission mean?

Welcome to Turkmenistan! The rescission doesn’t reinstitute the 1958 regulations. It doesn’t provide new regulations. Instead, it strikes all of Part 791 and leaves an empty hole.

The new guidance is that there is no guidance.

No kidding. Here’s what the notice says:

Effect of Rescission

Because this final rule adopts and finalizes the rescission of the Joint Employer Rule, part 791 is removed in its entirety and reserved. As stated in the NPRM, the Department will continue to consider legal and policy issues relating to FLSA joint employment before determining whether alternative regulatory or subregulatory guidance is appropriate.

The WHD notice reminds us that courts have set forth their own tests, and those tests can be followed.

So where does that leave us? What’s the rule? Well, it depends where you live. Really! Different courts apply different tests. But for the most part, they are similar.

In general, there are two types of joint employment – vertical and horizontal.

Vertical joint employment is when one employer, such as a staffing agency, provides workers for the benefit of a second entity. Joint employment under the FLSA means that both entities are legally responsible for ensuring that the workers are properly paid a minimum wage and overtime. Both are also jointly liable for any FLSA violations, even though the staffing agency likely has full control over payroll. 

Based on court decisions, vertical joint employment will follow an Economic Realities Test, and joint employment will exist when “the economic realities show that the employee is economically dependent on, and thus employed by the other employer.” Multiple factors go into this analysis. These typically include:

  • Right to direct, control and supervise work;
  • Right to control employment conditions;
  • Permanency and duration of relationship;
  • Repetitive or rote nature of the work;
  • Whether the work is integral to the business;
  • Whether the work is performed on premises; and
  • Which entity performs the administrative functions characteristic of an employer (payroll, workers compensation, etc.)

Different courts articulate the test in different ways, but that’s a reasonable summary of the factors most commonly applied.

Any new interpretive guidance from the Biden WHD is almost certainly going to be that joint employment should be widespread and easy to establish. 

Horizontal joint employment is when two businesses under common control employ the same individual. This issue arises when a worker spends 30 hours at Business 1 and 30 hours at Business 2. If the businesses are joint employers, then the worker is entitled to 20 hours of overtime for the combined 60 hours of work.

The 2020 regulations did not materially change the test for horizontal joint employment. The 1958 version of the regulations looked at whether the two entities were “completely disassociated” from each other. Courts typically look at common control and common management as evidence of horizontal joint employment. That is not likely to change, but that regulation’s gone too.

Will There Be New Regulations?

Maybe. It seems more likely to me that we’ll see a re-issuance of the 2016 Administrator’s Interpretation on Joint Employment. The 2016 AI adopted an expansive view of joint employment, finding that it’s fairly easy to establish. The 2016 AI was issued by David Weil, who ran the WHD under Obama.  President Biden has nominated Weil to head the WHD in the current administration, so it would not be a surprise to see the 2016 AI or something similar re-issued.

Businesses should expect an expansive definition of joint employment, with little guidance or help from the WHD. With all regulations gone, and with different courts applying different tests, the landscape on joint employment resembles a massive crater filled with burning methane. It’s not a hospitable climate.

What Should Businesses Do?

Businesses should review their arrangements with vendors who provide labor and revisit those contracts and relationships. Steps can be taken to provide contractual protection against joint employment, even where the law will find a joint employment relationship.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.26.21
by

Summer Cleaning: Three Easy Tips to Reduce Joint Employment Risks

Donate some, pitch some. That’s our third dumpster.

This month I have been focused on summer clean up. We moved back into our house after six months of unintentional reconstruction, thanks to failed plumbing supply line on the second floor that created an impromptu shower and bath throughout the first floor of our house. Welcome home from vacation, late December 2020.

But now I’m back and getting organized. Cleaning house. Moving forward.

Late summer can also be a good time to clean house and eliminate unnecessary legal risks. With the White House about to release a new rule on joint employment, now is the time to review your staffing agency agreements.

You’ll want to check for these three things:

  1. The Monster with Three Eyes. You need these three components to protect against joint employment claims, no matter what test applies.
  2. A clause like this one, to allow you to remove unwanted workers without exerting the type of control that would make you their employer.
  3. Awareness of FMLA risks. Know what to watch with temps-to-hire, and don’t forget about this often-overlooked rule.

Still looking for more places to click? Here are Five Things You Should Know About Joint Employment.

The rules and the tests will keep changing, but the joint employment issue is here to stay. The risks of joint employment will only increase over the next few years.

It’s time for some summer cleaning. You can work magic with a few adjustments to your contracts, and you shouldn’t need a dumpster to complete this clean up exercise.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.19.21
by

Watch for New Joint Employer Rule This Week

Who’s the white robed fella? I ask because it looks here like Ric didnt know this guy would be in his video.

