Venting: How the fuck could permanent freelancing ever be a good deal for an employee?

[black rabbit]

I'm not talking about *real* freelancers - 1099 contractors who presumably see some tax-and-flexibility benefits to doing actual contract work.

I'm talking about the fucking dipshit organizations such as my wife's employer that hire people as "full time freelancers," aka W2 employees with no guaranteed hours or benefits who get totally fucked over in every aspect of their employment other than having taxes withheld (big fucking whoop.)

Seriously, that whole fucking system sucks balls, and any manager who makes the decision to implement one like it is an evil shithead with no concern for the humanity of their employees.

My wife took the job a year ago, with the understanding that, if she didn't get close to full time hours, as a "freelancer", she at least had the flexibility to set her own hours, work from home whenever the hell she wants, and maybe shake loose a few other short term contract jobs here and there to bring some extra money in.

She'd probably never get a raise, but there was always the possibility that they would bring her on full time, with real benefits, regular reviews, opportunities for advancement, etc.

Ha. Fucking. Ha.

Turns out, they want her to be "available at all times." She's never been able to get an answer as to what that means, exactly, but in practice, it looks a helluva lot like they want her to sit around at home, off the clock, and to check email every five minutes on the off chance that somebody schedules a meeting or hands her an assignment, at which point she's expected to drop everything and head to the office, pronto.

It's kinda hard to do anything else when you're effectively permanently on-call.

We could almost live with that aspect of it, IF she worked off a 1099. See, we'd like to have a kid. I get some pretty decent health insurance through my employer, but like many policies, it charges a $400-per-month penalty for any spouse on the plan that has access to another plan at group rates.

My wife's employer, in their infinite "generosity", offers their "permalancers" access to a $150 high deductible catastrophic coverage plan. They don't pay any portion of the premiums, of course. And there's no way in hell to get reasonable maternity coverage for a woman of child bearing years.

Again, it wouldn't be a problem if they'd only pay her via 1099. She asked about it today, and was basically told that it's too much fucking paperwork for them.

Fucking assholes. It's completely fucking bonkers that, at least from a kid-having perspective, we're almost better off having her quit her "full time" job to pick up the occasional five hour contract job for extra cash.

Don't even get me in to the brain-dead way we fund fucking health insurance in this country. All of you assholes who killed the public option can go choke on a bag of dicks and pay full price for the ambulance.

Sometimes I hate this country.

[Typo Negative]

Was this the only job she could get?

[Nava]

Sorry, what's a 1099? Is it even legal to have that kind of arrangement without one?

Many countries have a problem with "false self-employed", but at least if all your self-employment ducks are in a row, you have the possibility of moving to another contract. If the arrangement here is covering a "contractor position" with "employee paperwork"... I suspect both Labor and the IRS might have a few choice things to say. And while most companies think Labor is a joke, they don't quite have the same opinion about IRS.

[friedo]

There's no reason your insurance people need to know that your wife has access to a group plan. It's not like they check.

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by spooje

Was this the only job she could get?

Pretty much, given her field. She spent the two years before we met doing the occasional short term contract job while frantically looking for something permanent. And there are dozens, if not hundreds, of people lined up to replace her the moment she quits, so it's not like she has any leverage.

The real pisser is, it could actually be a great opportunity for her if the employment terms and the line managers didn't suck so hard. She get to work with a lot of rather prestigious clients, and the work is frequently interesting. She was excited as hell to get it, and I'm really proud of her. Everybody there seems to love her work.

The company president is actually a second cousin of mine. I'm rather tempted to say a few words at the next family get together, though she's convinced me to keep my mouth shut for the moment.

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by Nava

Sorry, what's a 1099? Is it even legal to have that kind of arrangement without one?

1099 is the form used to report income from self employment (among other things.) They're true freelancers, meaning they pay self employment taxes and the full cost of their payroll taxes, in contrast to traditional employees, who generally report using form W2. While W2 employment doesn't guarantee access to employer-funded health insurance (nothing in this country does), common practice, at least in professional positions, is to offer insurance to W2 employees who work full time.

Essentially, she's a part-timer on a five-minute leash. Her manager has told her the following two things about her job, literally in the same conversation:

"The nice thing about being a perma-lancer is the flexibility. You can come and go as you please."

