New study seeks to define ‘employee’ for tax, benefits purposes

Posted June 26, 2011, at 2:35 p.m.
Last modified June 26, 2011, at 4:36 p.m.
Print this   E-mail this    Facebook this   Tweet this     

AUGUSTA, Maine – Gov. Paul LePage has vetoed several measures creating studies this session but he did sign a measure authorizing a study to draft a uniform definition of an employee, a first step to implementing a promise he made in January.

“The whole point is to get one definition for everybody,” he said in January. His comments were made as he abolished a task force looking at employee misclassification. He said he was concerned that state definitions and rules have gone “too far” and have virtually eliminated the use of independent contractors by some businesses.

“We will be submitting legislation to make some remedies to that and make it consistent so that all agencies and all businesses have the same definition,” LePage said.

Current state law has differing definitions and guidelines for income tax purposes, unemployment and workers’ compensation coverage.

The Employee Misclassification Task Force had been set up by Gov. John Baldacci in 2009 after complaints from union groups that argued that the use of independent contractors and cash payments for work “under the table” was believed to be widespread, particularly in building and construction, and undercut union workers and union employers.

The preliminary report of that task force said employee misclassification occurs when an employer designates a worker as an independent contractor instead of an employee under state law.

The report concluded that there are significant financial effects from misclassification for both the government and employers. Labor Department analysts estimated that tax losses to the state could be as much as $36 million a year from misclassification.

“I don’t know anyone that has obtained the right answer yet,“ said Sen. Chris Rector, R-Thomaston, the co-chair of the Labor, Commerce, Research and Economic Development Committee. “But we are hoping we will. We are thinking the right group is coming to the table.”

The study group, which includes both worker and employer representatives as well as state officials, is directed to report back by January 15, 2012 and the LCRED committee is authorized to report legislation to the legislature.

“We’ve been working on this for the last twenty years, “said Rep. John Tuttle, D-Sanford, the democrat lead on the panel. “Hopefully we do have the right group of people together this time to get it done.”

He said misclassification is a serous problem. He said too often he has had the wife of an independent contractor come to him because the person had been injured on the job and could not collect workers’ compensation.

“Too often the person is really an employee and we are dealing with a bad contractor,” Tuttle said.

The business community argues the issue is crucial to employers. They currently face three separate definitions, one by Maine Revenue Services, one by the Workers’ Compensation Board and yet another by the Unemployment Commission.

“Small employers feel like this is a gotcha situation,“ said Chris Hall, vice president of the Portland Area Chamber of Commerce. “They don’t know who is an independent contractor and who is not. They need a simple bright-line definition.”

He acknowledged translating that need into statutory language is easier said than done. But, he said the study group will have plenty of information already collected to use in crafting a definition.

David Clough, Maine Director of the National Federation of Independent Businesses, said if the state wants to move to a single definition, they should adopt the Internal Revenue Service definition.

“The only way we can have a definition that works for revenue services, unemployment and workers’ comp is to adopt the Internal Revenue Service rules because tax has to use the Internal Revenue Service rules,“ he said.

The federal definition from the IRS does not have hard rules but provides guidelines. The key question is behavioral: Does the company control what the worker does and how they do their job? The second is financial and goes to how the worker is paid and whether they supply their own tools and supplies. The third is the nature of any written contracts between the company and the worker.

“Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor,” the IRS advises on its website. “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.”

While the panel has yet to be named, the law establishing the group sets up an interim definition that will be in force through the end of 2012. Rector said it “tweaks” existing law to hopefully make it more understandable and workable until a new definition can be crafted and adopted.

Similar articles:

Marketplace News

Marketplace

Guidelines for posting on bangordailynews.com

The Bangor Daily News encourages comments about stories, but you must follow our terms of service.

In brief:

  1. Keep it civil and stay on topic
  2. No vulgarity, racial slurs, name-calling or personal attacks.
  3. People who harass others or joke about tragedies will be blocked.

The primary rule here is pretty simple: Treat others with the same respect you'd want for yourself. Here are some guidelines (see more):

  • HowdyNeighbor

    “We’ve been working on this for the last twenty years, “said Rep. John
    Tuttle, D-Sanford, the democrat lead on the panel. “Hopefully we do have
    the right group of people together this time to get it done.”

