TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:RE: taking on a subcontractor From:Mailing List <mlist -at- ca -dot- safenet-inc -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com> Date:Fri, 14 May 2004 13:35:17 -0400
Bill Darnall [mailto:darcom -at- sbcglobal -dot- net] tells us:
> The subcontractor agreement was a fixed-price arrangement and clearly
> spelled-out it was a subcontract to be performed by an independent
> subcontractor. My customer agreed to the subcontracting arrangement.
> The subcontractor signed the agreement as an independent
> subcontractor. She "certified" she met all of the requirements of an
> independent subcontractor.
>
> My subcontractor worked in her own home and used her own computer and
> set her own hours. She was paid when the work was completed, as
> agreed.
>
> After she had been paid, she filed for unemployment and listed my
> company as her "previous employer." As the owner of my one-person
> company, I strongly objected. However, the California Employment
> Development Department (EDD) ruled that, subcontract notwithstanding,
> she was not an independent contractor because: she had no valid
> business license, she did not do any advertising, and she did not
> supply her own liability insurance.
>
> The "plus, plus, plus" I mentioned included many hours of (my) lost
> time and the total obliteration of all tax moneys I had paid into the
> EDD for (real) unemployment.
>
> I did not intend to sound dogmatic. It was a serious response to a
> serious question. I was telling about my experience with what appeared
> to be a valid subcontractor agreement. That is why I suggested an
> attorney review any subcontract.
I wasn't suggesting that you were dogmatic. I was suggesting
that you were royally screwed, and that the rest of us need
to know the details that the screw'O'crats used to bilk you.
This is nasty stuff.
Could other folks fill me in, please?
Is this a Kalifornia thing, or do *most* places compel you
to have a "business license" in order to exchange your
skills for somebody's money?
Like, if I lost my job today, would I have to go spend
money on a license and jump through additional screw'O'cratic
hoops before I could seek/accept freelance work to keep
food on the table?
Is it standard practice for goobermint screw'O'crats to
sneer and trample contractual arrangements that are
arrived at, in good faith (by some of the parties, at least),
in favor of cookie-cutter classifications and rules?
SEE THE ALL NEW ROBOHELP X5 IN ACTION: RoboHelp X5 is a giant leap forward
in Help authoring technology, featuring Word 2003 support, Content
Management, Multi-Author support, PDF and XML support and much more! http://www.macromedia.com/go/techwrldemo
>From a single set of Word documents, create online Help and printed
documentation with ComponentOne Doc-To-Help 7 Professional, a new yearly
subscription service offering free updates and upgrades, support, and more. http://www.doctohelp.com
---
You are currently subscribed to techwr-l as:
archiver -at- techwr-l -dot- com
To unsubscribe send a blank email to leave-techwr-l-obscured -at- lists -dot- raycomm -dot- com
Send administrative questions to ejray -at- raycomm -dot- com -dot- Visit http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/ for more resources and info.