Protecting companies from hourly employees
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
Are you sure? Because it acts exactly the same in every way. They have no rights any different from anyone else that is terminated. All legalities behave identically when you send someone home, furlough them or lay them off.
Oh that's not true. for example, during that 16 hour furlough as you put it their health benefits, assuming they have them are still active. If you lay someone off, they health bene's stop.
-
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
If a place treats you like that, legal or not, they would quickly lose employees.
That's a good theory, but places treating people like that rarely worry about that. High turnover jobs and jobs that have employees with few other prospects. And it is so common, where would people go? People working in nearly any hospitality field face this, and that's a lot of people.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
From my understanding of day laborer, you work for the day and there is no promise of work tomorrow.
That's my take on it. From my POV, it's like temp labor where there isn't a long term employment relationship.
That applies to a huge number of hourly people. You leave your shift at the hotel (this applies to where I used to work) or restaurant (also applies) and there is no promise of another shift, at least not much of the time. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
I have not worked in these areas, I would defer to your experience. I have worked with truck drivers, warehouse workers, clerical workers, etc.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller You can tell an employee to go home for the day, evening, whatever. That's not the same as terminating their employment.
Are you sure? Because it acts exactly the same in every way. They have no rights any different from anyone else that is terminated. All legalities behave identically when you send someone home, furlough them or lay them off.
Oh that's not true. for example, during that 16 hour furlough as you put it their health benefits, assuming they have them are still active. If you lay someone off, they health bene's stop.
That's totally incorrect. Health benefits are monthly. If you furlough someone for an hour or 30 days, doesn't matter. One day employed in a month gives you health benefits.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
From my understanding of day laborer, you work for the day and there is no promise of work tomorrow.
That's my take on it. From my POV, it's like temp labor where there isn't a long term employment relationship.
I think that that is a soft definition - not a legal one. Just how work is perceived. If you do "day labour" but get work for two days, or a week, does it change?
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
That applies to a huge number of hourly people. You leave your shift at the hotel (this applies to where I used to work) or restaurant (also applies) and there is no promise of another shift, at least not much of the time. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
I have not worked in these areas, I would defer to your experience. I have worked with truck drivers, warehouse workers, clerical workers, etc.
Clerical tend to work set office hours, rather than shifts. Warehouse tend to be union. Truck drivers are very special cases, and I have no idea how they work but I would imagine often have to wait to hear if there are runs available. The people that I see get this the most are those working places where there are many shifts, often 24x7 or 18x7 hours, loads of turnover, fluctuating work loads, etc.
An office, like a doctor's office that is open exaclty one shift tends to be predictable, you do 8-4 every day unless otherwise stated. But loads and loads of entry level work is "get your schedule before you leave for the day" and if you aren't on in the next day or two, it's very easy to have no idea when you are supposed to return and if you aren't one of the key staffers, it might be a week or two before you do, or the next day, you never know.
-
@scottalanmiller Like I said, that was from my perspective. I'm sure there's a real definition for "day laborer", which is sure to be very different from mine.
-
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller Like I said, that was from my perspective. I'm sure there's a real definition for "day laborer", which is sure to be very different from mine.
The one I found was for the UK where it is a class of worker.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@JaredBusch said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller you are being obtuse here. Normal hourly employees are scheduled for a week or more in advance. There is no not knowing.
Almost no fast food, hotels or similar jobs reliably do that. It's extremely common for jobs to have no promise of your next shift. We are not all so affluent to forget what blue collar work is like. I have a friend who literally went through this this week. She works inside a Walmart, her schedule goes up "same day". How many people do you know have said that they have to "call in" for their hours. That term exists specifically for people who went home without having been told yet when they will work again.
Nearly everyone making under $35K that I know of faces this.
Yeah I hear what you're saying - but I haven't seen scheduling like that since I left minimum wage type jobs - for me it was working at Walgreens. Even as a telemarketer I had a set weekly schedule and I was making $20K/yr.
Most employees at my office make under $35K, but they have pretty set schedules, with a bit of flexibility when covering people's vacations.
