Hiring "Independent Contractors"

Leave it to Gordon to fill in the GAPs...

It's worth a go! I'll take all the people I find from my classified ad and offer them to licensed, bonded deck restorers for a fee! Ha! By Jove, Holmes, I think you've got it!

As for chatteling, that's my ultimate goal here anyway...looking forward to the course.

John

If you go to http://www.lakemetro.com/dever/default.htm you will find they also have a sales opportunity that could be coupled in...no minimum sales...just commission.

How about either supplying local retailers, or deck cleaners, or.....

...users directly - offer a training/demo session on how to apply the products and then collect the order....having restored decks in a past business and judging from the product, a 10 - 15 minute demo would be all it would take....and the company offers a 7 year product warranty to boot.

These products at the above site lend themselves very nicely to do it yourselfers.

Cornell

Hi,

The author of "Winning Through Intimidation" made it clear that middlemen will always be rogered unless they work like fiends to keep it from happening.

I wonder how you could make sure you got your commission, when the deck restorer can make another $100 just by forgetting to pay you?

If we just sold leads to restorers, I wonder what a "raised-hand" but otherwise raw lead would be worth? Now I wish I could look at a deck restorer's books....

Best,

- Boyd

> I wonder how you could make sure you got
> your commission, when the deck restorer can
> make another $100 just by forgetting to pay
> you?

Well, $100 would be one cheap lead, Boyd. And if I had someone sending work to my imaginary (so far) deck renewal biz that cheap, I'd be trying to keep them as happy as possible, lest they slip away and start working with my arch nemesis, John Drake.

Gordon makes some good points about a lot of things (doesn't he always?), but I think if you want to say to hell with the bureaucracy, you can make a lot more working this on your own. Yes, there's equipment and things to learn, but you're all fast learners! It all depends on how much you want to put into it.

And all the 'libilties'? What about em? Good luck in any business if you can't step over, work with, or trample the effects of these.

I just reread that to make sure that's how I really feel, and it is. Just checking. It's good to do that sometimes. It's really weird some of the ways your point of view can come out in print. So much so that later when you read it, you just think 'Why?!?'

You aren't going to have problems with lawsuits if you're talking with a picking and choosing customers in person. Maybe I'm just from a different neck of the woods than y'all (and no, that word is not part of my vocab).

Success,

Erik Lukas

P.S. Yes, you might damage the surface of the wood some if you use too much pressure (and you'll have to fix that before staining with light sanding). You'll be fine as long as you can handle that AND stay away from Thompsons deck cleaner.

P.P.S. Hint: Start with a 40 degree tip 12 inches away and use wolman's deck brightener (cedar version if you need to get out darkness). Go easy on the pressure and heavy on the carefulness.

This may or may not have much to do with deck cleaning, but this true story should make you think twice about independant contractors.

I knew a man who owned a small trucking livery service. He had about ten van type trucks. His drivers were all employees. They cared little about how they treated the trucks and were continually abusing them. He decided to make them independant contractors by financing the sale of the trucks to the employees. Everyone was happy. He no longer had to worry about maintenance and the drivers loved the benefits of owning their own business. They now had tax benefits etc. Well everyone was happy except the IRS. They no longer had the payroll taxes being withheld from drivers paychecks and now they would have to put up with all these independant businesses - no way Jose`.

They (our wonderful government) disallowed his claim that these individuals were independant contractors on the basis that he controlled their time. They fined him a hefty sum and made him pay all the back taxes on their earnings. He had to buy the trucks back and put everyone back on the payroll.

Who says we live in a "free" society? We need to have another tea party.

> Does anyone have any tips on hiring people
> for specific jobs? My ad for deck renewal is
> running today and I'm going to see what the
> response is before I take the next step, but
> I'm thinking ahead.

> I know there are lots of college students
> & landscaper-types who need work for the
> summer. I'd really prefer not to do the deck
> renewal myself if I can help it. What is the
> best way to find local help with a little
> experience in this area? Another newspaper
> ad?