    Typical for Democrats…

  • HowdyNeighbor

    “We’ve been working on this for the last twenty years, “said Rep. John
    Tuttle, D-Sanford, the democrat lead on the panel. “Hopefully we do have
    the right group of people together this time to get it done.”

    Typical for Democrats…

  • HowdyNeighbor

    “We’ve been working on this for the last twenty years, “said Rep. John
    Tuttle, D-Sanford, the democrat lead on the panel. “Hopefully we do have
    the right group of people together this time to get it done.”

    Typical for Democrats…

  • HowdyNeighbor

    “We’ve been working on this for the last twenty years, “said Rep. John
    Tuttle, D-Sanford, the democrat lead on the panel. “Hopefully we do have
    the right group of people together this time to get it done.”

    Typical for Democrats…

  • Anonymous

    Several years ago, the State of Maine was forced by the federal government to follow the IRS employee definition guidelines.  I don’t know why everyone should not have to follow the IRS guidelines, however, I am sure businesses will not be happy with that definition either.  But, businesses are supposed to be following these guidelines already.

  • Anonymous

    If LePage is for it, I bet the changes will be the least advantageous to all working people.

  • StillRelaxin

    For LePage “Promises” are meaningless. Just look at what he just did to retired teachers and state employees. They worked all their lives for us at average or below average pay (Based on educational levels achieved) under the premise of being cared for with a reasonable pension. Then in their twilight years LePage sweeps in and say’s “Forget what you worked for and were promised, this is what I’m willing to give you today.” Simply disgraceful. Anyone paying to have their children go to college and major in education or something leading to a public service position? If so, you’re making a very bad investment.

  • Anonymous

    tax me on 40 hours ,let my overtime be tax free so i can choose to invest into my own retirement.once we define employee lets make sure the employer understands how to treat an employee.lets stop the abuse of workers comp. and disability.to many folks claiming they cant work.

  • http://twitter.com/z_gryphon Ben Hutchins

    I’ve got the sneaking suspicion that this is going to turn out to be another one of those deals where employers end up being able to say, “Hey, guess what!  Turns out we don’t actually have to give you benefits after all.  And don’t be filling out your food stamps application on company time, either.”

  • Anonymous

    So Governah, how do the Kochs want to define “employees” towards thier greatest corporate tax adavantage ?

  • Anonymous

    I suspect you are correct.  Federal definitions are not as vague as this article leads you to believe. You saw the two questions they provided – these really do have black and white answers.  There are other questions too that seem equally simple to answer but there are employers (public and private) who have found ways to twist and stretch the definition so that they get away with misclassifying an employee. This twisting is generally done in a manner favorable to the employer (public or private).  Health benefits is just one example.  Certain employment classifications in some industries such as trucking, bus driving, delivery, etc… also can be effected by overtime laws as well as laws related to crossing state lines.  These classifications mean more than most people realize and employers most definitely are financially motivated and often tempted to manipulate the classifications particularly at times when they are cutting back or cutting corners.

  • Tax All Liberals

    Hopefully, in an opposing manner from that of George Soros.

  • Tax All Liberals

    Hopefully, in an opposing manner from that of George Soros.

  • Tax All Liberals

    This is a reasonable effort. As one having several employees working for me, employment definitions need to be consistent across the board. I have different definitions depending on the purpose at hand. Hopefully, both employers and employees will benefit from the standardization.

  • Tax All Liberals

    The problem arises when Department of Labor definitions conflict with other regulatory definitions.

  • Tax All Liberals

    The problem arises when Department of Labor definitions conflict with other regulatory definitions.

  • Tax All Liberals

    The problem arises when Department of Labor definitions conflict with other regulatory definitions.

  • Anonymous

    The maitainance person at our Post office is filling in temporality at the federal position, while the job is being posted. This has gone on for years now hourly wage no benefits? No problem here? It just the way it is.

  • Anonymous

    *laughing out loud*

  • Anonymous

    If you are saying that the maintenance person does not receive benefits at the post office for his maintenance position, this is unjust and unfair.  A quasi-federal organization should be following the laws and giving this person benefits.  And, while this person is filling in, he/she should receive the salary of the vacant position (if it is higher than his/her own).

