A community of 30,000 US Transcriptionist serving Medical Transcription Industry

The President's Speech about Independent Contractors - Tynkerbelle

Posted: Jan 25, 2012

The President gave a speech today/yesterday (work the midnight shift so it is still today). He was talking about the independent contractor thing. Here is that part of the speech. Is there any hope for me?

Helping Middle-Class Families Win the Future

.....blah....blah....blah.... and then:

Ensure Proper Classification of Employees to Protect Benefits. When employees are misclassified as independent contractors, they are deprived of benefits and protections to which they are legally entitled, such as overtime and unemployment benefits. Misclassification also costs taxpayers money in lost funds for the Treasury and in the Social Security, Medicare and Unemployment Insurance Trust Funds. Building on the 2011 President's budget proposal, the Budget includes $46 million to combat misclassification, including $25 million for grants to states to identify misclassification and recover unpaid taxes and $15 million for additional Wage and Hour Division personnel to investigate misclassification.

this ends the part that concerns me/us........blah...blah...blah.....

not in my opinion - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Over 3 ys ago he promised to bring home American jobs from overseas too. He is all hat and no cow. Oh, but if he could extract more taxes from you, you bet he would!

Not in my opinion - feel the same way

[ In Reply To ..]
Great at reading a teleprompter and not much else. Find it funny that everyone here is blaming the Repubs and it waes CLINTON that made it legal for companies to offshore and then CLINTON gave companies tax incentives to send out jobs overseas. Yeah, the Dems really look out for us...NOT!

NEITHER party looks out for us. - MT

[ In Reply To ..]
As soon as people stop sucking up this 2-party dog-and-pony show, the better off we will ALL be. Both parties are controlled by the same wealthy people behind the scenes, and they always have been.

Getting back to the topic, the feds are giving the states money to jack up tax collection enforcement. Will it affect you/us? Possibly, but IF that occurs I wouldn't expect anything to happen soon. Considering that there are both federal and state BUREAUCRACIES involved and knowing how slowly they move, you MIGHT see improvement a few years from now.

Neither Party - JW

[ In Reply To ..]
Totally totally agree. At the end of the day, these guys are all patting each other on the back and having a drink together. They care not one iota for anyone but themselves. They are all bought and paid for and that goes for the telepompting so-called president of the United States which I have concluded is as fake as a $3 bill.

President's Speech on offshoring - He needs a Congress to work with

[ In Reply To ..]
Excerpt: We should start with our tax code. Right now, companies get tax breaks for moving jobs and profits overseas. Meanwhile, companies that choose to stay in America get hit with one of the highest tax rates in the world. It makes no sense, and everyone knows it. So let's change it.

First, if you're a business that wants to outsource jobs, you shouldn't get a tax deduction for doing it. (Applause.) That money should be used to cover moving expenses for companies like Master Lock that decide to bring jobs home. (Applause.)

Second, no American company should be able to avoid paying its fair share of taxes by moving jobs and profits overseas. (Applause.) From now on, every multinational company should have to pay a basic minimum tax. And every penny should go towards lowering taxes for companies that choose to stay here and hire here in America. (Applause.)

Third, if you're an American manufacturer, you should get a bigger tax cut. If you're a high-tech manufacturer, we should double the tax deduction you get for making your products here. And if you want to relocate in a community that was hit hard when a factory left town, you should get help financing a new plant, equipment, or training for new workers. (Applause.)

So my message is simple. It is time to stop rewarding businesses that ship jobs overseas, and start rewarding companies that create jobs right here in America. Send me these tax reforms, and I will sign them right away. (Applause.)

Poster observation: I should add that during the spots where it says there was applause, that was only from the Democratic side. The Republicans sat on their hands and looked all stony-faced.

If only the pubs would agree to it - mmmt

[ In Reply To ..]
Just think what that would do to professions like ours. Hey you pubs out there, write your representatives and tell them you want this to happen, only if you think we should have our jobs back.