"I need you to check with me before you work from home or leave early, and if a meeting comes up, I need you to come in."

She tried nailing them down to a set schedule - MWF, or something, which would at least give her time to do other jobs. But then they'd have to actually sit down and think about scheduling shit in advance, which is either too much effort or not part of the "culture."

[Fear Itself]

Originally Posted by black rabbit

Turns out, they want her to be "available at all times." She's never been able to get an answer as to what that means, exactly, but in practice, it looks a helluva lot like they want her to sit around at home, off the clock, and to check email every five minutes on the off chance that somebody schedules a meeting or hands her an assignment, at which point she's expected to drop everything and head to the office, pronto.

IANAL, but this appears to violate the IRS definition of an independent contractor:

You are not an independent contractor if you perform services that can be controlled by an employer (what will be done and how it will be done). This applies even if you are given freedom of action. What matters is that the employer has the legal right to control the details of how the services are performed.If an employer-employee relationship exists (regardless of what the relationship is called), you are not an independent contractor and your earnings are generally not subject to Medicare and Social Security Taxes for Self-Employed.

Additional IRS info:

Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:

1. Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
2. Financial: Are the business aspects of the worker’s job controlled by the payer? (these include things like how worker is paid, whether expenses are reimbursed, who provides tools/supplies, etc.)
3. Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? Will the relationship continue and is the work performed a key aspect of the business?

Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.
The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination.
Form SS-8

If, after reviewing the three categories of evidence, it is still unclear whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor, Form SS-8, Determination of Worker Status for Purposes of Federal Employment Taxes and Income Tax Withholding (PDF) can be filed with the IRS. The form may be filed by either the business or the worker. The IRS will review the facts and circumstances and officially determine the worker’s status.

[Broomstick]

I've been both a W2 wageslave and a genuine 1099 contractor. Sounds to me like your wife's employer is breaking the law here, but I am not a labor law lawyer.

You could make a call reporting possible violations to your state's department of labor. If you do so, be very specific. Anything you might have in writing, ask if they want a copy.

Of course, this could result in termination of your wife's employment. That's technically illegal as well, but I'm assuming they'd be willing to take that chance. After all, even if you make a complaint there's no guarantee things will go your way, or that the assholes who came up with this won't try to retaliate. On the other hand, Microsoft lost a crapload of money off this issue some time ago, and the false contractors got some money out of it. Eventually.

[SciFiSam]

That sounds really illegal to me, as well as shitty. How can she be called a freelancer? She's not.

It's worth bearing in mind that someone else might well make a complaint and then your wife's situation would either improve or she'd lose what work she does get.

[Rand Rover]

Uh--you people saying the employer is likely breaking IRS rules may want to read the OP a little closer. The OP's wife is getting a W-2.

[Fear Itself]

You're right. That wasn't clear to me.

In that case, she just has a shitty job. Suck it up, or quit.

[furt]

Originally Posted by black rabbit

How the fuck could permanent freelancing ever be a good deal for an employee?

It isn't. Did the employer sell this to your wife as being a better deal for her?

[Broomstick]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Uh--you people saying the employer is likely breaking IRS rules may want to read the OP a little closer. The OP's wife is getting a W-2.

There are limits to what sort of conditions you can impose on a W2 worker, as I'm sure you know.

We do not, of course, have the whole story here. However, having an employee fill out a W2 then describing said person as a "freelancer" is deceptive and untrue at the very least. Which is why I suspect all is not legal here.

They need to consult someone who knows the law in their state, and with whom they can fully share all the details.

It may be it's just a shitty job arrangement. It may be it's illegal. Can't know for sure from here.

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by furt

It isn't. Did the employer sell this to your wife as being a better deal for her?

They try to, though I think it's mostly what they tell themselves so that they can sleep at night. They're also fanatical about blowing smoke up the asses of their employees - stuff like holding a quarterly no-holds-barred Friday afternoon bacchanalia (total cost: maybe a few thousand bucks) where they tell everybody how precious and creative and special they are, instead of doing things like giving raises or promoting from within for anything below the director level.

And for everybody telling me it's illegal - nope, it's all legit. My complaint is that they're calling her a freelancer, but they're treating her like a part-time employee with d-list benefits. They're not breaking the law; they're just a bunch of execrable assholes.

