Employee vs. "Independent Contractor"/"Service Provider"

[Darren Dirt]

Hello, friends.

URGENT: Here's a dilemma I am about to be confronted by:

I work in an industry where a number of workers are not "employees", but rather go from contract to contract, doing independent "consulting".

I have been fortunate enough to be able to remain an "independent contractor" for the last 4 years. But it's clear that my days are numbered here with my current client, as there are some decisions "from the upper levels of management" which will eventually make my valuable contributions no longer necessary (it might be 6 months, it might be 2 years -- but it is inevitable and the signs are clear).


Coincidentally, I just got a phone call the other day from a friend in the same industry, and he told me there might be a short-term contract that he knows about that utilizes my skills (which are getting harder to find, as the local resource pool for my specific expertise continues to shrink, and thus the demand as well). But also he suggested that either way this might be a "foot in the door" thing for me to join up full-time with the company that he works for. So I'm having a lunchtime meeting today, with him and a project manager or two.


Here's the thing: I know if I want I will be able to persuade the PMs that I have a great variety of valuable skills, so that I will have no problem completing the tasks they are in apparent desperate need to have completed in this short-term contract.


But my friend is strongly suggesting that I really focus on certain other strengths and knowledge, so that I can be brought on with his company... as a full-time EMPLOYEE.


A few of you AiLL'ers know why I call this a dilemma.


Even the smallest amount of research confirms that an "employee" is not just a word, it's a concept with real-life, real-world impact -- an "employee" is a role one can choose to play, consenting to a relationship with an "employee", and that results in some benefits to you (e.g. sick days, paid holidays, benefits, etc.) but by defintion requires a great cost -- submission to The State (for its benefits, such as "protection", labour laws, Federal Pension Plan, etc.).


To clarify, as an "independent contractor" I have enjoyed the individualistic freedom to -- and acted out the mindset of -- seeing myself as a service provider, not a slave. I have continued to offer a service of great value, and consent to receiving something of value, a fair hourly rate. No "third party" required, no reporting to some "higher authority" to let them know how I'm doing, and/or to ask their permission to keep doing it, unmolested.


But what about as an "employee"? This is likely to be REQUIRED due to most H.R. automatons believing the myths and lies of The State Propaganda Machine, which means I will have to essentially lie, by acknowledging submission to an illegitimate so-called authority, giving them my "papers, please" and granting them permission to know all sorts of personal information about me and my activities, reporting that should not be required in order to earn a livelihood -- after all, the ability and "right" to exchange your own individual labour for material goods has been around since the concept of property first came about -- no "reporting to / seeking permission of the government" required.


So here I am facing the present societal reality, that most H.R. people will not understand -- let alone AGREE -- when I try to make a simple claim like, oh, "A S.I.N. is only required for administration of government benefits, which I do wish to receive" i.e. "It is a myth that you require a S.I.N. in order to work in Canada, it's only for so-called 'insurable employment', which I do not plan on being involved with." (see this thread, for example on only this** single issue).


I know the future will allow for far more voluntary occupational interactions between 2 parties, where a 3rd party (whether government or mafia) is not involved. But the present reality is not as coercion-free, it is not as individualism-friendly. Ideas and ideals don't matter to most batteries in The Matrix as much as "following the procedures" or "obeying the so-called law" -- i.e. "playing Their Game, by Their Rules". "Don't rock the boat" or more vividly "don't be the tall blade of grass!"


So do I go against my principles and my conscience, and take on this new, likely long-term opportunity -- and begin "submitting my records" to the State, essentially getting back onto their "radar"?


I mean, aren't I telling the truth when I am asked for my "number" and I answer "I don't have one of those" (since technically nobody "owns" their "number", it's a creation of the State and thus not "mine")? Does that even matter, since the H.R. people will likely roll their eyes and/or see me as some tinfoilhat lunatic or something?


Am I a solitary rational pacificist standing defiantly in front of a emotion-driven war-mongering crowd of thousands at a National Socialist Party rally? What's likely to be the result, to "society" and to me as an individual, if I remain standing here?


And of course, a related concern is what happens when they see me back on the "radar" and decide to dig deeper into my "history" over the last 4 years or so? How could I respond in good conscience, and rationally, to their likely presumptuous attacks if I have sacrificed my principles and gone against my sincere philosophical (religious? anti-State? ) beliefs but also try claiming those same principles are WHY I was "off the grid"... Argh...



