Hacker News Reader

Comment by techsupporter | Hacker News Reader

The rules, such as they are, seem fairly straightforward. If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such.

If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

In the former case, people don't say "I hired J. Q. Driver to take me from my office to the airport," they say "I got an Uber." It's not "Local Delivery Service, LLC delivered my groceries today," it's "Instacart brought the milk." Being a part-time or irregularly-scheduled employee doesn't make someone any less of an employee than a 40-hours-per-week office worker.

The problem is one of enforcement. Just like how Uber got its nose under the tent by bullying through existing rules, companies like these exploit the fact that state Departments of Labor are politically hesitant (can't be crushing those small businesses, after all) and the federal DoL is limited.

View on HN

>The rules, such as they are, seem fairly straightforward.

The laws are anything but straightforward. For starters there are 50 States with each one having different laws.

Take Florida where I have personally represented employers and employees/Independent contractors in these types of matters. The FL case law establishes, what in my opinion is the very worst kind of law, a factors test. So essentially there are a number of factors the courts put forward, I believe 7 factors by my last count, and in each instance a court would have to analyze each case on its own merits, and by case I am referring to each employee/Independent Contractor not each company as a whole.

One of the most heavily weighted factors is who the company pays...does the company pay the employee/independent contractor individually or pay a company formed by the individual. It would be evidence enough to simply determine which start-ups have a policy against paying any individual and requiring all individuals form companies. If start-up does't require their Independent Contractors to set up separate entities the start-ups deserve what is coming to them, a finding by the Courts these were employees.

The rules the parent commenter is referring to are federal, and extraordinarily well-known, because several generations of businesses have tried to come up with ways to skirt them to avoid taxes.

As far as I understand the rules, the "most heavily weighted factor" you cite is in fact not an IRS employee classification factor at all. A contractor can still be classified as an employee even though they bill through an LLC. BigCo's worry about this so much that they will sometimes withhold taxes from LLCs.

You are correct. Most of the obfuscation comes from the fact that people don't like to follow the rules.

It's actually not that hard to sum up the difference between a contractor and an employee. If the suspected employer regulates the time, place, and manner of the work being performed, chances are they're not contractors.

Yes, there's more nuance than that. But most of the supposed controversy usually involves people trying to pretend that basic premise isn't true for some reason. Usually without success.

Huh; This is the best argument I've heard for Uber drivers being Contractors rather than Employees. In fact, it's a pretty good argument for all of 'gig culture' being contractors, since you can accept and reject jobs. I'd previously been strongly on the other side.

In my personal opinion, the driving services are a legitimate and genuine gray area. A person who is a professional driver, owns their own equipment (the car of course), can pick their own shifts and accept or reject a ride, can drive to different areas if they want, and does in fact have the ability to solicit work from multiple customers, could be considered independent. I can also see the flip side of that, but it's at least arguable.

I think the time, place, and manner argument comes into much sharper focus with the personal service type "gigs" that are out there. Low level janitorial work is really not likely to be an independent gig, and whatever claims to that were had by the company in the original post start to evaporate when they dictate bathroom breaks, what shirt is being worn, etc.

There's really not much to argue here. They don't get to pick the times (booked by the customer via the employer) the places (same) and the manner (as the article states) by which they complete their work. They are part time workers for janitorial service that solicits business online.

I agree with you regarding driving services being a genuine gray area.

>A person who is a professional driver, owns their own equipment (the car of course), can pick their own shifts and accept or reject a ride

These would all be arguments towards a proper Independent Contractor relationship. However, as you highlight you see the flipside, which might include the following arguments. One could argue while the driver supplies the car/insurance, a service such as Uber provides not just software but other equipment such as the iPhone that must be used to facilitate rides/payments (why can't a driver use their own phone?). Driver's may create their own hours, but Uber pays "bonuses" (i.e. hourly wages) for drivers to drive at certain times. Then there are issues such as mandatory meetings and training. I have had a driver tell me Uber pays attorney's fees when drivers are arrested for violating taxi laws.

All things being equal, it is entirely foreseeable that different Courts could rule differently given the same facts - the epitome of genuine gray area.

Except for the manner of the work portion. That part makes it questionable.

