Re: [Iasa20] employees and contractors in 6635bis

[Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>]

(Sorry, ignore the last mail, hit send too soon.)

Hiya,

On 01/05/2019 01:11, Eric Rescorla wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 4:02 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
> wrote:
> 
>>
>> Hiya,
>>
>> On 30/04/2019 23:49, John Levine wrote:
>>> In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>>> 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?
>>>
>>> It depends where the employee is.
>>
>> Yes. As I explicitly said in my mail.
>>
>> My point being that we don't want to constrain selection of
>> an RSE based on geographic variations in employment law. For
>> this role, that could be a significant constraint.
>>
> 
> This seems like an argument for giving the LLC *more* latitude here,
> because as this discussion has shown, there are places where it's
> advantageous to have people with whom you have a long-term
> engagement be a contractor and others where it's advantageous
> to have them be an employee.

I interpret things differently. The contractor arrangement seems
to me to fit the RSE role regardless of geography. In contrast
employee arrangements seem like a total misfit for at least
countries like Ireland (perhaps most of the EU?). And I do not
want the LLC to have fictional flexibility that really represents
a cumbersome constraint when it comes to RSE selection.

> So, I'm not sure I follow your argument here, which seems to be that
> you think we ought to constrain the LLC in this respect.

I do think we ought do that. Sorry if I've not explained it
sufficiently well.

>> Here in the US, if you hire a person as a contractor but the the
>>> nature of the job is more like an employee (the so called IRS 20
>>> questions), the person can file an SS-8 form with the IRS to ask to be
>>> reclassified as an employee.  If the IRS agrees, the employer has to
>>> pay unemployment and social security and medicare taxes for the
>>> employee, retroactive to when they were hired.  It can be a
>>> significant financial risk for the employer.
>>
>> Yes. But the RSE role has not been "more like an employee"
>> at all.
>>
> 
> Without taking a position on the nature of the RSE, 

I believe the IETF has a position on that. (Not that the IETF is
the only entity who may care about the RSE role etc...)

> I'm not sure
> that you and John mean the same thing when you say "like an
> employee". See, for instance:
> https://www.irs.gov/newsroom/understanding-employee-vs-contractor-designation

I don't think it's that John and I have divergent opinions there,
it's that there are substantive differences in the distinction in
different places. John's claim that we, not being international
labour lawyers, don't understand the details, is correct but is
also misleading - despite not knowing all the details, we are
entirely capable of recognising that the employee vs. contractor
distinction is an important and relevant one. Concluding that
there is no basis to change the current arrangement seems quite
within our ken.

> Note that the questions here are not largely about how *we* think of
> the role but rather about the structure of the work and of the relationship.

I'm not at all sure I agree with you there, but figuring that out
would probably bring us too far into the weeds, and you know how
I just *hate* micromanaging:-)

Cheers,
S.

> 
> -Ekr
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> iasa20 mailing list
> [e-mail]
> https://www.ietf.org/mailman/listinfo/iasa20
>