California Contractors

[Gene Kim-Eng]

Actually, it's companies that would like to claim workers are ICs for that
reason.  Consultants want to be considered ICs so that they can take the
many tax deductions that come with being self-employed.

While the ruling is new, the basis for it is not.  Any company that attempts
to classify people as ICs who are needed on a full-time regular basis in
order for the business to be viable and who are typically hired as regular
full-time employees in its field is treading on risky legal ground.  ICs 
should be limited to short-term needs (hence the one-year limit that
some companies have on temps and contractors), or to fields where 
business-to-business service contracts are the established norm.

As for how this relates to tech writers, the number of companies that
do not have full-time writers on staff and never have tends to make it
less risky to engage ICs, and there are times when I think it's a stretch
to contend that writers are considered "integral to the business" of some 
of the companies I've known.  However, many companies, especially
larger ones that may have had in-house writers in the past, are starting
to cover themselves by insisting that all their vendors, including sole
proprietors, clearly establish themselves as independent businesses 
in the eyes of the law by having business licenses, tax numbers, 
workmen's comp policies, etc.

Gene Kim-Eng




----- Original Message ----- 
From: "Tariel, Lauren R" <lt34 at saclink.csus.edu>
The case mentions "consultants" that want claim the IC status to avoid overtime and workers compensation claims