I'd appreciate your own useful thoughts/experiences/opinions (which would not be "advice", of course ).


- - - - - - -

**in more detail...

Subject: SIN uses and purpose

[consider this]
What would Columbo do? ("Excuse me, sir, sorry to bother you, I just have one tiny little question to ask you...")
[/consider this]



Service Canada: What are my responsibilities related to my employees' SINs?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/sin/employers/responsibilities.shtml">http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/sin/e ... ties.shtml</a><!-- m -->
"
Your employees' Social Insurance Number (SIN) is confidential and should only be used for income-related information.

...Note: The SIN number is used to administer government benefits under the Income Tax Act, the Canada Pension Plan Act, and the Employment Insurance Act.
"



University of Toronto -- Human Resources & Equity
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.hrandequity.utoronto.ca/payroll/sin.htm">http://www.hrandequity.utoronto.ca/payroll/sin.htm</a><!-- m -->
"
Employee Responsibilities

There are two primary SIN requirements for employees.

1) Providing SIN Cards to Employer
Employees must present their SIN cards for inspection by employers. Under the Employment Insurance Act, this must be done:
- within three days of starting insurable employment, or
- within three days of receiving a new SIN card.

For CPP purposes, the employee must produce a SIN card for inspection by the employer within 30 days of a request by the employer.

2) Apply for a SIN Card
Employees must apply for a Social Insurance Number or card:
- under the Income Tax Act, within 15 days when requested by an employer for a Social Insurance Number;
- under the Canada Pension Plan, within 60 days on a legal name change.
"



Service Canada: Who can ask for my SIN and when don't I have to provide my SIN?
<!-- m --><a class="postlink" href="http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/sin/protect/provide.shtml">http://www.servicecanada.gc.ca/en/sin/p ... vide.shtml</a><!-- m -->
"
The most common uses of your Social Insurance Number (SIN) are for:
- your employer
- your income tax information
- financial institutions from which you earn interest or income (for example, banks, credit unions, trust companies)
- Canada Pension Plan (CPP) or Regie des rentes du Quebec (RRQ) benefits
- Employment Insurance (EI) program benefits
- Canada Education Savings Grants (CESG) and Registered Education Savings Plans (RESP)
- Child Tax Benefit
- Canada Student Loans
- Goods and Services Tax (GST) / Harmonized Sales Tax (HST) claims
- Social assistance benefits
- Veterans benefits and programs
- Workers Compensation benefits
- child support payments


When don't I have to provide my SIN?
Some private-sector organizations may ask for your SIN. This practice is strongly discouraged, but it is not illegal.

Here are examples of when you don't have to give your Social Insurance Number or show your card:
- proving your identity (except for specific government programs)
- completing a job application before you get the job
- completing an application to rent a property
- negotiating a lease with a landlord
- completing credit card application
- cashing a cheque
- applying for a video club membership
- completing some banking transactions (mortgage, line of credit, loan)
- completing a medical questionnaire
- renting a car
- subscribing to long-distance or cellular telephone services
- writing a will
- applying to a university or college
"

[NonEntity]

Sup to you, man.

But...

You say something that makes no sense.  You say that there are fewer and fewer who can provide the services you are capable of providing, therefore the demand is going down.  You have this backwards.  If there are fewer providing it then their value should go up.  Unless you have it backwards and the number of providers of this service is going down BECAUSE the demand is also going down.

So if you are becoming a rare bird, you should be MORE valuable, not less.  And hence more capable of setting your own terms.  Personally, I would not become an "employee" unless utter starvation was staring me squarely in the face.  As John Taylor Gatto says (and I paraphrase badly), The phrase Human Resources is something that  anyone should be ashamed to utter.

If they want you and need you then you can set the terms.  Make yourself even more desirable and you are more in control.  If they really want you then you are in a position to negotiate.  If they don't then you either have to take their terms or look for income someplace else.

Sup to you.

- NonE

[edweird]

You could also point out to the company that by hiring you as a contractor, that your services will cost them much less (assuming that it is actually true) than if they hire you FT and pay for all your bennies.

[Darren Dirt]

NonEntity Wrote:Sup to you, man.

But...