  • Anonymous

    If you are saying that the maintenance person does not receive benefits at the post office for his maintenance position, this is unjust and unfair.  A quasi-federal organization should be following the laws and giving this person benefits.  And, while this person is filling in, he/she should receive the salary of the vacant position (if it is higher than his/her own).

  • Anonymous

    If you are saying that the maintenance person does not receive benefits at the post office for his maintenance position, this is unjust and unfair.  A quasi-federal organization should be following the laws and giving this person benefits.  And, while this person is filling in, he/she should receive the salary of the vacant position (if it is higher than his/her own).

  • Anonymous

    The Legislature didn’t have to give us LePage wanted — they just decided to do so.  I blame both LePage and the Legislature.

  • Anonymous

     Not so, I will get More independent contracts.
    Thank You Govnah !

  • Anonymous

    But what if one can’t deliver what has been promised by someone else? This is the dilemma created by his predecessors that LePage needs to reckon with . LePage is only trying to ensure there will be sufficient funds in the retirement plan for today and tomorrow’s pensioners. I don’t recall him saying, “Forget what you worked for and were promised, this is what I’m willing to give you today.” Please tell me where you got this quote, for surely I have not heard him say anything like this.

  • Anonymous

    Yes and the person contracting to clean the state run school should be covered by workman comp. Right Go ahead put a bid in see how that figures?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    Maine does not follow the federal definition of employee.  Maine has its own rules and basically, everyone that works in Maine is an employee of someone or some business unless they are the owner.  Like many laws in Maine that affect business, the bureau makes up the rules as it goes with tax collections being its motivator.  The Department of Labor and Maine Revenue Services has taken on the job of finding revenues seriously even if they have to make up rules to do it.  Their philosophy, if you do not agree, you can appeal and take us to court.  It will cost you more to do it but it is your right to do so.  If you want to save some money though, just pay us.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    Good point, keep it so no one knows whether or not they are within the rules or outside of the guidelines and then lets throw those filthy no good business people right in jail, where they all belong.  We can all get benefits from our gubmint while we wait for the business people to serve their time and then, when they get out of jail we get our jobs back, with a HUGE raise.  Pass the food stamps please?

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_SHNOU64ZBOBIKWUF5IM6WSH7WA entitled4life

    Whats disgraceful is the pension these people have and the fact that I have to pay more in tax so they can retire young and start a second career and second pension.  Have you ever seen a poor teacher?

  • poormaniac

    Mr. Tuttle , what about term limits ? You’ve grown old in the state house , not to mention you’ve grown a nice pension.

  • Anonymous

    I can’t wait to find out how this turns out. I hope people are beginning to see that the enemy is working people. If they can only make everyone a subcontractor corporate life will be so much better, working folks, not so much.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that whenever LePage is involved, I smell a rat? Anyone who thinks that they are better off working as an ” Independent Contractor ” is sadly misguided. This will only serve to benefit employers and add to the poverty of the American worker. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and greed WILL be the death of us.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that whenever LePage is involved, I smell a rat? Anyone who thinks that they are better off working as an ” Independent Contractor ” is sadly misguided. This will only serve to benefit employers and add to the poverty of the American worker. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and greed WILL be the death of us.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that whenever LePage is involved, I smell a rat? Anyone who thinks that they are better off working as an ” Independent Contractor ” is sadly misguided. This will only serve to benefit employers and add to the poverty of the American worker. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and greed WILL be the death of us.

  • Anonymous

    Why is it that whenever LePage is involved, I smell a rat? Anyone who thinks that they are better off working as an ” Independent Contractor ” is sadly misguided. This will only serve to benefit employers and add to the poverty of the American worker. This country is going to hell in a hand basket and greed WILL be the death of us.

  • Centaurmyst

    They aren’t able to collect social security, though.  The retirement that LePage is hacking away at is their ONLY retirement income.

  • Anonymous

    Have you ever seen a rich teacher? Your desire to see them moved from middle class to lower class is blatant and disturbing. I hope that your money buys you happiness. You’ll be the first, but good luck with your dream.

  • Anonymous

    Tuttle says they have been woking on this for 20 YEARS? 20 years… and these morons still haven’t been able to define contractual workers? 20 years of study group after study group with no solution. The governor is exactly right to put the hammer down and demand results now. All speculation is useless and senseless until we see actual guidelines.