Even upon rereading OP it is not clear it was referring to Federal Law, there is even mention of both State and Federal Departments of labor, so I think use of the word rule was an all encompassing term for classification law. Still it only adds to the problems with this area of the law, after all it is not only possible, but common, for an individual to be classified as an employee/independent contractor on the federal level and then classified the opposite at the state level.

Nevertheless, while the federal classification 20 factors have been around for about 30 years, since the enactment of the Revenue Act the IRS has been prohibited from issuing regulations and rulings with respect to the employment status of any individuals. As a result the IRS acknowledges the same subjectivity going so far as to admit different IRS agents may reach different conclusions, the Courts are no different and hence my calling factors tests the worst kind of law.

>As far as I understand the rules, the "most heavily weighted factor" you cite is in fact not an IRS employee classification factor at all. A contractor can still be classified as an employee...

This is likely due to the IRS being prohibited from issuing rules and regulations, and as a result in the words of the IRS, "Previously issued guidance may not reflect current case law, statutory changes, or changes in workplace situations." However, you are correct that this factor, under FL case law, though weighted more heavily is not determinative by any means.

I've read this 3 times and I don't really understand what it means, so I'll just repeat myself:

The IRS contractor rules are the most important employee classification rules with any bearing on this discussion, and they are both clear and very well-understood by employers.

You're a lawyer, so I feel like it's weird that we're having this discussion. I am not a lawyer, but I am something like 99.999% sure that 1099'ing an LLC does very little to ensure that a contractor can't be retroactively classified as an FTE for whom W2 withholding was required.

>The IRS contractor rules are the most important employee classification rules with any bearing on this discussion, and they are both clear and very well-understood by employers.

You can not say IRS rules are more important than State case law for purposes of classification or this discussion. Such a statement shows the law is anything but clear. Federal/State classifications are an independent determination and require separate analysis.

Example, say A hires B as an Independent Contractor, having focused on complying with only the Federal factors, then B sues A at the State level after being was injured on the job claiming A misidentified B, whereas B claims he was really an employee and should receive workers comp. The Court is not going to apply the Federal Rules/Law they will apply the State Law, in fact we can go ahead and assume B was correctly a Independent Contractor at the Federal Level, but the Court could find under State Law B was classified and the relationship was that of employee/employer now A is liable for failing to comply with State Law and have to pay B's workers comp. This is the exact type of lawsuit that could be replicated hundreds or thousands of times sinking any Start-up, who fails to comply with any aspect of the classification paradigm.

>I am not a lawyer, but I am something like 99.999% sure that 1099'ing an LLC does very little to ensure that a contractor can't be retroactively classified as an FTE for whom W2 withholding was required.

As I said you are correct, just because you pay a company rather than a individual does not automatically make that an Independent Contractor relationship, but it is one factor. For example, in the Florida Worker's Compensation Statute (which provides its own factors, separate from both Florida Case Law and the IRS 20 Factors) factor number 2 reads:

"(II) The independent contractor holds or has applied for a federal employer identification number..."

[1] http://www.leg.state.fl.us/Statutes/index.cfm?App_mode=Displ...

Just to add some actual cases, there was the $6.5 million settlement by Lowe’s Home Centers as well as a FedEx Ground case, where the idea of "1099ing an LLC" did not protect them.

"Recently, the U.S. Court of Appeals for the Ninth Circuit and the Kansas Supreme Court both held that FedEx Ground had misclassified employees as independent contractors who were operating as business entities or subcontracted additional routes to other drivers."

http://independentcontractorcompliance.com/2015/01/14/four-l...

And the article goes on to add:

"Some state laws expressly carve out from their definitions of “employee” status a business entity where the hiring party does not exercise direction or control over the performance of the services and meets other requirements. Thus, companies that wish to minimize independent contractor misclassification liability wisely do not rely solely on the fact that the independent contractor is a business entity."

This is consistent with what I have detailed throughout the thread, i.e. it is a factor in some States with an emphasis in Florida where it is included in the statutory definition of Independent Contractor. I can not imagine any lawyer who would advise their Client to enter an Independent Contractor Agreement with an individual, even if it is not determinative of the classification, it is good business practice and there is nothing to be gained by entering the contract with an individual over a company.