You say something that makes no sense.  You say that there are fewer and fewer who can provide the services you are capable of providing, therefore the demand is going down.  You have this backwards.  If there are fewer providing it then their value should go up.  Unless you have it backwards and the number of providers of this service is going down BECAUSE the demand is also going down.

industry=IT (software dev) therefore YES, I meant what I said.

Although there are less like me who can provide what I provide, the downside to that is that the less # of skilled artisans like myself in the local "resource pool", the more the Micro$luts will be able to persuade the gullible decision-makers to move away from "unsupportable" (working-just-fine-thank-you) technology to the horrible "solutions" they have to offer. >


PS: I had a good lunch meeting, but on the train there decided that I would not initiate the "contractor" requirement in the conversation, but if it was clear that FT "employment" was the only thing being offered then I would politely move on and start searching (via placement agencies, etc.) for other contracts... Once you've tasted occupational "freedom" I think it would be soul-destroying to go back to employment-slavery.

[denizen]

Darren Dirt Wrote:And of course, a related concern is what happens when they see me back on the "radar" and decide to dig deeper into my "history" over the last 4 years or so? How could I respond in good conscience, and rationally, to their likely presumptuous attacks if I have sacrificed my principles and gone against my sincere philosophical (religious? anti-State? ) beliefs but also try claiming those same principles are WHY I was "off the grid"... Argh...

your 'related concern' is exactly what has decided numerous situations for me.  It applies to a whole spectrum of de-cloaking issues too.
Argh indeed!

[NonEntity]

Darren Dirt Wrote:And of course, a related concern is what happens when they see me back on the "radar" and decide to dig deeper into my "history" over the last 4 years or so? How could I respond in good conscience, and rationally, to their likely presumptuous attacks if I have sacrificed my principles and gone against my sincere philosophical (religious? anti-State? ) beliefs but also try claiming those same principles are WHY I was "off the grid"... Argh...

emphasis mine

Unless I'm totally missing what you intend (which is REALLY possible since I find it very hard to try and follow your grammar)... I cannot figure why you should feel a problem with your conscience when dealing with criminals.    "Oh, I'm sorry sir, here... I forgot the hundred dollar bill I had secreted in my shoe.  My bad!"

WTF???

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

F--k,f--k,f--k,f--k,f--k,f--k,f--k,F--K!

So my manager walks up to me just now. Says he's been talking with people "upstairs" (literally) about my contract.

I AM SO VALUABLE TO EVERYONE HE WANTS TO KEEP ME ON WITH A THREE YEAR EMPLOYMENT CONTRACT (sick days and holidays included).

He's been talking to H.R. Human Resources.

Dammit. Why couldn't this be easier. I could keep doing what I've been doing, but in order to do so I could no longer "hide".

Yuk.

I want to "move on", surely. But the time I may have had to do it, is extremely compressed now. I can't sign any offer, which might be tossed my way as early as next week. Not without willfully entering a cage and letting them close and lock the door.

I am not part of their system, but nobody here would understand why I would see this as a Bad Thing.

I just want to stay free. And if I have to enter their "H.R." system to stay here, I won't be free.

Dammit. Why am I even considering taking the offer...

[NonEntity]

I don't see why this is such a big issue.  Simply say, "Yes, I'd be happy to sign a three year contract for services to your company."    And then work out whatever terms your company and their company agree to.

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

NonEntity Wrote:I don't see why this is such a big issue.  Simply say, "Yes, I'd be happy to sign a three year contract for services to your company."    And then work out whatever terms your company and their company agree to.

- NonE

And then work out whatever terms your company and their company agree to.

I am not a "company", I am an individual. And I don't have a "company" of my own. Which reminds me... Most companies in I.T. will not engage in contracts with "individuals" -- they want corporation-to-corporation contracts much of the time.

But even if that wasn't the case here (which I believe it is) I am about to be offered "employment", you know, that whole H.R. Payroll Deductions Benefits etc. etc. nonsense.


I would love to believe that I am so valuable to these folks that I could counter-offer, saying "Instead of accepting an employment contract, I would prefer to remain an independent contractor, which will reduce your costs as the benefits such as holidays and sick days will be gone from your expenses" or something like that, but I doubt that is an option considering "H.R." is already involved here. I doubt I could persuade them that keeping me on as a truly independent contractor would save them money -- they want my loyalty too, I think. Or surely some other reason will be brought up to justify this "employment" offer being the only option, and a good thing for everybody involved (in their minds).