The corporations will find an end-run - alana

[ In Reply To ..]
around any legislation. It's about the bottom line for a few. Look at what S. Jobs told Obama a few years back "Those jobs are not coming back." He was referring to the sweatshop laborers in China, where he can call up 1000s at a moment's notice, in the middle of the night, who sleep in dorms the size of a shower stall, to assemble each little iPod by hand. All the horrific working conditions (mostly women) worked to change in this country is just fine with big corporations. "Hand-made" my ass.

Hey Dems - write Obama and ask for repeal of - Clinton offshoring laws

[ In Reply To ..]
Another one that does not know history. Blaming what Clinton did in first 100 days on Congress...nice try. There are some of us on this board that know our history and actually pay attention to what goes on Congress.

So, 16 or so years ago this was started? - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
Actually, I don't follow the history of such things that closely. I am a worker--don't have time for such details. But if you are truthful, why didn't Bush change it? Seems there was plenty of time.

We've always "off-shored" - allie

[ In Reply To ..]
In the 1970's, North American manufacturing jobs started moving overseas at high speed. There were few truely global organizations at that time. That's an important difference because it wasn't a question of simply moving jobs around. Instead, the trend created huge new global players like Honda and Sony. Neither was a leader in the Japanese domestic market in the 1970's. The trend also led to the growth of North American businesses that successfully outsourced production to the Far East. Nike was probably the most successful of these. Its also worth noting that the companies who successfully rode this trend became global brand names.

NOT to this degree! - MT

[ In Reply To ..]
You are citing a few very large corporations. Most Americans employed in manufacturing pre 1970 DID NOT work for those companies. Because fair wages were paid, they could buy a home and support their families in a somewhat comfortable middle-class lifestyle. In the 1970s, there were still plenty of manufacturing jobs for Americans -- including but not limited to within the auto industry.

It has been a STEADY DOWNWARD DECLINE in this country. It all started with Nixon (opening up trade with China and partially taking the dollar off the gold standard), then Ford, then Carter, then Reagan, then Bush '41. Things got WORSE with each administration (with the notable exception of Carter, who ran things completely into the ground whereas Reagan did turn things partially around). It was during the Clinton administration -- with NAFTA and the "service economy" that he ushered in, officially signalling the death of American manufacturing -- that things began to really get bad. Let's not forget ILLEGAL IMMIGRATION as a factor for driving down wages as well. That is the reason CONSTRUCTION WORKERS were hurting even BEFORE the housing bubble burst. GW Bush and Obama have both contributed as well.

Those manufacturing jobs are GONE FOREVER and are NOT COMING BACK!

Speaking of not knowing one's history, GHW Bush officially signed the NAFTA Treaty on - Dec 17 1992, along with

[ In Reply To ..]

Prime Minister Brian Mulroney of Canada and President Carlos Salinas of Mexico, pictured below. Bush negotiated all its terms, promoted the policy, then "fast tracked" its signing. Evidently, he wanted NAFTA to be HIS legacy. The negotiations and terms of the treaty had actually wreaked havoc during the extremely divisive Canadian parliamentary elections as far back as 1988, and continued to do so until 1993. Mulroney was forced to resign in July of that year.

The treaty required ratification by their respective legislative bodies, which took place in the US after Bush Sr left office during the Clinton administration. Clinton added protections for American workers and required the partners to adhere to US environmental practices and regulations. Passage of the treaty by the US Congress was highly contentious. The vote breakdown in support of NAFTA was as follows: In the House GOP 132, Dems 102; in the Senate GOP 34, Dems 27....not exactly a resounding endorsement, but owing to its bipartisn support, Clinton then signed it into law

Yeppers. No two says about it. NAFTA is a GOP brainchild which they inflicted upon us and has staunchly defended ever since, except, of course, when they are playing pin the blame on the democrats.

