"Subcontractors" or employees? - Page 3 - Paint Talk - Professional Painting Contractors Forum
CLICK HERE AND JOIN OUR COMMUNITY TODAY, IT'S FREE!
Go Back   Paint Talk - Professional Painting Contractors Forum > Business > Business, Marketing, and Sales

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 05-13-2014, 09:57 PM   #41
PinheadsUnite
 
daArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: almost there
Posts: 30,724
Rewards Points: 1,696
Thanks: 13,929
Thanked 17,336 Times in 10,141 Posts
View daArch's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinger58 View Post
I can understand the reasoning there. However, one attorney friend of mine viewed WC as more of a
Not quite sure how he meant this.

The WW worked WC claims for "the enemy" (insurance companies). As far I could gather, when an employee is injured in a job related incident, WC sure does benefit the employee. (We won't get into the "slip and fall" abuses that sours the whole program).

Now as we all know, there are different rules in different states. The WW worked California cases for the last company she slaved for (One Beacon). In Calif if an employee was working under the table for an employer who did not pay WC premiums, the injured employee was compensated by a pool and the employer was investigated and when found guilty was fined and other stuff. But ultimately, WC was there to benefit the employee if injured.

I'm not sure how your lawyer friend meant WC was more of a "shield to the employer than a benefit to the employee.".

Sure, it protects the employer from legal issues after an injury happens, but ultimately, WC is to benefit an injured employee.



__________________
"Glazed Donuts Are the Building Blocks of the Universe"

"Are we having fun yet"
daArch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to daArch For This Useful Post:
Gough (05-14-2014), slinger58 (05-13-2014)

Warning: The topics covered on this site include activities in which there exists the potential for serious injury or death. PaintTalk.com DOES NOT guarantee the accuracy or completeness of any information contained on this site. Always use proper safety precaution and reference reliable outside sources before attempting any construction or remodeling task!

Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-13-2014, 09:59 PM   #42
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinger58 View Post
I can understand the reasoning there. However, one attorney friend of mine viewed WC as more of a shield to the employer than a benefit to the employee.
It certainly seems to have drifted in that direction. The original "bargain" was guaranteed wage support and medical coverage in exchange for giving up the right to sue employers for negligence.

I think rising medical costs and concern over fraud have made carriers, in many cases, state agencies, more reluctant to reward benefits. That's given rise to a whole new subset of lawyers: those specializing in WC cases.
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gough For This Useful Post:
daArch (05-13-2014), slinger58 (05-13-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 10:14 PM   #43
PinheadsUnite
 
daArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: almost there
Posts: 30,724
Rewards Points: 1,696
Thanks: 13,929
Thanked 17,336 Times in 10,141 Posts
View daArch's Photo Album My Photos
Default

OK, I can see how it would shield an employer from negligence suits if the employer has deep pockets or lots of assets. At the same time, it does protect the employee of a penny ante company that has no bankroll and no assets.

Looks like a win win.

(yes, I do support the concept of WC - as usual, it's the abuses of the program that ire me)



__________________
"Glazed Donuts Are the Building Blocks of the Universe"

"Are we having fun yet"
daArch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to daArch For This Useful Post:
slinger58 (05-13-2014)
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
Old 05-13-2014, 10:18 PM   #44
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central MS
Posts: 5,752
Rewards Points: 82
Thanks: 9,853
Thanked 5,836 Times in 3,148 Posts
View slinger58's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gough View Post
It certainly seems to have drifted in that direction. The original "bargain" was guaranteed wage support and medical coverage in exchange for giving up the right to sue employers for negligence.

I think rising medical costs and concern over fraud have made carriers, in many cases, state agencies, more reluctant to reward benefits. That's given rise to a whole new subset of lawyers: those specializing in WC cases.
Bill, Gough pointed out what my attorney friend was alluding to. Limited liability.

And yes, these days you will probably need the services of a WC lawyer to collect on a valid WC claim due to the rampant fraud.
slinger58 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to slinger58 For This Useful Post:
daArch (05-13-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 10:21 PM   #45
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daArch View Post
OK, I can see how it would shield an employer from negligence suits if the employer has deep pockets or lots of assets. At the same time, it does protect the employee of a penny ante company that has no bankroll and no assets.

Looks like a win win.

(yes, I do support the concept of WC - as usual, it's the abuses of the program that ire me)
And that is one of the big issues with mis-classification.

Last edited by Gough; 05-13-2014 at 10:26 PM..
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 10:27 PM   #46
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,292
Rewards Points: 2,068
Thanks: 493
Thanked 663 Times in 483 Posts
View richmondpainting's Photo Album My Photos
Default

So your problem is because the sub has to obtain his own work men's comp and pay taxes ?

Any owner would have to no matter where they work
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
richmondpainting is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 10:27 PM   #47
PinheadsUnite
 
daArch's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: almost there
Posts: 30,724
Rewards Points: 1,696
Thanks: 13,929
Thanked 17,336 Times in 10,141 Posts
View daArch's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Actually, having listened to the WC piss and moan about the fraudulent cases that collect, I always got the impression that the laws (at least in Calif) are written in favor of the claimant. The ins companies have legal staffs to initiate procedures to terminate payments to fraudulent claims.