  • Anonymous

    Tuttle says they have been woking on this for 20 YEARS? 20 years… and these morons still haven’t been able to define contractual workers? 20 years of study group after study group with no solution. The governor is exactly right to put the hammer down and demand results now. All speculation is useless and senseless until we see actual guidelines.

  • Anonymous

    Tuttle says they have been woking on this for 20 YEARS? 20 years… and these morons still haven’t been able to define contractual workers? 20 years of study group after study group with no solution. The governor is exactly right to put the hammer down and demand results now. All speculation is useless and senseless until we see actual guidelines.

  • Anonymous

    Tuttle says they have been woking on this for 20 YEARS? 20 years… and these morons still haven’t been able to define contractual workers? 20 years of study group after study group with no solution. The governor is exactly right to put the hammer down and demand results now. All speculation is useless and senseless until we see actual guidelines.

  • Anonymous

    Its a simple change for Republicans
     
    Delete –Employee
     
    Insert–
     
     
     
    slave
       /sleɪv/ Show Spelled [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing.
    –noun
    1.
    a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
    2.
    a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
    3.
    a drudge: a housekeeping slave. I
     

  • Anonymous

    Its a simple change for Republicans
     
    Delete –Employee
     
    Insert–
     
     
     
    slave
       /sleɪv/ Show Spelled [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing.
    –noun
    1.
    a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
    2.
    a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
    3.
    a drudge: a housekeeping slave. I
     

  • Anonymous

    Its a simple change for Republicans
     
    Delete –Employee
     
    Insert–
     
     
     
    slave
       /sleɪv/ Show Spelled [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing.
    –noun
    1.
    a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
    2.
    a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
    3.
    a drudge: a housekeeping slave. I
     

  • Anonymous

    Its a simple change for Republicans
     
    Delete –Employee
     
    Insert–
     
     
     
    slave
       /sleɪv/ Show Spelled [sleyv] Show IPA noun, verb, slaved, slav·ing.
    –noun
    1.
    a person who is the property of and wholly subject to another; a bond servant.
    2.
    a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.
    3.
    a drudge: a housekeeping slave. I
     

  • Anonymous

    Correct me if I am wrong, but I get the feeling that you are for the Waltons of Arkansas hoarding $30 billion last year while their average employee makes $13,600 and has to count on the rest of us for help with food stamps, heat assistance, and MaineCare, because you can’t live on what their greedy employers pay in 2011. I’ll bet they get absolutely giddy at the thought of making their wage slaves “independent contractors”. They could probably take $40 billion out of the economy and stash it in the safe next year if this were the case.

  • Anonymous

    They are following the Federal Guidelines for Federal Taxes but for State tax purposes they of course can be entirely different. All he is saying is for both make the rules the same. Makes sense doesn’t it?

  • Anonymous

    You dont suppose that the show the Waltons was a precursive subliminal to alter the perception of Facsim to come do you!

    Now that I think of it John Boy did have a Secret Stash!

    “Good Night!, John boy!”

  • Anonymous

    You dont suppose that the show the Waltons was a precursive subliminal to alter the perception of Facsim to come do you!

    Now that I think of it John Boy did have a Secret Stash!

    “Good Night!, John boy!”

  • Anonymous

    If they also work in the private sector they can recieve a percentage of Social Security.

    But then again these #$%@ Republicans want to end Social Security!

  • Anonymous

    Who’s holding the gun to the workers head and why do you think they are slaves?

  • Anonymous

    This doesn’t apply to Walmart, but keeping beating a dead horse why don’t you?  Stop showing your class envy and get the facts about this proposal.  There is no intention for just any business to be able to reclassify employees as subs and Walmart most certainly would not/could not do so – this is mainly for contractors that are being harassed by worker’s comp, Maine Revenue, and unemployment because they all have different rules that they follow.   The only way this applies to a business like WalMart is that it would be clear that if they hire a plumber to work on one of their bathrooms that they will be considered a subcontractor and not an employee.

    I know that you salivate at the idea of large businesses like Walmart going out of business, but just where would all those hundreds of thousands of people be without those jobs?  Do you have a job and pay enough in taxes to support them when they are unemployed?  Walmart is the largest employer and the largest charitable contributor in this country – I am pretty sure there are many charities that would miss Walmart’s generous contributions.