> And what red tape is involved in hiring
> someone as an "independent
> contractor" rather than as an employee?

> Any advice is appreciated. I'll share all my
> results as well.

> Thanks.

> And thanks Dien and Gordon for this
> excellent forum!

> John

"They (our wonderful government) disallowed his claim that these individuals were independant contractors on the basis that he controlled their time. They fined him a hefty sum and made him pay all the back taxes on their earnings. He had to buy the trucks back and put everyone back on the payroll.

******Actually "they" didn't disallow his claim. The Law did. "They" were simply doing their jobs and applying the Law. That is what "they" get paid to do.

Who says we live in a "free" society? We need to have another tea party."

*****Anyone who says we live in a "free society" obviously slept through US Government 101. ;) Considering the amount of taxes we pay, it's hardly free. However, the taxes we pay fund our defense systems, our roadways, our Social Security program, our judicial system (which we don't hesitate to use when we feel someone has grievously wronged us), etc... We might pay taxes but, in general, the taxes pay for things we use so really, we're rewarding ourselves when we pay taxes. All we have to do is hand over the cash (or simply have it deducted from paychecks) and we get lots of benefits from those taxes except we don't have to build our own freeways or arrange for court proceedings or monitor businesses to make sure they are complying with federal environmental laws or organize rescue missions and monetary bailouts in areas declared a national disaster area or.......

Further, the man in your story had the **freedom** and **legal right** to check with his federal government and state government to determine what constitutes independent contracting and how it affects his taxes and his business. Since he didn't do his homework he risked his business by making assumptions. "They" can't force him to seek information.

The government (all levels) is MORE than happy to help business owners/newbie learn the Law so the business owner/newbie doesn't end up in this sort of pickle. However, like so many people, the man in your story either didn't know he could meet with his tax paid public servant and get the info OR has a resentful attitude towards our government OR didn't want the hassle of filling out paperwork OR simply was too lazy to make an effort to get the necessary information before deciding how to classify the people who work for him.

The man in your story screwed himself. "They" had nothing to do with the choices he made. "They" simply did the job the rest of us tax paying citizens require them to do. If this guy didn't pay up on the taxes, we'd be pitching a fit that he got away with not complying with the Law and that our taxes went even higher to make up for it. "They" aren't perfect but "they" do what they can to make sure we have a fairly even playing field regarding responsibility and accountibility.

And them's my 4 cents......don't spend them all in one place. ;)

:)
EM

You failed to mention the congressional hearings a couple years ago where the IRS was called to task on their strong arm tactics involving taxpayers.

Seems I remember congress told them they had better shape up.

> "They (our wonderful government)
> disallowed his claim that these individuals
> were independant contractors on the basis
> that he controlled their time. They fined
> him a hefty sum and made him pay all the
> back taxes on their earnings. He had to buy
> the trucks back and put everyone back on the
> payroll.

> ******Actually "they" didn't
> disallow his claim. The Law did.
> "They" were simply doing their
> jobs and applying the Law. That is what
> "they" get paid to do.

> Who says we live in a "free"
> society? We need to have another tea
> party."

> *****Anyone who says we live in a "free
> society" obviously slept through US
> Government 101. ;) Considering the amount of
> taxes we pay, it's hardly free. However, the
> taxes we pay fund our defense systems, our
> roadways, our Social Security program, our
> judicial system (which we don't hesitate to
> use when we feel someone has grievously
> wronged us), etc... We might pay taxes but,
> in general, the taxes pay for things we use
> so really, we're rewarding ourselves when we
> pay taxes. All we have to do is hand over
> the cash (or simply have it deducted from
> paychecks) and we get lots of benefits from
> those taxes except we don't have to build
> our own freeways or arrange for court
> proceedings or monitor businesses to make
> sure they are complying with federal
> environmental laws or organize rescue
> missions and monetary bailouts in areas
> declared a national disaster area or.......

