Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
Depends on the state. Texas it is like $750 to file but then basically nothing to do after that. Very simple. Used to be $30. Nebraska, no idea. But you can use Texas, NY, Delaware, Nevada or whatever state you want.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
Depends on the state. Texas it is like $750 to file but then basically nothing to do after that. Very simple. Used to be $30. Nebraska, no idea. But you can use Texas, NY, Delaware, Nevada or whatever state you want.
In Nebraska, IT services are taxable. If you are a company, I wonder if it's a requirement to have a tax ID so you can collect sales tax on the services you provide?
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
Depends on the state. Texas it is like $750 to file but then basically nothing to do after that. Very simple. Used to be $30. Nebraska, no idea. But you can use Texas, NY, Delaware, Nevada or whatever state you want.
In Nebraska, IT services are taxable. If you are a company, I wonder if it's a requirement to have a tax ID so you can collect sales tax on the services you provide?
That's a reasonable assumption. But all companies have tax ids as do individuals and that means that any 1099 work would need sales tax collected too. That you are not a registered company doesn't change that in any way.
-
What that means is you owe a bit of taxes.
-
Remember a 1099 is a business to business tax form. Any work you do, you are a business. If you take the 1099 as an individual, you are a sole ownership business operating under your own name with unlimited liability and using your social security number as your federal tax ID number. So all business rules apply to you in the harshest possible ways. The only way around this is to earn under $600/year and be exempt due to size or to be an employee and pay taxes via W2.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
Depends on the state. Texas it is like $750 to file but then basically nothing to do after that. Very simple. Used to be $30. Nebraska, no idea. But you can use Texas, NY, Delaware, Nevada or whatever state you want.
In Nebraska, IT services are taxable. If you are a company, I wonder if it's a requirement to have a tax ID so you can collect sales tax on the services you provide?
That's a reasonable assumption. But all companies have tax ids as do individuals and that means that any 1099 work would need sales tax collected too. That you are not a registered company doesn't change that in any way.
Yep, You're right. But in my continuing case I make sure they pay use tax in my case so I don't have to worry about it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
The cost of maintaining a LLC or S-corp isn't worth the hassle for the small amount of funds that come in. minimal yearly board meeting mins, quarterly (or if lucky yearly), etc.
LLCs do not have those overheads. Anyone that is self employed should be an LLC at a minimum.
I'll admit I know nothing of the requirement of an LLC.
Depends on the state. Texas it is like $750 to file but then basically nothing to do after that. Very simple. Used to be $30. Nebraska, no idea. But you can use Texas, NY, Delaware, Nevada or whatever state you want.
In Nebraska, IT services are taxable. If you are a company, I wonder if it's a requirement to have a tax ID so you can collect sales tax on the services you provide?
That's a reasonable assumption. But all companies have tax ids as do individuals and that means that any 1099 work would need sales tax collected too. That you are not a registered company doesn't change that in any way.
You can't file sales tax under the Business Tax ID, you need a specific Sale Tax ID, at least in Nebraska.
-
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
This assumes you know about it. You can't pay something you are unaware of.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
This assumes you know about it. You can't pay something you are unaware of.
Actually no, it means you know that an employee is working beyond their scheduled work period. Even the slightest hint of work being completed outside of the work-schedule means over time for the employee.
There is no such thing as worker-fairies.
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
https://www.dol.gov/whd/regs/compliance/whdfs53.htm
See section near the bottom regarding unauthorized work.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Sorry, but that's not the way it works. You have to pay the employee for the hours worked. Then you counsel / discipline per the HR policy.
Not paying the employee can lead to much larger issues with the DoL.
That's not correct. If you tell someone to go home and they refuse they are trespassing, not working. Not the same thing. But you have to have a policy that makes it clear that they can't do overtime without something in writing.
In NY, you have to have a policy stating overtime will not be allowed without written consent (and have all employees sign it). If an employee does work over time, you still legally have to pay for that time.
And then you can discipline them for breaking company policy. But you are still forced to pay for time worked.
This assumes you know about it. You can't pay something you are unaware of.
Here is a quote from the link @Danp shared.
Unauthorized Hours Worked
Employees must be paid for work “suffered or permitted” by the employer even if the employer does not specifically authorize the work. If the employer knows or has reason to believe that the employee is continuing to work, the time is considered hours worked. See Regulation 29 CFR 785.11. -
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
-
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
I think that the law needs to side with the employee in these circumstances. With that said there are definitely cases where this shouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's commonplace, but I don't think it's universal.
-
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@DustinB3403 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@wirestyle22 said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
I didn't read the massive amount of posts, but in some of my old jobs my co-workers were so overworked that they couldn't finish their responsibilities in their normal hours and were worried about losing their jobs so they went home and worked off the clock. It didn't matter what I said, they would keep doing it.
And they should've been paid for the time worked.
The employer is making bank off of employees who are being over-worked (and not compensated for it)
My position is, if your job requires you to work past your normal hours, one of two things are happening. Either 1.) You aren't good at your job to a problematic degree or 2.) Your employer is putting too much on your plate for anyone to complete.
If the reason is 1. then no, I don't think you should get paid because you're trying to make up for your lack of knowledge/skill but if it's 2. then yeah, you should definitely get paid.
In either case, you are entitled to get paid for working overtime. It's very simple. If the employee needs to be trained on their job, that is the employers responsibility to ensure the employee can do the work required.
The law agrees with you
But you don't? Are you an employee or employer?
This is for your benefit as well, not just mine.
I think that the law needs to side with the employee in these circumstances. With that said there are definitely cases where this shouldn't be the case. I'm not saying it's commonplace, but I don't think it's universal.
I agree, there are cases of system abuse. But I'd be willing to bet that the system abuse is being perpetrated by the employer more often than by the employee.