I think the confusion here is who is doing the classifying for what purpose. In the case of the IRS, they have rules to classify a person as an employee for tax purposes, and the state will have rules to classify an employee for benefits and awards purposes. They can, and sometimes will, be totally different in different states.

In this case, it is all about benefits and awards. That is why they are talking about California law.

Are there any Florida "Factors" that are directly contradictory of the IRS's 3 Common Law categories?

Not contradictory as far as I am aware.

The IRS 20 factors: http://www.irs.gov/Businesses/Small-Businesses-&-Self-Employ...

Florida 10 factors, Keith v. News & Sun Sentinel Co., 667 So. 2d 167 (Supreme Court of Florida, 1995), for purposes of determining worker's comp eligibility:

• The extent of control that the employer may exercise over the details of the work; • Whether or not the individual employed is engaged in a distinct occupation or business; • Whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the employer or by a specialist without supervision; • The skill required in the particular occupation; • Whether the employee or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place of work for the person doing the work; • The length of time for which the person is employed; • The method of payment, whether by the time or by the job; • Whether or not the work is part of the regular business of the employer; • Whether or not the parties believe they are creating the relation of employer and employee; and • Whether the individual is or is not in business.

One of the things I find ironic is how many people in tech, as we as those who leach off tech like the tech press, both hailed this new "sharing" economy as it was framed. Disrupting the old antiquated regulations was good, reducing friction was good, democratization of resources was good. Now suddenly its a surprise that the value of these companies was misplaced. That they arguably bring harm. That in the end they don't care so much about the the resource they are facilitating --all they cared about was making the customer happy. And the customer selfishly will not think that this might have an impact with the potential to bite them back.

Basically let me get mine while the getting is good.

The "sharing" part is a scam, the same tired nonsense that napster tried. The tech press swallows it hook line and sinker because they are trade rags, and pissing off the cool kids will cut off the flow of future stories.

Many aspects of Uber and Airbnb's business model are awesome. The problem is that they have growth targets to hit which require breaking a few eggs.

you say it seems straightforward, but your first standard for the case of a de facto employer matches what you explicitly list under a true contractor:

First you state:

>If, in the case of outfits like Handy and Uber and Instacart, the "employer" is laying down rules, requiring certain performance, setting the price, and enforcing metrics, they are an employer and the person doing the work is an employee who should be treated as such.

Then you state:

> If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

So the standards you've listed start by saying an "employer" can't lay down rules and ends by giving an example of "true contractors" that follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

If you can't even write four paragraphs without a blatant contradiction[1] perhaps the case doesn't seem nearly as simple as you make out at all!

[1] (No offense, I spotted it because I was reading carefully for guidance and your two sentences were strikingly parallel and started with the exact words "if, in the case of outfits like" [a] and then [b], where you listed the difference.)

EDIT: I misread the second sentence as "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."

Another way of parsing the sentence in question.

Redbeacon requires none of the following things of its contractors: 1) that they show up in Redbeacon attire. 2) work solely through Redbeacon. 3) charge what Redbeacon dictates. 4) follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

>If, in the case of outfits like Redbeacon, the site is collecting leads and distributing them while letting the two parties work out the arrangement for themselves, the site is a referrer and the contractor is a contractor. Redbeacon doesn't require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, ONLY do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.

What probably confused your reading is that the word "only", coming at the end of clause, seems like it changed the sense of the rest of the sentence, whereas I believe the author meant it to apply to the phrase "do work in Redbeacon clothing".

yes, this is what confused me. I made this clear in my second reply. Note that the first clause "only do work through Redbeacon" makes sense because it sounds like you're prohibiting disintermediation - i.e. swapping phone numbers through their site and then cutting Redbeacon out of the transaction.

I think you missed the presence of the word "doesn't" in the sentence about Redbeacon.

"Readbeacon DOESN'T require that the contractor who I hire to paint a room show up in Redbeacon attire, only do work through Redbeacon, charge what Redbeacon dictates, and follow Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done."

I didn't miss it! The sentence is actually ambiguous :) I read ONLY as a change in sense!! The sentence reads "Redbeacon doesn't require a, only b, c, and d."