While cleaning out the garage Saturday, I heard the Cars’ song “Magic,” which contains this nifty lyric: “Summer, It’s like a merry go round.” I then went down the rabbit hole of looking for the video, which features a collection of bizzaro characters at Rik Ocasek’s freakish pool party, including this probable leader of a religious cult.

The lyric stood out, though, because this summer is like a merry go round for joint employment. The rules are about to change again to make it much easier to establish joint employment under the FLSA.

I’ll keep this post short for two reasons:

  1. It’s beautiful outside and so I should not be inside on my laptop, and
  2. The real news on joint employment is coming sometime this week, but it’s not out yet as of Sunday midday when I am writing this.

Here’s what we know:

In March 2021, the Biden Administration indicated it would be rescinding the Trump joint employer rule, which made it hard to establish joint employment.

Last week, the White House announced that it had concluded its review of the new joint employer rule, which will be published imminently.

After it’s released, I’ll write more about it, quite possibly with another screenshot from a Cars video. Or “You Might Think I’ll screenshot another video. Maybe not. Like you, I am on the edge of my seat. But unlike you, that’s because I’m getting up to go outside. I’ll post more when we see the final rule.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
07.12.21
by

Like Being Thrown on a Trotting Horse? This Company is Trying Rideshare without Independent Contractors

In 18th Century Europe, common methods for trying to revive drowning victims included throwing the victim onto a trotting horse, dunking in freezing water (ironic?), and my personal favorite, blowing tobacco smoke into the rectum.

These were creative ideas and sometimes they actually worked. The bouncing motion from being on a trotting horse could force air in and out of the lungs, like modern CPR. Tobacco smoke contains nicotine, which causes the brain to release epinephrine, which helps to stimulate the heart to contract.

It’s fun now to look back at how people tried to solve problems when they didn’t know what would happen.

The biggest unknown in the world of independent contractor misclassification is what would happen if rideshare and delivery companies were forced to reclassify all drivers as employees. A well-funded startup in Dallas is attempting to find out.

As reported here, a new rideshare service called Alto just completed a $45 million round of Series B funding. Alto’s model is to use all W-2 drivers and company-owned vehicles. The service currently operates only in Dallas, Houston, and Los Angeles, and has announced plans to switch to all-electric vehicles.

Will it work? Who knows.

Is it a viable business model? Who knows.

But in some ways, it’s a test case to see how an industry dominated by the independent contractor model might operate if forced to use all W2 workers. Yes, I know the taxi industry is another comparable. But it hasn’t exactly thrived since the emergence of rideshare. I’m pretty sure that’s not the model that rideshare would look to if force to pivot.

As the old proverb goes, necessity is the mother of invention. For those keeping score at home, Mothers of Invention was also the name of an experimental rock band in California once fronted by Frank Zappa and which featured tracks such as “My Guitar Wants to Kill Your Mama.” But that’s for another day.

For now, the rideshare industry continues to operate with its independent contractor model under siege. Widespread conversion of driver contractors to employees would be difficult and would introduce massive disruption in the industry. We’ll see what happens. In the meantime, let’s continue to innovate. Sometimes, even being thrown on a trotting horse can be helpful.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.28.21
by

Portable Benefits: Soon to Be Available for Mass. Independent Contractors?

This article in The Fox Magazine lists five things you can buy that are portable, even though you wouldn’t think they could be. The list includes toilets, massage chairs, saunas, neck fans, and bedrooms. The description of a portable bedroom goes like this:

Another brilliant innovation from the country that brought us the toilet in a suitcase, you can now buy a portable bedroom which comes folded up in a series of cabinets that look just like regular closets and dressers. Simply open the cabinet and fold out your bed for a super comfortable night’s sleep.

Um, no thanks.

If this article is revised next year, one surprising addition to the list could be Health Benefits for Massachusetts Independent Contractors. A new bill, inspired by California’s Prop 22, has been introduced in the Massachusetts legislature. To my surprise, the three co-sponsors are Democrats.

The bill, H. 1234, would create a exception to the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, but only in the rideshare and delivery industries.

If the bill passes, rideshare and delivery platform companies would be required to offer occupational accident insurance and pay into a portable benefit account for drivers.

In exchange for doing so, these companies would gain assurance that drivers on their platforms are independent contractors under Massachusetts state law. The normal ABC Test would not apply. Platform companies would also be required to follow a few other basic guidelines in their interactions with drivers, including that:

  • Drivers can decide when to work and not work;
  • Drivers’ access to the platform cannot be terminated for declining a specific rideshare or delivery request;
  • Drivers can provide services on multiple platforms; and
  • Drivers can also work in another lawful occupation or business.

