Re: [Iasa20] 6635bis

["John Levine" <[e-mail]>]

In article <[e-mail]> you write:
>>> The slant towards contracting made sense prior to forming the LLC, but now that the LLC has been formed
>these functions could be performed by an employee. 
>
>Specifically, I would regard that as a broken promise: not lightweight, not cheap.

Sorry, but as others have implied that's just wrong.

US employment law is complicated.  I have been an employer and an
employee, been a contractor, and hired contractors, and I would still
not claim to be an expert.  Whether someone is a contractor or an
employee has nothing to do with the length of the contract or the
terms on which it might be broken.  It has to do with stuff like who
pays for medical insurance (a big deal in the US) and pension
contributions.  It is not entirely up to the two parties -- there are
cases where someone is hired as a contractor, appeals to the labor
department, and it decides that the facts of the relationship make the
person an employee.  You cannot say whether a contractor is cheaper or
more expensive than an employee without knowing the details of that
particular job and the particular agreements.

This is the kind of business detail that we invented the LLC to take
care of.  None of us are employment law experts and it would be absurd
for us to define rules that purport to define the details of
employment relationships.

The IAB can certainly say who to hire as the RSE or whatever, what the
job entails, for how long and what would make the parties end the
agreement early.  Beyond that, it's up to the LLC.

R's,
John