I actually read this as:

Redbeacon DOESN'T REQUIRE THAT the CONTRACTOR who I hire to paint a room SHOW UP in Redbeacon attire; ONLY (THAT THEY) DO WORK through Redbeacon[1], CHARGE what Redbeacon dictates[2], and FOLLOW Redbeacon's rules for how the work is done.[3]

It's clear that this isn't what you meant. But not so clear that I didn't misread it. Rules against disintermediation, arbitration of disputes, terms and conditions, are all things that make contractors seem more like employees...

[1] i.e. not disintermediate by connecting directly off-site and cutting out redbeacon

[2] i.e. what is advertised on Redbeacon's site

[3] i.e. terms and conditions

You're correct in your distinction, but you are giving the impression that this is a bad thing.

If some companies like Uber and Instacart can nullify a nefarious law using loopholes, this is a Good Thing.

In general, there are strong reason to believe that regulation which restrict the freedom of contract are harmful, and the result of special interests trying to secure a competitive advantage through legislative means.

There's actually two different kinds of laws at play, of which those restricting freedom of contract is only one. The other kind has to do with when a company can be held liable for the conduct of its employees. Companies generally cannot be held liable for the conduct of their contractors, because they don't control that conduct, while they can be held liable for the conduct of their employees.

It's uncontroversial, even among most libertarians, that people should be held liable for the hazards created by their profit-making activities. If your business is shuttling people around in 3,000 pound metal death machines, you should be on the hook when one inevitably hits someone. Not just out of concerns of fairness, but because the contrary rule eliminates any incentive on the part of the business to minimize hazards incident to their profit-generating activity.

Actually no, as Ronald Coase showed, it doesn't matter who the liability falls on initially

- If it falls on the driver, the driver will demand higher wages / fares to compensate for the cost of insuring himself.

- If it falls on the company, the company will demand higher fares to compensate for the cost of insurance

- If it falls on the passenger, the passenger could demand lower fares. However, the company would soon realize that by accepting to take on the liability, they could command a much higher fare. Not only would it relieve the customer of the burden of the liability, but by better aligning incentives, it would also send a credible signal that the cars are safe and the drivers are cautious.

What if the liability is on the drivers and they are uninsured and likely insolvent in case of an accident? This is the same scenario as shifting part of the liability on the customer, it likely wouldn't be very appealing.

You can make an argument that consumers are irrational and are unlikely to really look into whether or not the cars / drivers are insured, but that's a different argument than externalization, and it is by no means obvious. A single accident where the victim isn't properly compensated could be disastrous for a company.

Coase's theorem doesn't apply when the parties can't transact with each other to shift the burden. Customers can choose to use properly insured drivers but someone who gets hit or has her property damaged by a driver doesn't get to choose one that has the requisite commercial insurance.

OP was referring to passengers, not pedestrians.

In the case of pedestrians, the liability depends on who owns the street. It the street is owned by the municipality for instance, it may require cars to have civil insurance. This has nothing to do with whether or not Uber drivers are employees or contractors.

> Coase's theorem doesn't apply when the parties can't transact with each other to shift the burden.

That's true, but it's irrelevant to the point murbard2 was making. He's not arguing that the person who gets hit should bear the liability; he's arguing that it doesn't necessarily have to be Uber that bears the liability, at least not as an initial condition; it could be either the individual driver or the passenger, since all of those parties can transact to shift the burden. (Notice that he didn't list "the person who gets hit" as an option.) Since you were arguing that Uber should bear the liability (instead of just arguing that the person who gets hit should not), his point is a perfectly justified response to yours.

> You can make an argument that consumers are irrational and are unlikely to really look into whether or not the cars / drivers are insured, but that's a different argument than externalization

This part makes me think that he did not consider the scenario of a driver hitting someone else. It is precisely the problem of externalization. If the initial liability isn't on the company, it will be on a party (the driver or passenger) that won't actually have the assets to pay in the case of an accident. In that case, it is de facto externalized onto the poor sap who gets hit.

> If the initial liability isn't on the company, it will be on a party (the driver or passenger) that won't actually have the assets to pay in the case of an accident.

Why not? In the hypothetical Coasian scenario where the company doesn't have liability but the driver and/or passenger will negotiate with the company to change the terms to compensate, the driver and/or passenger know that they are liable and the company isn't. (If they didn't know, they wouldn't know to renegotiate the terms.)