[SciFiSam]

Originally Posted by Rand Rover

Uh--you people saying the employer is likely breaking IRS rules may want to read the OP a little closer. The OP's wife is getting a W-2.

Does that fit with not having her taxes withheld? I don't know that much about the US tax system.

[cmyk]

Look into the possibility of working under a W4. The proper taxes are withheld, and the circumstances can be set up like a contracted freelancer. One of my clients maintains in their policies that I'm eligible to enroll in their health insurance plan, provided I meet the required number of billable hours, and don't go without work from the company for more than 45 days.

I'm not really familiar with this form, but I've been working under 1099s and estimated taxes for almost a decade. This was the first time I filled out a W4 for a contract job, and was surprised to see that what I was eligible for under this form of employment. (I work at home in Michigan, this company is in NYC).

Just tossing that out there.

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by SciFiSam

Does that fit with not having her taxes withheld? I don't know that much about the US tax system.

For the record: her taxes are being withheld, they are paying unemployment insurance, etc, etc.

My beef is that, rather than do what any other normal company would do, and call her a Part Time Whatever, they advertised the position (and continue to refer to her as) a "Full Time Freelancer", when she is neither full-time nor a true freelancer.

[Finagle]

Well, you're going to have to call them on it. If they're going to call her a freelancer, then her answer next time they say to check in is "Sorry, I've got another freelance job I have to finish. Is next Monday good for you?"

And she should go out and get that other freelance job, if possible.


And, if they fire her for this, then it's pretty obvious that they were breaking the law.
(And it's also time to talk to that second cousin.)

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by black rabbit

For the record: her taxes are being withheld, they are paying unemployment insurance, etc, etc.

My beef is that, rather than do what any other normal company would do, and call her a Part Time Whatever, they advertised the position (and continue to refer to her as) a "Full Time Freelancer", when she is neither full-time nor a true freelancer.

As far as I understand it, as I'm a truly self-employed freelancer, if she's filled out a W2, she's an employee. If they're letting her work from home, count that as a perk. Otherwise, she can ask to re-negotiate her terms of employment (go true freelance, get 1099'd or W4), ask for better benefits / a raise, or quit and seek other employment.

A Full-Time Freelancer sounds like biznass-speak for here's a salary with no benefits. Anyway you slice it, it's a fucking bitch. And believe me, when you work freelance... you're ALWAYS on call. I much prefer being self-employed, but you're right, in that this country makes it damn near impossible to forge a career in self-employment/freelance.

It's sad, because the internet, cell phones and computers make working from home much more efficient and sensible in a lot of desk jobs; yet there's zero incentives for us... just the opposite. Fuck you, Republicans!

However, I don't understand your health insurance scenario though? As a true freelancer, you're far more limited in insurance options, and pay up the wazoo for even 80/20 coverage.

Since you have benefits at your job, why not opt in for that?

[Cat Whisperer]

Originally Posted by Finagle

Well, you're going to have to call them on it. If they're going to call her a freelancer, then her answer next time they say to check in is "Sorry, I've got another freelance job I have to finish. Is next Monday good for you?"

And she should go out and get that other freelance job, if possible.


And, if they fire her for this, then it's pretty obvious that they were breaking the law.
(And it's also time to talk to that second cousin.)

This is good advice, if your wife is prepared to lose this job.

Sorry they're playing fast and loose with employment laws (skirting as close to the edge of them as they can and doing as little as possible for the employees); maybe after your wife gets some experience she can move to a company that won't be such assholes.

[black rabbit]

Originally Posted by cmyk

However, I don't understand your health insurance scenario though? As a true freelancer, you're far more limited in insurance options, and pay up the wazoo for even 80/20 coverage.

Since you have benefits at your job, why not opt in for that?

We have spousal coverage available, but like with most plans, if the spouse has any access to a plan at group rates from an employer, I'd have to pay and extra 400 bucks a month, in addition to my contribution to the premiums. Her employer offers this bullshit, overpriced, 100%-employee-paid catastrophic policy to its fauxlancers, so she has technically has access to group coverage.

[filmore]

She should spend all of her off-the-clock time looking for another job. Practically speaking, she's not going to be able to change the working conditions. The current labor situation means employers get to call all the shots. If your wife doesn't like what they're doing, there's 100 more people who will wait in line all night to apply for her job.