  • Anonymous

    When you cant find another job,

    Economics and they fit the definition of ,

    2. a person entirely under the domination of some influence or person: a slave to a drug.

    So,
    Economic  Influence

  • Anonymous

    It all depends on how businesses have been operating previously.  If you a contractor and did the right things before this will help level the playing field.  For those that did not it will not be taken well.  Its quite a bit of money they project to generate in taxes from these changes.

  • Anonymous

    Class envy? You may find this hard to believe, but I for one do not envy greed. And you should get your terminology straight before you comment. WalMart is the largest UNDER EMPLOYER. I would be tickled pink if they went under tomorrow. I could use the tax relief. The greedy little Waton kids stuff billions in the safe every year while you and I take care of their below poverty wage employees with social programs to bridge the gap between what their pathetic employers decide to pay them and what it takes to survive in 2011 America. Turn off Rush and O’Rielly and take a good look around at what greed and selfishness are doing to this once great nation. And the idea that turning employees into “independent contractors” is going to improve our government budget problems or the American standard of living is laughable, at best. WalMart should hire a reputable plumbing and heating contractor who will send over an employee of theirs to fix the problem. Or would it help with their safe stuffing to get someone to do it for less as an “independent contractor”?

  • Anonymous

    Look at FedX in the mid west  they call there drivers independent contractors  but they tell them what color to paint there trucks . What kind of trucks to buy. What clothing to wear. What radios to buy incase they need to pick up stuff. They are being treated just like they were hourly employes.

  • http://twitter.com/mecarpenters Maine local 1996

    Why did the new governor repeal the task force executive order? Its obviously a republican agenda to help the business community misclassify workers and continue to be able to cheat the governement, workers compensation, social security, medicare , unemployment taxes

  • Anonymous

    For small businesses like mine the pressure to hire contractual workers is enormous. I scrape a living together just to support my family. I take the risk to be self-employed. In order for my little company to grow I need help but that help can crush my business if I have to hire that help as an employee.

    Not only do I have to pay a competitive salary, I would have to match 7.5% in social security, I would have worker’s comp premiums, I would live under a lot of pressure to insure my employee was always receiving a paycheck. There is the cost of bookkeepers and payroll services because the regulation for state and federal governments becomes too complex and time consuming for little companies. Then employees need health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, pregnancy leave and on and on and on and on.

    Why wouldn’t small employers seek a way legally to operate with contractual labor? I read these moronic posts about how big business is raping workers through trying to define a consistent, equitable standard for determining contractual labor and it amazes me how stupid people are. Obviously they have never taken the huge financial and emotional risk to run their own companies whether a tiny two man or 100 people.  

    People need to realize, we need individuals who take risks and create jobs and stop punishing them when they succeed.

  • Anonymous

    For small businesses like mine the pressure to hire contractual workers is enormous. I scrape a living together just to support my family. I take the risk to be self-employed. In order for my little company to grow I need help but that help can crush my business if I have to hire that help as an employee.

    Not only do I have to pay a competitive salary, I would have to match 7.5% in social security, I would have worker’s comp premiums, I would live under a lot of pressure to insure my employee was always receiving a paycheck. There is the cost of bookkeepers and payroll services because the regulation for state and federal governments becomes too complex and time consuming for little companies. Then employees need health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, pregnancy leave and on and on and on and on.

    Why wouldn’t small employers seek a way legally to operate with contractual labor? I read these moronic posts about how big business is raping workers through trying to define a consistent, equitable standard for determining contractual labor and it amazes me how stupid people are. Obviously they have never taken the huge financial and emotional risk to run their own companies whether a tiny two man or 100 people.  

    People need to realize, we need individuals who take risks and create jobs and stop punishing them when they succeed.

  • Anonymous

    For small businesses like mine the pressure to hire contractual workers is enormous. I scrape a living together just to support my family. I take the risk to be self-employed. In order for my little company to grow I need help but that help can crush my business if I have to hire that help as an employee.

