Re: [Iasa20] employees and contractors in 6635bis

[Eric Rescorla <[e-mail]>]

On Tue, Apr 30, 2019 at 5:34 PM Stephen Farrell <[e-mail]>
wrote:

>
> (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.


But this is precisely the point that John, Richard, and I have
been making, namely that it's actually *not* clear that the contractor
arrangement is a good fit for the RSE role in certain jurisdictions.


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.
>

In what way is this flexibility a constraint.

> 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.
>
>

Yes, I get that, but it doesn't seem to follow in any way from the
arguments you are advancing.


>> 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...)
>

Sorry, what I mean to say is that I am not taking a position on
whether the IRS would judge that the RSE was actually an
employee.

-Ekr