She shouldn't mention that she's looking for another job or else they'll let her go immediately. When she gets another offer, then she can go to her manager and say something like, "I'm thinking of leaving to get a job with more stability. Is there anything you can do?" Maybe then they'll bring her on as a full-time employee.

[cmyk]

Originally Posted by black rabbit

We have spousal coverage available, but like with most plans, if the spouse has any access to a plan at group rates from an employer, I'd have to pay and extra 400 bucks a month, in addition to my contribution to the premiums. Her employer offers this bullshit, overpriced, 100%-employee-paid catastrophic policy to its fauxlancers, so she has technically has access to group coverage.

My advice would be for her to lay this scenario out to her employers, and kindly ask that she be W4'd.

That is utter, fucking bullshit.

[Shade]

Originally Posted by friedo

There's no reason your insurance people need to know that your wife has access to a group plan. It's not like they check.

I don't know what they ACTUALLY do, but the cynic in me notices that they probably make the most money if they deliberately don't check anything when they start getting premiums, but then suddenly turn over every rock legal and illegal if you need to make an expensive claim, and suddenly refuse to pay then, don't even mention refunding the premiums you paid into the apparently invalid contract, and hope you die rather than sue them, so, um, there'd be an incentive for them to do that, and if they gave in to temptation, it could be bad for the insured (I seem to recall a court case, but not the result.)

[Broomstick]

The term for that is "recission".

[Eva Luna]

It might be worth a call to the Dept. of Labor just to see what they tell yoou about whether the employer can require her to be constantly available, without compensation or any guarantee of work. Check this out:

"8. Can an employee still be on-call or performing work at home during a furlough day?

Whether on-call time is hours worked under the FLSA depends upon the particular circumstances. Generally, the facts may show that the employee was engaged to wait (which is work time) or the facts may show that the employee was waiting to be engaged (which is not work time).

For example, a secretary who reads a book while waiting for dictation or a fireman who plays checkers while waiting for an alarm is working during such periods of inactivity. These employees have been "engaged to wait." An employee who is required to remain on call on the employer's premises is working while "on call." An employee who is allowed to leave a message where he/she can be reached is not working (in most cases) while on call. Additional constraints on the employee's freedom could require this time to be compensated."

I don't know what state you're in, but state law may be helpful here, too. Of course, your wife would have to be willing to go to the mat.

[pbbth]

Originally Posted by Shade

I don't know what they ACTUALLY do, but the cynic in me notices that they probably make the most money if they deliberately don't check anything when they start getting premiums, but then suddenly turn over every rock legal and illegal if you need to make an expensive claim, and suddenly refuse to pay then, don't even mention refunding the premiums you paid into the apparently invalid contract, and hope you die rather than sue them, so, um, there'd be an incentive for them to do that, and if they gave in to temptation, it could be bad for the insured (I seem to recall a court case, but not the result.)

The insurance companies I've worked with tend not to check up front but they will check in the event of a large claim and then if they find you lied they terminate you back to your start date and refund your premiums minus any smaller claims they paid out during that time.

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by cmyk

As far as I understand it, as I'm a truly self-employed freelancer, if she's filled out a W2, she's an employee. If they're letting her work from home, count that as a perk. Otherwise, she can ask to re-negotiate her terms of employment (go true freelance, get 1099'd or W4), ask for better benefits / a raise, or quit and seek other employment.
...

Nitpick: W4 is the document you fill out when you hire on to tell the employer how much tax to withhold. W2 is the thing they send you in January which lists how much you earned, how much was withheld etc. So you've got the two reversed.

How specialized are the wife's skills? Might they have trouble finding anyone else to fill the job? If so, it might be some leverage on her part to nail them down to a specific schedule, at least.

Has she spoken to anyone to say "look, if you will not have me on-board full time, you cannot expect me to drop everything without notice. Pay me, or give me sufficient notice when you need me". Or, to say "this status quo is literally costing me money. If you want to keep me in this situation, you pay me more or change me to a 1099 contractor". Though technically the job is NOT a contractor position, it fails the IRS tests which determine that.