    Not only do I have to pay a competitive salary, I would have to match 7.5% in social security, I would have worker’s comp premiums, I would live under a lot of pressure to insure my employee was always receiving a paycheck. There is the cost of bookkeepers and payroll services because the regulation for state and federal governments becomes too complex and time consuming for little companies. Then employees need health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, pregnancy leave and on and on and on and on.

    Why wouldn’t small employers seek a way legally to operate with contractual labor? I read these moronic posts about how big business is raping workers through trying to define a consistent, equitable standard for determining contractual labor and it amazes me how stupid people are. Obviously they have never taken the huge financial and emotional risk to run their own companies whether a tiny two man or 100 people.  

    People need to realize, we need individuals who take risks and create jobs and stop punishing them when they succeed.

  • Anonymous

    For small businesses like mine the pressure to hire contractual workers is enormous. I scrape a living together just to support my family. I take the risk to be self-employed. In order for my little company to grow I need help but that help can crush my business if I have to hire that help as an employee.

    Not only do I have to pay a competitive salary, I would have to match 7.5% in social security, I would have worker’s comp premiums, I would live under a lot of pressure to insure my employee was always receiving a paycheck. There is the cost of bookkeepers and payroll services because the regulation for state and federal governments becomes too complex and time consuming for little companies. Then employees need health insurance, paid vacations, sick days, pregnancy leave and on and on and on and on.

    Why wouldn’t small employers seek a way legally to operate with contractual labor? I read these moronic posts about how big business is raping workers through trying to define a consistent, equitable standard for determining contractual labor and it amazes me how stupid people are. Obviously they have never taken the huge financial and emotional risk to run their own companies whether a tiny two man or 100 people.  

    People need to realize, we need individuals who take risks and create jobs and stop punishing them when they succeed.

  • kkmousse

    I like when my Mom was put out to pasture (retirement). Then she came back to work part time at the same company doing the same job. However this time she was labeled a independent contractor. Therefore no medical, no social security no deduction. If you got hurt it was on your own dime. 
    The world is full of independent contractors usually they are wealthy enough to absorb costs associated with not working all the time.
    Currently they are people just lucky enough to get a job, just a paycheck.
    Classification of employees are used to cause some people not to qualify to union membership.  Just a sneaky way of getting around paying anything that you do not want to pay.

  • kkmousse

    good deal, not have to pay anything extra. Just hire the worker and throw them out when they get injured. Get someone new. Sounds like a great way to keep businesses running. Dissposable workers.
    I know that there are some businesses that need private contractors and they do not come cheap.

  • kkmousse

    good deal, not have to pay anything extra. Just hire the worker and throw them out when they get injured. Get someone new. Sounds like a great way to keep businesses running. Dissposable workers.
    I know that there are some businesses that need private contractors and they do not come cheap.

  • http://twitter.com/fakelepage Fake Paul LePage

    Look people, stop fighting! All I want to do is be able to screw a few hard-working Mainers out of any type of benefits, injury protection, etc. This is good for business, trust me. This will create what we still intend to call “jobs”, even though after this is all hashed out, the won’t TECHNNICALLY be jobs, since these folks won’t TECHNICALLY be employed….even though they are busting their humps to support themselves and their familys. The only difference will be that they won’t have the same nastly little “rights” that a lot of working people count on. Big Whoop. …and their daughters can grow little beards if they don’t like it!

  • Anonymous

    the best part you left out … if the contractor for whatever reason decides not to pay you and strings you on for weeks, all you can do is sue, which will cost more than what you’re owed in many cases. 

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3JASFUOHAXLSANY3KW4AM7BIYQ Steve Richard

    Mostly, tax collection is NOT the key to the decision.  A good number of these cases get looked into because someone has been injured or lost their job and try to collect unemployment or workmans comp.  The state collects revenue on income regardless of the employee or contractors status.  The tax tables do not differentiate.  Employers like to call their labor contractors to cut the federal payroll taxes (Soc sec and Medicare) they are responsible for and not have to pay WC or unemployment insurance.  The contractor is fine until something goes wrong, like they are ready to retire without any social security wages, or they get hurt.  This has nothing to do with collection of state tax revenue, but it sounds good to blurt that out.  Government bad.  Corporation good.  Good luck with that…

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3JASFUOHAXLSANY3KW4AM7BIYQ Steve Richard

    Sounds like you should be a big supporter of single payer health care.  I agree that we should not saddle business with providing health insurance, it should be a basic human right.  Without this huge burden, you could hire more people and they would be well enough to work.  We don’t punish the successful multinational corps.  They just park the profits overseas and let you, the small business owner, pay the taxes to provide the infrastructure they capitalize on.  Sounds like you could benefit from some progressive policies working_stiff. 