What you appear to be assuming is that the driver and passenger will not know, i.e., that they will be blindsided by the fact that they are liable, the first time the vehicle gets in an accident. But even if that's the case, why is that the company's fault? Isn't the driver responsible for knowing what he is and is not liable for when he takes paying passengers? Even if he wasn't taking paying passengers, he'd still have to have insurance, so it's not like the concept of him being liable when his car hits someone is new to him. (The passenger has more of an excuse here, since he's not driving and would not be expected to bear responsibility under just about any legal standard currently in play.)

Because even though they might be technically liable, they'd never actually have to pay, assuming you don't have a law requiring them to carry commercial insurance. If you do have such a law, then we're not talking about anything Coasian--we have just picked the driver to carry the cost of accidents.

> even though they might be technically liable, they'd never actually have to pay, assuming you don't have a law requiring them to carry commercial insurance

Um, I had assumed that "liable" meant "liable", not "technically liable but not actually liable". We're not comparing scenarios where the law is the same but we arbitrarily shift the "liable" label from one party to another. We're comparing scenarios where:

(a) the law says the company is legally liable when any driver they contract hits someone while driving a passenger under that contract, and has to carry insurance accordingly, vs.

(b) the law says the driver is legally liable when they hit someone, and has to carry insurance accordingly--commercial insurance for when they're carrying passengers under contract, and ordinary insurance for when they're driving for personal reasons.

The Coasian point is simply that under legal regime (b), as compared to (a), the drivers will negotiate for higher wages or other additional compensation to offset the increased cost of their insurance.

> If you do have such a law, then we're not talking about anything Coasian--we have just picked the driver to carry the cost of accidents.

Sigh. This is just case (b) above, and the Coasian point about the comparison with case (a) does apply.

That is literally the exact opposite of what Coase said.

Coase said that in a world without transaction costs it doesn't matter who the liability falls upon. When you turn to the real world, the fact that it matters greatly who the liability falls on shows just how important transaction costs are.

Coase was trying to get economist to stop ignoring transaction costs and pretending that the type of bargaining in your comment will solve all our problems.

Here's Coase himself:

  The world of zero transaction costs has often been 
  described as a Coasian world. Nothing could be further 
  from the truth. It is the world of modern economic 
  theory, one which I was hoping to persuade economists 
  to leave

Here, read this (pdf). It explains your misunderstanding (shared by many others) in great detail: http://www.deirdremccloskey.com/docs/pdf/Article_306.pdf

Ah, nothing like standard, mainstream econ theory to burn karma.

See my other comment to your first post. What you posted was, ironically, the exact opposite of what Coast was trying to show.

To be fair, however, yours is a mistake than many, many people have made -- including some very successful economists.

You're correct, and I'm aware that the point is that transaction costs exists and that you want the law to allocate rights by default to the least cost avoiders. However, it is a very valuable insight that, on the first order, allocation doesn't matter.

It's also interesting to notice that the Internet and IT in general is lowering transaction costs and pushing us further into a Coasian world.

Except that there a some quite good reasons why we do things like regulate cabs. You don't get take make statements like this without discussing why the same thing which happened historically that led to the current laws won't happen again.

If you don't regulate them, you wind up with a race to the bottom and have unsafe cars, untrained drivers, lack of insurance, etc.

And, gee, once Uber wasn't paying top dollar to drivers anymore, the quality crashed and all the problems appeared that everybody expected. Go figure.

The thing that happened historically is that cabs lobbied for licensing to cut the competition.

Do you have any evidence regarding your safety claims?

History of taxis before the Haas Act: http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/politics/2013/01/73990...

"n 1932, 16,732 cabs roamed New York City streets, according to taxi historian Graham Hodges’Taxi! A social history of the New York City cab driver.

The competition “was merciless,” according to Hodges, and “Many cabbies turned to petty crime to help make ends meet.”

There were strikes, and there were fare wars."

The solution isn't to wipe out the medallions. The solution is to issue more until you achieve the balance you seek.

So the argument is that cabbies weren't making enough money and thus had to supplement their income with petty crime ? Rubbish.