> Further, the man in your story had the
> **freedom** and **legal right** to check
> with his federal government and state
> government to determine what constitutes
> independent contracting and how it affects
> his taxes and his business. Since he didn't
> do his homework he risked his business by
> making assumptions. "They" can't
> force him to seek information.

> The government (all levels) is MORE than
> happy to help business owners/newbie learn
> the Law so the business owner/newbie doesn't
> end up in this sort of pickle. However, like
> so many people, the man in your story either
> didn't know he could meet with his tax paid
> public servant and get the info OR has a
> resentful attitude towards our government OR
> didn't want the hassle of filling out
> paperwork OR simply was too lazy to make an
> effort to get the necessary information
> before deciding how to classify the people
> who work for him.

> The man in your story screwed himself.
> "They" had nothing to do with the
> choices he made. "They" simply did
> the job the rest of us tax paying citizens
> require them to do. If this guy didn't pay
> up on the taxes, we'd be pitching a fit that
> he got away with not complying with the Law
> and that our taxes went even higher to make
> up for it. "They" aren't perfect
> but "they" do what they can to
> make sure we have a fairly even playing
> field regarding responsibility and
> accountibility.

> And them's my 4 cents......don't spend them
> all in one place. ;)

> :)
> EM

"You failed to mention the congressional hearings a couple years ago where the IRS was called to task on their strong arm tactics involving taxpayers.

Seems I remember congress told them they had better shape up."

******That's an interesting statement, Gary. What does that have to do with whether or not the man in the story actively tried to comply with our existing laws and protect his company? After seeing your response, I went back and re-read the original story and nowhere does it mention what actions the man took in order to prevent the problem? Nowhere in the original story is it stated the government gave the man misinformation. The point of the story seemed to be the-government-is-out-to-screw-us and my response was the-government-doesn't-screw-us-as-much-as-we-screw-ourselves-so-exercise-your-legal-right-to-be-informed-and-do-your-homework-in-order-to-protect-yourself-and-your-business. (Geez, it's hard to type a hyphen between every word!!!)

Our principles of government and the actual government worker bees and law makers aren't perfect. You'll get no argument from me on that one! :) But they can hardly be deemed responsible for the choices WE make. Like I said before, the government can't compel someone to seek information. If the government were given that right, we'd be whining about how they've taken away our freedom to be stupid and uneducated. Also, the government shouldn't be held responsible when someone **insists** on making bad/stupid decisions especially when that someone could have done a little bit of research and made much better decisions.

It's really very simple; we have laws/rules/procedures we must follow to be in compliance with the Law/reap the benefits of the Law. When we aren't in compliance with the Law because we failed to find out what the Law is, (and let's face it, how many business owners AREN'T aware we have laws regarding taxing businesses???) WE failed, not the government. On a similar note, when we don't find out what the Law is and we miss out on taking advantage of the many benefits which could be available to us, which are granted to us by Law, WE failed, not the government.

Now, if it turns out the man in the story exercised due diligence and sought information from his favorite tax paid public servants and they gave him misinformation THEN the government should be held responsible for the man making a bad decision regarding taxation of workers.

But so far, I haven't seen anything in the story to suggest the government did anything wrong in that particular situation. Of course, I left my secret decoder ring at home so maybe I'm missing an invisible message...... ;)

:)
EM

That "Big Brother", who you seem to love, ain't all you crack it up to be!

Gary

> "You failed to mention the
> congressional hearings a couple years ago
> where the IRS was called to task on their
> strong arm tactics involving taxpayers.

> Seems I remember congress told them they had
> better shape up."

> ******That's an interesting statement, Gary.
> What does that have to do with whether or
> not the man in the story actively tried to
> comply with our existing laws and protect
> his company? After seeing your response, I
> went back and re-read the original story and
> nowhere does it mention what actions the man
> took in order to prevent the problem?
> Nowhere in the original story is it stated
> the government gave the man misinformation.
> The point of the story seemed to be
> the-government-is-out-to-screw-us and my
> response was
> the-government-doesn't-screw-us-as-much-as-we-screw-ourselves-so-exercise-your-legal-right-to-be-informed-and-do-your-homework-in-order-to-protect-yourself-and-your-business.
> (Geez, it's hard to type a hyphen between
> every word!!!)