There was another thread recently in which someone's teenage kid, who worked at a fast food place, was told to clock out - but WAIT AROUND UNTIL THEY NEEDED HER. I seem to recall that the consensus was: if you're requiring the person to be available, they are not at liberty and must be paid. If you don't want to pay them, they can leave.

I'd seriously discuss the situation with a labor lawyer.

[kushiel]

I have a feeling she's freelancing in either design or web. You take what you can get in those fields - a lot of companies won't hire without experience, and you can't get experience if you don't have a job, so this sort of freelancing happens. I hate that whole deal. You have no leverage because some college student will gladly take the job to supplement their beer money.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by black rabbit

Essentially, she's a part-timer on a five-minute leash. Her manager has told her the following two things about her job, literally in the same conversation:

"The nice thing about being a perma-lancer is the flexibility. You can come and go as you please."

"I need you to check with me before you work from home or leave early, and if a meeting comes up, I need you to come in."

She is exactly a part-timer. I don't see any problem with her being required to tell them when she leaves early (assuming she is being paid before she leaves) or when she works from home. However, as others have mentioned, being on-call at home should get her paid. If they need her to respond instantaneously, she needs to be paid to do so. Hourly people I know who are on call get compensation.

She tried nailing them down to a set schedule - MWF, or something, which would at least give her time to do other jobs. But then they'd have to actually sit down and think about scheduling shit in advance, which is either too much effort or not part of the "culture."

Maybe she'd do better asking for a schedule for the next week. If none is given, she could block out time when she will not be working. No reasonable customer can expect a vendor to be infinitely available - forget about this issue, there might be other customers.

BTW, I don't understand about your insurance. First, if a spouse has coverage that generally reduces the bill for the insurer, since some of the expenses will be paid by the other insurer and most have provisions against people getting double benefits. My wife is a real freelancer, so I have to certify every year that she doesn't have coverage, but I doubt I'd have to pay more if she did. Also, it sounds like her coverage is not equivalent to yours, so it might pay for you to read the fine print.

[Mama Zappa]

Originally Posted by Voyager

...
BTW, I don't understand about your insurance. First, if a spouse has coverage that generally reduces the bill for the insurer, since some of the expenses will be paid by the other insurer and most have provisions against people getting double benefits. My wife is a real freelancer, so I have to certify every year that she doesn't have coverage, but I doubt I'd have to pay more if she did. Also, it sounds like her coverage is not equivalent to yours, so it might pay for you to read the fine print.

The OP's insurance has a punitive policy, where they really want the spouse to be insured by HER employer rather than the OP's. As such, they say "if you COULD have coverage elsewhere, but choose to go with us INSTEAD, you have to pay MORE". They don't care whether she elects the other coverage, making them secondary, or not.

I suspect it's an employer-driven thing, since his employer probably chips in some of the cost for the family coverage.

What you're describing is double-coverage, which (in our direct experience) is often a LOT more trouble than it's worth. Say my policy would pay 70 dollars on a 100 dollar expense. Used to be, I could file with secondary (my spouse's, if I was on his plan) and collect the 30 dollars. In recent years however, they've gone the approach of saying "we'd pay 70 dollars. Whoops, the other guy already paid that. So we don't have to pay ANYTHING". And your premiums for that secondary policy are wasted.

In the OP's situation, even if they did the double-insurance, the wife's policy has such a large deductible that everything would fall to the secondary (husband's) policy. It becomes very complicated.

[Voyager]

Originally Posted by Mama Zappa

The OP's insurance has a punitive policy, where they really want the spouse to be insured by HER employer rather than the OP's. As such, they say "if you COULD have coverage elsewhere, but choose to go with us INSTEAD, you have to pay MORE". They don't care whether she elects the other coverage, making them secondary, or not.

I suspect it's an employer-driven thing, since his employer probably chips in some of the cost for the family coverage.

That makes sense. The last time I seriously looked at this, insurance was still affordable so people took it. In most of the places I've worked taking at least minimal medical insurance is mandatory, but these plans are a lot better than high deductible catastrophic insurance.

I never had to deal with double coverage issues, but my friends who did made it sound every bit as much of a pain as you describe.
Now I just send back the form saying my wife doesn't have coverage. Then do it again. And again. And then call them up to tell them to cut it out already. (Blue Cross was much worse about this than UHC, actually.)