The bill is supported by the Massachusetts Coalition for Independent Work (and, of course, by the gig companies), and it is opposed by the Boston Independent Drivers Guild.

If passed, this would mark a significant exception to the strict ABC Test in Massachusetts, which currently presumes all working relationships to be employment, unless:

(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and 

(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and, 

(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.

Unlike California’s AB 5 (later rewritten as AB 2257), the Massachusetts law does not currently have exceptions for certain industries. Rideshare and delivery services would be the first industries carved out of the Massachusetts ABC Test.

The bill is in the early stages of being considered. It has been referred to the Joint Committee on Financial Services for further consideration. We’ll keep an eye on this one. It’s much more intriguing to me than a portable bedroom or sauna.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.21.21
by

Biden Plan: Independent Contractor Misclassification Will Be An Enforcement Priority

Money
Get away
You get a good job with good pay and you’re okay
Money
It’s a gas
Grab that cash with both hands and make a stash
New car, caviar, four star daydream
Think I’ll buy me a football team

Pink Floyd just gets it. When I was a young lawyer, someone described civil litigation to me as just moving piles of money from one party to another. But that cynical view tells only part of the story. It excludes the emotion, frustration, stress, and workload involved in defending disputes and in dealing with the consequences, which can include destroying an entire business model.

For businesses making widespread use of independent contractors, all of these concerns are about to get worse.

President Biden’s proposed FY2022 budget includes expanding resources to combat independent contractor misclassification. The Administration’s “commitment” to combatting misclassification is spelled out pretty unambiguously on page 15:

The Administration is also committed to ending the abusive practice of misclassifying employees as independent contractors, which deprives these workers of critical protections and benefits. In addition to including funding in the Budget for stronger enforcement, the Administration intends to work with the Congress to develop comprehensive legislation to strengthen and extend protections against misclassification across appropriate Federal statutes.

The President’s proposal includes $14.2 billion for DOL enforcement efforts, including to “address the misclassification of workers as independent contractors.” This represents a $1.7 billion increase from 2021.

Expect the Department of Labor to place much greater scrutiny on independent contractor relationships than during the Trump Administration. The nomination of David Weil to head up the Wage and Hour Division signals that the President is serious about this enforcement priority. Weil served in the same role under Obama, and he made independent contractor misclassification a focal point of his enforcement efforts.

If your independent contractor arrangements have not been closely examined recently, it’s time for a check up. $14.2 billion for enforcement efforts is a lot of money. I think I’d buy me a football team.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge
 
06.14.21
by

What Are “Contract Workers”? You’ll Need Some Clarification First.

Did you know that Monaco’s flag looks the same as the flag of Indonesia? The differences are subtle. The Indonesian flag is wider, with a width-to-length ratio of 2:3, compared to Monaco’s 4:5; and Monaco flies a slightly darker shade of red. The flag above is Monaco’s. Fans of Indonesia, don’t be fooled by that pushy sales clerk at the flag store.

Now take your screen and flip it 180 degrees. That’s the flag of Poland. Its proportions are 5:8.

Sometimes, things look the same, even when they’re not. True with flags. Also true with “contract workers.”

When a client starts talking about its “contract workers,” the first thing I want to know is what they mean. Are you talking about 1099 independent contractors? Staffing agency workers employed by a staffing agency? Or your own W2 employees with contracts to work for specific period of time?

Each is as different as Monaco and Indonesia.

If discussing 1099 independent contractors, we’re talking about workers that no one is treating as an employee. The legal risk here is independent contractor misclassification. In other words, are laws being broken by not treating these workers as employees?

If discussing staffing agency workers, we’re talking about someone else’s W2 employees. The issue here is not whether these workers are anyone’s employees. We already know they’re the staffing agency’s employees. The legal issue here is whether these workers are joint employees. In other words, are they employees of both the staffing agency and your company?

If discussing your own W2 employees with contracts for a definite period, we’re probably discussing contract terms and we’ll probably need to see the contract. These are employees but not employees at-will.

The flags of Monaco and Indonesia may look the same, but the countries and their laws are very different. Same thing here. These three types of “contract workers” are as different as a European principality with a population of less than 40,000 and a Southeast Asian chain of islands with a population larger than every country on earth except China, India, and the United States.

Yes, Indonesia really does have the world’s fourth largest population. Fun fact! (And one of the world’s most common flags, tied with Monaco and Poland, as you now know.)

If you’re asked about “contract workers,” be sure you know what you’re being asked about. Any of these three types of worker can be called “contract workers,” but they’re very different, and the legal issues involved are very different too.

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

© 2021 Todd Lebowitz, posted on WhoIsMyEmployee.com, Exploring Issues of Independent Contractor Misclassification and Joint Employment. All rights reserved.

2018_Web100Badge