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: Impact of IRS rulings on contract writing From:John Gough <gough -at- AUSTIN -dot- ASC -dot- SLB -dot- COM> Date:Wed, 5 Mar 1997 14:54:38 -0600
I missed David Orr's post; Rob Johnson was kind enough to
forward it to me. At the outset, thanks to David for writing
an extended reply. I also think that the type of company you
are attempting to grow is great! R&D? Benefits? Bench time?
Cool. You disclose your spread? Then I have no complaint
with you.
Now on to the long section of the reply.
SUMMARY:
1. Writers--get your agencies to disclose rates and spreads. Make
a scary looking form for them to fill in (it should include notice
that falsifying the information is fraud and subject to criminal
and civil action).
2. Agencies--disclose your rates and spreads. The market will determine
whether
your mix of rate paid and services is a good one.
3. IMO, David hasn't convinced me that contractors live in a better
world since the IRS ruling. Employees typically have less
leverage than corporations, so *they* get squeezed.
4. Agencies do serve a purpose. IMO, without the IRS ruling there
would be fewer agencies, because now a certain percentage of
contractors are effectively prevented from competing as
independents.
THE RAMBLINGS:
------------------------------------------------------------
David makes a good case. However, his is not a typical agency.
Most agencies I have dealt with are not attempting to grow
David's kind of business. They are "body shops," pure and simple.
They do not provide any benefits or equipment or even a place to work, as
David seems to do.
>1. <snipped> David talked about his margins.
Let's see, to take the low side, 3% of 25 writers at $50/hr
billed is about $75,000 when you're all done (before taxes,
to be sure) on about $2.5 million. That doesn't seem like
small change to me. Is David trying to tell me he runs a
charity?
I don't want to get into a discussion of margins. There is
a hidden assumption that every cost is necessary. Business
owners get benefits from the use/enjoyment of business assets
that are treated as costs.
Let's understand that agencies and contractors are both
businesspeople with potentially conflicting interests:
- An agency owner is in the business of providing
services (mo' and better). He needs bigger margins to cover
various enterprises. Diversity typically plays better in a market.
He also wants to play up his enterprise as a "service" to
contractors, too.
- A contractor is in the business of providing services, too.
He may want the minimum markup on his services, especially if
he's a specialist or highly experience. He wants fewer services
and more money.
>2. Average service business margins are at least 40% to 50%. Large
>accounting firms may bill 2 1/2 times their cost. Larger firms tend to
>spend more on sales and marketing.
I'm not sure I'm willing to accept comparisons to the average
service business. The average service business has employees
(and higher fixed costs as a result).
>3. Hidden costs, not so well seen by contractors, include
The "typical" agency I describe does have the marketing, administrative,
loss risk, and direct costs (rep time). David's agency is unusual
in that it provides work space, profit sharing, and bench time.
I don't know about the debt for payroll; you could avoid it
by increasing working capital (assuming you don't have a better
use for it).
>John is right that his labor generates income, but the writer doesn't
>work in a vacuum--others are selling, managing accounts, collecting
>bills, paying bills, greeting people, answering phones, paying expenses,
>and taking financial risks so that the writer can work. A true
>independent contractor who does his/her own marketing, administration,
>and financial risk-taking deserves the additional money that comes from
>working directly with a client instead of through a broker.
Agreed. But how much agency do I need? I'd rather build my
own capital base than pay for an agency's fancy offices.
As for taking risks as an independent, the thing that really burns
me is that I don't have the choice. The IRS effectively closed a lot of
independent contractors out of the market. I have to become a corporation
or work for one. That's a *big* difference. IMO, the IRS created an
artificial demand for agencies.
>The IRS forces us to use W-2 temporary employees on most projects
>because of the guidelines they have. We prefer 1099 relationships, but
>they are gone with the wind for the most part. We pay W-2 temporary
>employees much more on an hourly basis than our staff people. The rates
>we pay are equivalent to our staff rates plus the amount benefits would
>cost plus about a $5 per hour premium for no job security (a myth, this
>job security).
Job security? In the computer industry? hahahahahahahahahahah
The cost basis of benefits is fairly interesting. The conventional
wisdom is that it accounts for 30-50% of salary in costs. If
I buy my own and assume only slightly more risk, medical only
costs 8-10% (that's premiums plus direct medical costs).
Unemployment benefits I don't get, but I don't have to pay the
premiums either. Smaller may be more efficient--if you're healthy.
Being part of a larger agency means funding things that you don't
necessarily enjoy (dependant benefits, for example).
>Fair? I think so, but what do I know. I'm just a greedy, swamp-running,
>no-count, sock-sucking, capitalist pig.
Oh, get a grip. It would be more fun to discuss business if business-owners
didn't wave the "communist! anti-business! anti-jobs! anti-American!
child-molester-atheist-sodomite!" banners every time someone critiques
an issue. My opening remarks included my belief that an agency is
entitled to cover their costs and make a profit. Anyway, I'm an
oinker too.
>What the employer gets is 1) a buffer from the wrath of the IRS 2)a
>company with assets to stand behind the contractor in case work is not
>accepted, 3) a company that can replace a contractor quickly if s/he
>becomes ill or otherwise unavailable 4)other value-added tools and
>free-bee consulting, 50 a company that has the financial resources to
>finance larger projects, 6) someone they can vent to about their
>company.
Let's not forget (a) a two-tier class of employees, which they must
keep separate...my client recently went through a purifying spasm that
included scolding managers for including contractors on email mailing
lists and taking back all of the company-provided nameplates from
contractors, (b) risk that the agency will be even worse than the
client at picking employees, (c) risk that a contractor will walk
the contract, incurring additional costs of work procurement
>>Some larger corporations are now mandating a maximum spread, to keep
>>from getting low-level employees at sky-high prices.
>
>This works fine in a buyer's market, but what happens when most
>contractors are booked up or the client requires a special and rare
>skill? Artificial price controls usually result in a shortage or the
>desired item. (I know, writers are people not items.)
I consider the IRS ruling both a form of artificial market manipulation
and a reduction of my status from entrepreneur to "item."
>three suitable ones. We compete by keeping our paying rates at a
>reasonable level, by disclosing rates and mark-ups, and by treating
>writers decently. We've managed to stay in business for 11 years, so the
>strategy seems to work. The idea of a free market is to drive out bad
>ideas without a lot of regulation.
Yes, and the _idea_ of the IRS was to better the treatment of employees,
but as I said before, I don't think it worked out that way. They
just ended up cutting a step off of the entrepreneurial ladder.
Now you (David) don't have to compete with me, because I am prevented
from competing. The IRS said I couldn't (well sure I could, but the
IRS artificially raised the cost of entry and is threatening companies who
dare use me).
All in a good day's fun,
John
TECHWR-L (Technical Communication) List Information: To send a message
to 2500+ readers, e-mail to TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU -dot- Send commands
to LISTSERV -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU (e.g. HELP or SIGNOFF TECHWR-L).
Search the archives at http://www.documentation.com/ or search and
browse the archives at http://listserv.okstate.edu/archives/techwr-l.html