"Yes, I'd be happy to sign a three year contract for services to your company."

That would be great, but that's not what was offered to me

[NonEntity]

Ah, but see, that is all in your head.

You ARE a company.  If you want to be.  Darren Dirt D.B.A. The Code Machine.  (Doing Business As... at least that's how they do it in the states, as I've done several times.)  Independent Proprietorship.

And the only reason (it sounds like to me) that "they didn't" offer you a three year contract is because you were not allowing yourself to hear that offer. 

They want you to do work for them for three years at agreed upon terms, right?  THAT is an offer of contract.  You simply need to reply, "Yes, I'd be very pleased to sign a contract to provide these services to you for three years," and all of a sudden that option is on the table, even if they hadn't been thinking in those specific terms before.  And if they they say, "Oh, we weren't thinking of a contract, we were thinking of hiring you as an employee," you simply reply, "Oh, sorry, I'm not interested in taking on a position of employment with another firm." 

It's in YOUR head, Darren.  It is your life, your decision how you want to live it.  They want you.  They have expressed that.  It's not like you're walking in off the street with your hat in hand. 

- NonE

[Darren Dirt]

NonEntity Wrote:Ah, but see, that is all in your head.

You ARE a company.  If you want to be.  Darren Dirt D.B.A. The Code Machine.  (Doing Business As... at least that's how they do it in the states, as I've done several times.)  Independent Proprietorship.

And the only reason (it sounds like to me) that "they didn't" offer you a three year contract is because you were not allowing yourself to hear that offer. 

They want you to do work for them for three years at agreed upon terms, right?  THAT is an offer of contract.  You simply need to reply, "Yes, I'd be very pleased to sign a contract to provide these services to you for three years," and all of a sudden that option is on the table, even if they hadn't been thinking in those specific terms before.  And if they they say, "Oh, we weren't thinking of a contract, we were thinking of hiring you as an employee," you simply reply, "Oh, sorry, I'm not interested in taking on a position of employment with another firm." 

It's in YOUR head, Darren.  It is your life, your decision how you want to live it.  They want you.  They have expressed that.  It's not like you're walking in off the street with your hat in hand. 

- NonE

To continue sharing the Saga of Dirtman...

Quote:(EmailI sent this morning)

subject: re. contract discussion

Hi _____,

To followup with yesterday, I am certainly interested in continuing to provide my valuable software development and client support services to _____, but to clarify I am interested in contracting directly (rather than through _____'s company) if possible. I believe that by retaining me as a independent contractor my services will cost you significantly less than if you bring me on as an employee, as I don't need the extra benefits (9 paid holidays, 2 weeks of vacation, sick days, etc.) that would be available to me as an employee.

For example, if the annual salary being considered is __,000 then I would instead be willing to contract for a rate of $__/hr (~__,000 per year). If the salary was __,000 per year I believe $__/hr would be a fair equivalent. (This is based on my estimates of 1885 hours/year as an employee, but only 1747 hours/year as an independent contractor -- 7.25 hours per day but with 19 less days.)

I'm not sure if this helps or hinders what we talked about yesterday, but I wanted to make sure to clarify what I am seeking.

PS: LOL -- thanks, Jim Davies!

[NonEntity]

Okay, you're making a bit of progress.  But you still act as though they own you.  At least that's what it appears when you tell them that you'll accept all of the losses and they can set the terms.  I don know it is probably a buyer's market right now for your services, but you can still offer them a package and see how they respond rather than simply allowing them to decide the price and they you telling them you'll take that AND eat the insurance, the days off, the employee parking space and the donuts.

Also note this:  In the US, the tax situation is such that you are defined as an employee by the IRS if you work only for one employer and you work is defined by that employer, REGARDLESS of any contract you may have with the employer.  So, in the US, you would not want to approach the employer and tell them you will work exclusively for them and do so at the hours and under the conditions they specify, for that "makes" you an employee.  You would want to have other income in your field, and you would want to do the work at times and places of YOUR choosing while satisfying the requirements of the job that you had agreed to accomplish. 

I hope that makes some kind of sense.  It's a fine line in many instances and you need to play the game carefully.  Of course what it's like in her majesty's gulag is for you to find out.

Don't hand them a full tube of Vasoline.

- NonE