  • Anonymous

    As a couple of others have stated, I smell a rat where LePage is involved. Given his pro-business, anti-worker stance, I suspect he wants to make it easier for businesses to classify workers as contractors when in fact it should be made *harder*. This is a huge problem in all industries that screws governments out of tax revenue and screws employees out of critical benefits.

    As the article points out, the IRS has this pretty well sorted out with their guidelines. There is no “bright line” definition – each case is different and has many variables. But generally, employers can control three aspects of employment – where someone works (physical location), when they work (hours per day, days per week) and how they work (specific tools, computers. etc.). If an employer dictates any two of these three areas, then the worker is most likely a regular employee.

    The Maine legislature could have this fixed in five minutes by simply adopting the IRS guidelines.

    What most workers don’t know is that they can contact the IRS if they feel like they are misclassified by filling out Form SS-8 http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-pdf/fss8.pdf or they can contact their state department of labor. 

  • http://www.facebook.com/tom.harvell Tom Harvell

     Corporations with low wages and part time workers are being subsidized by food stamps. Without food stamps many of there workers would not be making a survivable wage. I think to end this subsidy we should raise the minimum wage.   A recent study has shown a 46 cent increase per transaction (not per item only 49c on your total bill) Walmart could afford to pay all their employees $12 an hour. I would think that is a much better price for us to pay than our taxes going to food stamps. 

  • Anonymous

    This is the United States of America. The USA should have 100% health care for everyone. This is the United States of America. Should be no different for health care no matter what the income. This is the United States of America.

  • Anonymous

    The US didn’t become the greatest nation on earth through progressive socialist policies. Socialist progressive regulation and over taxation stifles small business. These utopian solutions require taxation to operate. there is no magic bullet. Please, if you love national healthcare so much, by all means, move. Go to canada or Europe. Live there if you crave bureaucratic authoritarian rule. 
    We have done tremendous things in the world without progressive, really regressive, no not even regressive, really tyrannical bureaucrats. just what we need, little self important bureaucrats deciding who, what and when we get health care. Give me the free market any day over some sleazy little progressive calling the shots in my life. Get out of our way you are holding back the greatness of the American people. Progressivism thrives on mediocrity. it is enslavement to the rules and thoughts of the few, chosen elitest.

    The problem with regressive progressivism is it thrives on victimization, enabling dysfunction. It is the sickest, filthiest ideology to ever tear down civilization. please take your progressive disease elsewhere and leave this magnificent country alone. You are not needed.

  • http://pulse.yahoo.com/_3JASFUOHAXLSANY3KW4AM7BIYQ Steve Richard

    What the what?  regressive progressivism? Can you hear yourself.  BS for sure.  We already spend enough on healthcare to have everyone cared for.  Just have to cut the insurance co. profits and we can all see doctors when needed.  You are like many who have been co-opted by the corporate media monster.  You keep watching Fox News and I will gather facts.  You have been fooled into thinking we have to divide our nation along cultural lines.  It is a false choice.  It really has become a sickness.   These principals you espouse are not things real thinking people can get behind.  You have to be sufficiently confused to buy in.  There is nothing bureaucratic about single payer health care.  That is the BS line that corporatists spew to confuse the elderly, less educated and apparently you.  So sad.  Sorry that you prefer to watch your fellow citizens die  unnecessarily.  A real American values all of our citizens.  The misguided have to pick and choose who is worthy.  So sad.  So much potential wasted by division and greed.  I wish you well.  You argue well for the rich, but they will never let you in their club.  Keep voting republican and watch how much more you fall behind. 

    There is no free market either.  No one would be fool enough to invest in a free market system.  Everyone would be able to rob everyone else.  Only with rules can an investor make good decisions and make money.  Free market = anarchy.  Deregulation = free reign for criminals.  Just think.  Oy.  Don’t just listen…..THINK.

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business

Marketplace Coupons

ADVERTISEMENT | Grow your business