Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

Hiya,

On 30/04/2019 17:40, Sean Turner wrote:
> These deal directly with the question about more flexibility for the
> RSE and RPC to be either contractors or employees, and the text
> suggestions assume that the desired result is flexibility for the LLC
> to choose the type of employment relationship.
I believe there's a flaw in the argument that the LLC
ought have flexibility to have the RSE be an employee.

In some jurisdictions (incl. Ireland) an employee who
is on their Nth fixed term contract for the same role
is entitled to become a permanent employee. (N==3 in
Ireland.)

I think that means that were we looking for a new RSE
at some stage, and if the LLC wanted that person to be
an employee, we'd be constrained to pick someone who
does not live in a jurisdiction with such labour laws.
That, or we'd have to risk having to remove an RSE at
the end of their 2nd fixed term despite wanting to
keep them, or... we'd have to risk being "stuck" with
an RSE for an indeterminate duration.

ISTM that the fixed-term with re-appointment model for
the RSE role inherently means not filling that role by
hiring an LLC employee.

Where am I wrong in the above?

I don't believe I've seen that particular argument made
on the list so far. I have seen others make other arguments
against the idea that an employee-RSE is at all desirable.
(And I've done so myself.)

So I don't support changes to give the LLC that possibly
unwise flexibility just on the off-chance that it might
help with some unstated problem.

Cheers,
S.