I just checked with her, yes the laws are much more in favor of the claimant, the ins company has to prove fraud or other reasons to refuse payment or to reduce payment. AND the judges are predisposed to rule in favor of the claimant. (Caveat: for Calif)



__________________
"Glazed Donuts Are the Building Blocks of the Universe"

"Are we having fun yet"
daArch is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to daArch For This Useful Post:
slinger58 (05-13-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 10:29 PM   #48
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2013
Location: Central MS
Posts: 5,752
Rewards Points: 82
Thanks: 9,853
Thanked 5,836 Times in 3,148 Posts
View slinger58's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daArch View Post
OK, I can see how it would shield an employer from negligence suits if the employer has deep pockets or lots of assets. At the same time, it does protect the employee of a penny ante company that has no bankroll and no assets.

Looks like a win win.

(yes, I do support the concept of WC - as usual, it's the abuses of the program that ire me)
Exactly, Bill. If it weren't for the fraud and the insurance companies worship of the short-term dollar (WC here is provided by private carriers), then the concept might work.

But isn't that almost always the case these days?
slinger58 is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following User Says Thank You to slinger58 For This Useful Post:
Gough (05-13-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 10:31 PM   #49
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by slinger58 View Post
Bill, Gough pointed out what my attorney friend was alluding to. Limited liability.

And yes, these days you will probably need the services of a WC lawyer to collect on a valid WC claim due to the rampant fraud.
We've only had one claim in nearly 35 years, and that was a while ago, but there weren't any problems. OTOH, we're with a private company with a good rep, not the state fund.

A good friend recently retired from a success law career handling WC claims. Nearly all of his cases were for employees whose employers had tried to use the subcontractor dodge. It worked out well for him, not so well for the employers.
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to Gough For This Useful Post:
daArch (05-13-2014), slinger58 (05-13-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 10:40 PM   #50
Almost Gone
 
TJ Paint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Wind River Range
Posts: 10,730
Rewards Points: 516
Thanks: 4,949
Thanked 6,377 Times in 3,759 Posts
View TJ Paint's Photo Album My Photos
Default

The International bankers require their pound of flesh. Behave or the IRS will exact it.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TJ Paint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 11:01 PM   #51
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by richmondpainting View Post
So your problem is because the sub has to obtain his own work men's comp and pay taxes ?

Any owner would have to no matter where they work
So you're essentially giving them the financial responsibilities of owners without any of the perks? One overarching point is the treatment of employees as subs, without the economic benefits available to true subs: control of work, working hours, profit,etc. See, "economic reality" v.s.

In many states, WC is not available for company owners.

The subcontractor dodge is just one way to foist the costs of doing business onto someone else.

As I've said before, I'm not maligning outfits that use legitimate subs, one that meet the criteria of the area where they operate. This whole thread is about companies working outside the laws to avoid shouldering the costs borne by legitimate businesses.
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-13-2014, 11:31 PM   #52
Almost Gone
 
TJ Paint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Location: Wind River Range
Posts: 10,730
Rewards Points: 516
Thanks: 4,949
Thanked 6,377 Times in 3,759 Posts
View TJ Paint's Photo Album My Photos
Default

These "employee subs" are agreeing to this contract. It's their choice to decide to get bent over... Although, I wouldn't feel good about pulling the wool over their eyes either. But, ultimately, they are making a contractual agreement to being screwed over.
__________________

To view links or images in signatures your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.
TJ Paint is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 3 Users Say Thank You to TJ Paint For This Useful Post:
CApainter (05-14-2014), paintball head (05-14-2014), richmondpainting (05-14-2014)
Old 05-13-2014, 11:54 PM   #53
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ Paint View Post
These "employee subs" are agreeing to this contract. It's their choice to decide to get bent over... Although, I wouldn't feel good about pulling the wool over their eyes either. But, ultimately, they are making a contractual agreement to being screwed over.
True, but in many cases, it is almost a unilateral contract.

Last edited by Gough; 05-14-2014 at 12:00 AM..
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 07:19 AM   #54
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshah
Posts: 938
Rewards Points: 500
Thanks: 445
Thanked 643 Times in 432 Posts
View Monstertruck's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oldpaintdoc View Post
Yes there is that.
Maybe I should say I pick and choose what rules I follow.
....like the RRP regs too I suppose.
Monstertruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 08:07 AM   #55
Gebhardt & Co. Painting
 
oldpaintdoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Location: Allegan, Michigan
Posts: 496
Rewards Points: 250
Thanks: 277
Thanked 372 Times in 190 Posts
View oldpaintdoc's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstertruck View Post
....like the RRP regs too I suppose.
Possibly.
__________________
"Always Trust Your Cape"
oldpaintdoc is offline   Reply With Quote
The Following 2 Users Say Thank You to oldpaintdoc For This Useful Post:
richmondpainting (05-14-2014), slinger58 (05-14-2014)
Old 05-14-2014, 11:07 AM   #56
Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2012
Posts: 3,745
Rewards Points: 2,042
Thanks: 1,140
Thanked 3,181 Times in 1,677 Posts
View Oden's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJ Paint
These "employee subs" are agreeing to this contract. It's their choice to decide to get bent over... Although, I wouldn't feel good about pulling the wool over their eyes either. But, ultimately, they are making a contractual agreement to being screwed over.
The law may not be so much to protect people from themselves as to protect us from what they would agree to.
Oden is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 11:44 AM   #57
Senior Member
 
Jmayspaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: East TN
Posts: 4,253
Rewards Points: 14
Thanks: 1,875
Thanked 3,731 Times in 1,918 Posts
View Jmayspaint's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by daArch
Not quite sure how he meant this.

The WW worked WC claims for "the enemy" (insurance companies). As far I could gather, when an employee is injured in a job related incident, WC sure does benefit the employee. (We won't get into the "slip and fall" abuses that sours the whole program).

Now as we all know, there are different rules in different states. The WW worked California cases for the last company she slaved for (One Beacon). In Calif if an employee was working under the table for an employer who did not pay WC premiums, the injured employee was compensated by a pool and the employer was investigated and when found guilty was fined and other stuff. But ultimately, WC was there to benefit the employee if injured.

I'm not sure how your lawyer friend meant WC was more of a "shield to the employer than a benefit to the employee.".

Sure, it protects the employer from legal issues after an injury happens, but ultimately, WC is to benefit an injured employee.

WC in general does seem to be primarily for the protection of workers. I know a guy that fell off a scaffold and WC was very good to him.

However, the type of WC often integrated into the subcontractor system is nothing but protection for the 'employer' or rather the contractor and customer. A 'ghost' policy doesn't cover anyone. It's only function is to limit the contractors liability and look good on paper.
Here in TN it seems like every time they try to tighten regulations concerning WC, they end up creating another loophole of some kind.

That's the worst part of how the 'subcontractor' system works to me. That it starts with the premise that tradesmen don't deserve to have real unemployment and WC insurance like most other members of the work force. "Ain't nobody gonna pay for that!"
Jmayspaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 12:03 PM   #58
Retired Moderator
 
Join Date: Nov 2010
Location: Intermountain West
Posts: 10,539
Rewards Points: 840
Thanks: 11,620
Thanked 10,458 Times in 5,722 Posts
View Gough's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jmayspaint View Post

<<<snip>>>


That's the worst part of how the 'subcontractor' system works to me. That it starts with the premise that tradesmen don't deserve to have real unemployment and WC insurance like most other members of the work force. "Ain't nobody gonna pay for that!"
And it's a slippery slope once outfits become wiling to do that. It's another aspect of the race to the bottom.

That's just one of the reasons we've become obsessed with pre-qualifying leads. I got tired of potential clients complaining, "That's outrageous, the other outfit was only going to charge us $30/ hr.!"
Gough is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 01:28 PM   #59
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: New Hampshah
Posts: 938
Rewards Points: 500
Thanks: 445
Thanked 643 Times in 432 Posts
View Monstertruck's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Gough View Post
And it's a slippery slope once outfits become wiling to do that. It's another aspect of the race to the bottom.

That's just one of the reasons we've become obsessed with pre-qualifying leads. I got tired of potential clients complaining, "That's outrageous, the other outfit was only going to charge us $30/ hr.!"
Bingo.
Sad, how some folks try to rationalize this type of thinking.
Monstertruck is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-14-2014, 01:32 PM   #60
Senior Member
 
Jmayspaint's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: East TN
Posts: 4,253
Rewards Points: 14
Thanks: 1,875
Thanked 3,731 Times in 1,918 Posts
View Jmayspaint's Photo Album My Photos
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Monstertruck
Bingo.
Sad, how some folks try to rationalize this type of thinking.

What is sad is that in many places the bottom is the norm. Especially in rural areas. So if one wants to reach for the top, its a struggle against the tide.
Jmayspaint is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Tags
None

Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Employee asked me to pay his parking ticket because it was "work related" hahaha Fishing and Painting General Painting Discussion 45 12-22-2013 10:55 AM
Speaking of "Hacks" & "Hiring a Pro"... daArch General Painting Discussion 7 01-23-2012 07:18 PM
Little bit different "tool" thread: "the Wake-Up kit" nEighter Tools, Supplies and Equipment 5 05-08-2011 11:45 PM
Hello Everyone! We're starting a New "Construction" Trade Group offered Health Plan! HBS Construction New Member Introductions 3 08-03-2010 05:59 PM


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 01:55 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.8
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
Content Relevant URLs by vBSEO 3.6.1
vBulletin Security provided by vBSecurity v2.2.2 (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
User Alert System provided by Advanced User Tagging (Pro) - vBulletin Mods & Addons Copyright © 2020 DragonByte Technologies Ltd.
Our Pro Sites Network
ContractorTalk.com | DrywallTalk.com | ElectricianTalk.com | HVACSite.com | PlumbingZone.com | RoofingTalk.com