> Our principles of government and the actual
> government worker bees and law makers aren't
> perfect. You'll get no argument from me on
> that one! :) But they can hardly be deemed
> responsible for the choices WE make. Like I
> said before, the government can't compel
> someone to seek information. If the
> government were given that right, we'd be
> whining about how they've taken away our
> freedom to be stupid and uneducated. Also,
> the government shouldn't be held responsible
> when someone **insists** on making
> bad/stupid decisions especially when that
> someone could have done a little bit of
> research and made much better decisions.

> It's really very simple; we have
> laws/rules/procedures we must follow to be
> in compliance with the Law/reap the benefits
> of the Law. When we aren't in compliance
> with the Law because we failed to find out
> what the Law is, (and let's face it, how
> many business owners AREN'T aware we have
> laws regarding taxing businesses???) WE
> failed, not the government. On a similar
> note, when we don't find out what the Law is
> and we miss out on taking advantage of the
> many benefits which could be available to
> us, which are granted to us by Law, WE
> failed, not the government.

> Now, if it turns out the man in the story
> exercised due diligence and sought
> information from his favorite tax paid
> public servants and they gave him
> misinformation THEN the government should be
> held responsible for the man making a bad
> decision regarding taxation of workers.

> But so far, I haven't seen anything in the
> story to suggest the government did anything
> wrong in that particular situation. Of
> course, I left my secret decoder ring at
> home so maybe I'm missing an invisible
> message...... ;)

> :)
> EM

"That "Big Brother", who you seem to love, ain't all you crack it up to be!"

******........the "Big Brother" you, and others like yourself, imagine is a fictional creation. Our government, like it or not, is comprised of the citizens of the United States of America. Who put those citizens in Washington? We the people did. We the people have rights. We the people have the right to decide who goes to Washington. We the people voted in the lawmakers. We the people have to learn to live with the laws we the people are ultimately responsible for (due to our voting decisions) OR learn how to get those laws changed. Technically speaking, we the people are "Big Brother".

Gary, you seem determined to make our government out to be an Evil Entity forced upon us when in reality, our government is made up of thousands of people just like you and me. Look around you; if your friends decided to run for public office, won the election and happily traipsed off to Washington, would you suddenly see them as the enemy? If your friends decided to seek employment with a government agency, would they become the scum of the earth? If yes, then bless your heart.

As I clearly stated in my last message, our government ISN'T a perfect system. And I wouldn't say I'm "in love" with our government. However, unlike many people, I see our government for what it is: a system for governing and protecting a society who chooses to live within its jurisdiction. I don't see the IRS as a monster out to bankrupt me; I see the IRS as the US government's method of collecting taxes. I don't see our tax laws as stifling and written to destroy businesses; I see our tax laws as a means to set out clearly (so to speak!) who pays what. You may agree with certain laws and hate others but that is simply a matter of personal perception. Go ask Joe Blow on the street about businesses being able to incorporate and get different taxation rates and he'll get on his soapbox and rant for hours about how "the rich are never taxed and the government is out to screw the little guy and businesses should have to pay MORE blah, blah, blah...". Go ask the businessperson who's incorporated about the same laws and they'll wax eloquent about how everyone should do it and how much money they've saved yadda, yadda, yadda.....

Same law, different perceptions.

Gary, it is soooooo fine with me if you choose to look at our government as the boogeyman-in-the-closet. This here's the U. S. of A. and you're entitled to your opinions and perceptions. I'm just sorry you seem to see only the flaws of our government and not the many ways we benefit from our government.

Or maybe you do and you're just playing devil's advocate...... :)

:)
EM