-
My guess is that day laborer in the US is just something we say, a way to describe how someone tends to work. Under my way of describing working hours and contracts, it would just "work", no special case needed to allow for it.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Most employees at my office make under $35K, but they have pretty set schedules, with a bit of flexibility when covering people's vacations.
And I mentioned why above already
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
Yeah I hear what you're saying - but I haven't seen scheduling like that since I left minimum wage type jobs - for me it was working at Walgreens.
Yup, pharmacies, retail stores, grocery stores.... they are all like this too.
My niece and all of her coworkers face this. Even my brother and sister in law, both high six figure Pharmacists doctorates have to call in and see what their schedule is (the one doesn't anymore, he made manager and so sets the schedule for the others, but he did until he moved up to that.)
It's not minimum wage that causes it, it's the nature of that kind of work mixed with that kind of shift scheduling where set schedules aren't possible.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
From my understanding of day laborer, you work for the day and there is no promise of work tomorrow.
That's my take on it. From my POV, it's like temp labor where there isn't a long term employment relationship.
I think that that is a soft definition - not a legal one. Just how work is perceived. If you do "day labour" but get work for two days, or a week, does it change?
nope, because you are a contractor, not an employee. 1099 that stuff.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
From my understanding of day laborer, you work for the day and there is no promise of work tomorrow.
That's my take on it. From my POV, it's like temp labor where there isn't a long term employment relationship.
I think that that is a soft definition - not a legal one. Just how work is perceived. If you do "day labour" but get work for two days, or a week, does it change?
nope, because you are a contractor, not an employee. 1099 that stuff.
That's not what contractor means, 1099 is not applicable to day laborers, that would violate employment law 99% of the time. 1099 is essentially never legal and when it is, it is almost always for very, very highly paid people. Day laborers are definitely the last people for whom 1099 would not be a tax dodge.
-
@scottalanmiller said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
@Danp said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
That applies to a huge number of hourly people. You leave your shift at the hotel (this applies to where I used to work) or restaurant (also applies) and there is no promise of another shift, at least not much of the time. Sometimes they know, sometimes they don't.
I have not worked in these areas, I would defer to your experience. I have worked with truck drivers, warehouse workers, clerical workers, etc.
Clerical tend to work set office hours, rather than shifts. Warehouse tend to be union. Truck drivers are very special cases, and I have no idea how they work but I would imagine often have to wait to hear if there are runs available. The people that I see get this the most are those working places where there are many shifts, often 24x7 or 18x7 hours, loads of turnover, fluctuating work loads, etc.
An office, like a doctor's office that is open exaclty one shift tends to be predictable, you do 8-4 every day unless otherwise stated. But loads and loads of entry level work is "get your schedule before you leave for the day" and if you aren't on in the next day or two, it's very easy to have no idea when you are supposed to return and if you aren't one of the key staffers, it might be a week or two before you do, or the next day, you never know.
Yes, you're talking about grocery stores and Walmart.
-
Two things...
- Contractor does not mean 1099.
- 1099 does not broadly apply to any individual, it is for corp to corp tax transfer and is basically only applicable to professional level people that need no oversight and work for multiple clients at the same time.
-
How do you give tax info to a person who works more than $600 for your company in a year, if it's not 1099?
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
How do you give tax info to a person who works more than $600 for your company in a year, if it's not 1099?
W2, that's the singular form for employment. An individual, in only the rarest of cases (read: it will never apply to you, me or anyone that we know) should never receive a 1099.
-
DoL does recognize Day Laborers, but it appears only to highlight that there is nothing unique about them. Basically it's just a page telling Day Laborers that they are normal employees.
-
@Dashrender said in Protecting companies from hourly employees:
How do you give tax info to a person who works more than $600 for your company in a year, if it's not 1099?
The one exception that I know of for 1099, is when you as a non-company need to hire another person for more than $600 to do some labor for you. In which case, you can pay them on a 1099. But in nearly all cases, that person would work for a company, not be an individual.
