Re: Re[2]: Re[2]: Reduce page count WAS Re: secretary's day

[Roger Mallett <roger -at- CSICAL -dot- COM>]

I love it when people tell me that employees are "permanent", and that
contractors are just "temporary".  (Note, I know you didn't state that,
but I am just filling in the blanks with my own twist.)

In reality, contractors are just as "permanent" as W2 employees  (just
ask anyone who has been laid off).   The real difference, I suppose, is
in how our contract is composed.  Some contractors, have fixed length
contracts, while others have completely open ended contracts, i.e., "at
will" (this is my preference), just like a W2 employee.

Contractors who are "at will" are no different than a "permanent"
employee, excepting our tax status, and the way the perks/benefits are
paid.  Some such 'at will" contractors are even managers of departments
full of the permanent W2 employees.

With respect to the health insurance paid for by your company, would you
be surprised to learn that your company doesn't pay for your insurance
at all?, but that you do?  That's right, you pay all of the insurance
premiums.  You pay for it in the form of a lower wage.  However, you
full discretion of which company to choose, or what plans to
investigate, or the ability to decide whether or not the cost is worth
the particular coverage offered.  Sure, you get some choices, but they
are limited and prescribed for you.

The same applies for your 401-K.

Look at Social Security for a moment.  Have you ever entertained the
notion that contractors have to pay their own Social Security while your
employer pays half of yours?  Again, just like health insurance, the
reality is, you pay the whole enchilada!!!  That's right, you pay it
all.  Contractors and W2 employees are on equal footing here.  The cost
of the employer paying the tax is factored into the cost of having you
as an employee, and your wage is less by that amount (or more (safety
net type fudge factors you understand)).


Before I end, I would like to mention that you are clearly correct in
noting that everyone makes choices that are best for their situation.


Roger Mallett

>----------
>From:  Steve Struck[SMTP:stephens -at- ALR -dot- COM]
>Sent:  Tuesday, April 28, 1998 3:05 PM
>To:    TECHWR-L -at- LISTSERV -dot- OKSTATE -dot- EDU
>Subject:       Re[2]: Re[2]: Reduce page count WAS Re: secretary's day
>
>
>John Gilger wrote:
>
>I believe that the correct term is "slave," as in "wage slave," rather
>than "permie."
>
>Contractors take their benefits in cash.  Slaves take theirs as "golden
>handcuffs."
>
>Keep smilin'
>
>John
>
><snip>
>
>I am smilin', John. Each time I pick up may paycheck, I smile. Each
>time I check
>the total on my 401-K, I smile. Each time I have to use my health
>insurance
>(paid by the company), I smile. Each time I ... and so on (can't use
>"etc."). I
>expect that you smile when you pick up your paycheck, knowing it's
>probably
>larger than mine. No doubt you also smile when your contract runs out
>and you're
>freeeeeeeee again. I guess my point (and you thought I'd never get
>there) is the
>fact that in this business there are choices, just like any other
>business. The
>term "Slave" implies there are no choices. That's simply not true.
>
>If contracting is the end all and be all, why doesn't everyone do it?
>Being a
>permanent employee isn't the answer for everyone either. So why the
>"real men
>take their benefits in cash" attitude? If it's envy, get a permanent
>job. If
>it's pity, understand that permanent employees have the same choices
>that you
>have. If it's scorn, what's your problem?
>
>If I totally misunderstood your message, John, I apologize in advance.
>
>Steve
>
>~~~
>Check out topic summaries at
>http://www.raycomm.com/techwhirl/topics.htm
>
>
>