First of all, the medallion system does not raise the pay of cab drivers in the long run, since those medallions are eventually traded and leased out.

Second, there are plenty of jobs which pay very little, and somehow this is not brought up as a concern.

So if I hire someone to play Princess Elsa at my daughter's birthday party, requiring her to wear a certain uniform on a certain day during certain hours and setting a price, then she is therefore an employee?

Aren't setting prices and terms of contract a standard part of any contract?

If you are providing a marketplace for people to find contracts between parties, and you are in any way filtering what you will or will not allow on that marketplace, aren't you setting terms of that contract?

http://www.careerusa.org/resources/career-files/100-resource...

The IRS uses a 20 item check list. Reading though the list "So if I hire someone to play Princess Elsa at my daughter's birthday party" would clearly be a 1099. However, if they work though an agency then they might qualify as a w-2 for that agency.

Great link! I can't help but think this could be the root of the problem:

This 20-point checklist is only a guideline; it does not guarantee that a person is correctly classified. Most agencies and courts typically look to the totality of the circumstances and balance the factors to determine whether a worker is an employee.

No, the root of the problem is companies that want staff who they can work like employees but who they don't have to pay like employees, provide benefits to like employees, or accept liability on behalf of like employees.

There's nothing remotely new or novel about that; it's a dodge that companies have been trying to get away with for as long as labor law has existed.

The premise of Uber is that there were tremendous and ill-gotten gains being nefariously produced by taxi cartels. By busting them up, they could provide people with better service at an equal or lower price - all while ridding cities of a nasty bunch of operators in the process. Behold the righteous cleansing power of creative destruction!

Turns out that their case was a bit overstated (to put it politely). Sure, this was a problem with the medallion model, and Uber is providing a breakthrough solution. But they're not stopping there. To achieve the growth that will justify their valuation, they've got to undermine perfectly reasonable labor laws as well. So maybe not so socially beneficial after all.

Sociopathic tendencies of the leadership aside, one has to wonder if the real problem isn't the VCs who poured their funds' money into a business that could only win by undermining clear, reasonable, historically necessary, and broadly popular legislation. Had they limited their investment to an amount that could be returned simply by attacking cartels, that would be one thing. But insisting that Uber illegally strip-mine their work force may have flipped a once-good thing into the extractive menace column occupied by outfits like...well, taxi cartels.

>Sociopathic tendencies of the leadership aside, one has to wonder if the real problem isn't the VCs who poured their funds' money into a business that could only win by undermining clear, reasonable, historically necessary, and broadly popular legislation.

Well many of those VCs are ideologically opposed to the very concept of legislation being passed to regulate business in the first place, so they effectively got a double return on their investment in Uber:

* First return: actual financial gains when the business takes off

* Second return: a few more paid mercenaries elbowing their way through the rule of law

Weirdly enough, none of these guys has set up shop in Lagos. Or Moscow.

A pity you're getting downvoted because its a valid point, although wrong. The problem with your example is it fails the common language "none of your business" test.

Obviously if the work is illegally portraying a trademarked disney character at a party, the time and clothes are kind of important for accomplishing that task.

The "none of your business" test failed in the linked article where the two young women were subject to numerous rules having nothing directly to do with cleaning things.

For example the electrician who installed the high power wiring to my air conditioner condenser, teamed up with an apprentice. As a contractor its absolutely none of my business, I pay a fee for a service and he can bring 50 apprentices on the jobsite, as long as he gets the job done in a workman like manner up to building code following all safety laws, etc. I can provide no input on the tools he uses or the time he takes as long as there's no OSHA/EPA violation, pass the municipal inspection, etc. I'm trading money for fit for purposes accomplishments, not renting a slave to be bossed around.

I can't imagine that asking a contractor not to bring 50 extra people into your home is "none of your business", as it would potentially be pretty inconvenient if you were there at the time.

Similarly, having stipulations like "don't listen to music out loud while cleaning", is also IMO a reasonable thing to require (as someone who often works from home).

For the record, I do think that it's a problem that many companies are getting around the social safety net that employers are required by labor law to provide. But I think that's a problem better solved by decoupling our social safety net from employment--which I think unfairly ties people to their employers.

No, but if you hire her through an agency that you pay (and not her) then yes, her agency is her employer.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com