The partners

Bush Sr puts pen to paper and voila, NAFTA is born.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/North_American_Free_Trade_Agreement#Negotiation_and_U.S._ratification

Not to be outdone, GW Bush spawned CAFTA - in 2004

[ In Reply To ..]
Spin that.

Thank you, very important to keep it straight - IMANMT2

[ In Reply To ..]
Pin the tail on the Democrat. I'm goingto have to remember that one. :D

CLINTON signed NAFTA into LAW in 1993. - HistoryBuff

[ In Reply To ..]
Since you're using Wiki, I thought I would follow suit.

Here is an except from the Wiki page on Bush '41. YOU ARE WRONG; NAFTA was signed by the 42nd President, Bill Clinton. SOME OF US ARE OLD ENOUGH TO REMEMBER because we watched it happening!

*IF* Bush '41 had signed NAFTA as you claim, then it WOULD NOT HAVE BEEN a HUGE CAMPAIGN ISSUE during the Bush-Clinton race as it was. It WAS an issue, which is why candidate Ross Perot REPEATEDLY WARNED ABOUT ITS PASSAGE (BY CONGRESS) AND SUBSEQUENT SIGNING during that election campaign.

"While initial signing was possible during his term, negotiations made slow, but steady, progress. President Clinton would go on to make the passage of NAFTA a priority for his administration, despite its conservative and Republican roots â�� with the addition of two side agreements â�� to achieve its passage in 1993.[70]"

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/George_H._W._Bush#NAFTA

Some additional, non-Wiki links buttressing this CORRECTION OF YOUR MISTAKE:

http://www.infoplease.com/ipa/A0104566.html

In three separate ceremonies in the three capitals on Dec. 17, 1992, President Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Mulroney signed the historic North American Free Trade Agreement (NAFTA). The framework agreement proposed to eliminate restrictions on the flow of goods, services, and investment in North America. The House of Representatives approved NAFTA, by a vote of 234 to 200 on November 17, 1993, and the Senate voted 60 to 38 for approval on November 20. It was signed into law by President Clinton on December 8, 1993, and took effect on January 1, 1994.

When Was NAFTA Started?:
NAFTA was signed by President George H.W. Bush, Mexican President Salinas, and Canadian Prime Minister Brian Mulroney in 1992. It was ratified by the legislatures of the three countries in 1993. The House approved it by 234 to 200 on November 17 and the Senate by 60 to 38 on November 20. It was signed into law by President Bill Clinton on December 8, 1993 and entered force January 1, 1994. Although it was signed by President Bush, it was a priority of President Clinton's, and its passage is considered one of his first successes. (Source: History.com, NAFTA Signed into Law, December 8, 1993.

http://useconomy.about.com/od/tradepolicy/p/NAFTA_History.htm

Now, let me CLEAR THIS UP for you ONCE AND FOR ALL:

In 1992, Bush '41 signed a PRELIMINARY AGREEMENT. However, that agreement merely reflected a "meeting of the minds" of the 3 nation's "leaders" . IT WAS NOT YET LEGALLY BINDING.

AFTER the legislature passed it, THEN it was SIGNED INTO LAW BY PRESIDENT BILL CLINTON IN 1993. NOW IT IS *LAW* SO IS LEGALLY BINDING.

BOTH PARTIES screwed us over on this one. Actually the INITIAL TALKS began under the Reagan administration, and Bush '41 (mostly via trade rep Carla Hills) picked up the ball. But it was DEMOCRAT BILL CLINTON WHO SIGNED IT INTO LAW!

Spacing - HistoryBuff

[ In Reply To ..]
There were paragraph breaks in that message; I have no idea how they got lost.

Why are you screaming? If you read my post again - you can clearly see that

[ In Reply To ..]
I very carefully distinguished between the treaty stage, the role Bush Sr played in negotiating its terms, promoting and signing on to the treaty and what transpired after he left office. I do not think it is much of a stretch to suggest that Bush Sr wanted NAFTA to be HIS legacy. Otherwise, why would he have been so compelled to fast track the treaty signing?

I also made specific note about the timing of the ratification phase. I believe "after Bush Sr left office during the Clinton administation" were my exact words. I really don't know how I could have made it more clear.

I then discussed how it unfolded in Canada, the course it took during US congressional deliberations, the vote, what Clinton added and then, in plain English, stated, "Clinton signed it into LAW."

BTW, I was 53 years old in 1992 when Bush Sr signed the treaty, was politically active at the time as I have been since 1967, and remember it like it was yesterday. I am fully aware of its controversial nature, but one thing that is not the least bit controversial is that Bush Sr signed the treaty before Clinton took office and took an active hands-on role in assembling it terms and promoting its passage.

The rest of your post, with all its shouting out loud and confrontational tone, does not add anything particularly insightful to the original facts I presented. Why you feel the need to "correct" my facts with your facts, which are essentially the same facts, is a real mystery.

Unlike you, I have no inclination nor desire to argue with you and really am puzzled by the angry tone of your post.

Screaming? LOL - HistoryBuff

[ In Reply To ..]
Yes, I misread your post -- missed those subtlties -- because I was skimming the board during NJA time while at work. I was not "screaming." Posts in ALL CAPS THROUGHOUT (mine was not) are considered to be "yelling," not "screaming." I intermittently used caps for EMPHASIS (like just now). So you can stop exaggerating now.

As for my mood, you don't know me, don't know what kind of mood I'm in, and couldn't determine that from one post on a forum anyway. So you can stop mindreading now. Actually I'm in a great mood, not angry at all. That erroneous conclusion of yours must have been based on the first false conclusion you jumped to, that use of intermittent caps for emphasis was "screaming."

OK, now I owned up to my mistake. You are still incorrect about NAFTA being GWB's brainchild, but I won't hold my breath waiting for you to acknowledge that error.

Fast tracking means no amendments and no filibuster allowed - Just yes or no vote.

[ In Reply To ..]
I think that pretty much clarifies Bush Sr's expressed desire to assert his ownership of NAFTA and its contents, right down to the last dotted I and crossed T. Call me crazy, but that sort of action implies a certain degree of direct control over the final outcome, dontcha think? It does not appear he was willing to allow HIS (insert caps-for-emphasis-only disclaimer here) agreement to be subjected to change in any way, shape, or form...kinda sorta like an explicit my-way-or-the-highway gesture. But hey, that's just me. .

As for your resorting to apolitical personal digs and jabs interspersed amongst your insistence that your are "not angry at all," your chat room protocol lecture on what does and does not constitute screaming, your vigilant mission to show me the error of my ways, your exggeration, mindreading and redundant jumping-to-false-conclusions chastisements...I think I will opt for final judgment by a jury of my peers and leave those conclusions up to more objective participants on this forum.

Offshoring - Clinton brain child

[ In Reply To ..]
Need a history lesson here. Clinton signed into law his first 100 days in office the ability for ANY company to move their work overseas. Clinton also put in place tax incentives to SEND the JOBS OVERSEAS. That is how the exodus started. Blaming repubs does not change what Clinton signed into law. Hence, any company following Clinton's law got the discounted labor force overseas and the tax benefits on top of that. Maybe if Clinton was more interested in keeping the American work force busy, rather than keeping Monica busy, American workers would have been better off.

Afraid not. NAFTA was HW Bushs brain child. See Speaking of - not knowing ones history post above.

[ In Reply To ..]
Bush signed the treaty before US Congress got its hands on it.

It was REAGAN'S brainchild. - HistoryBuff

[ In Reply To ..]
You now stand corrected on 2 different points.

Actually it all began during Reagan's term with the "Shamrock Summit."

Bush '41 picked up where Reagan left off.

CLINTON signed it into law in 1993. BUSH only had signed a PRELIM AGREEMENT between the 3 leaders that was NOT A LAW (it hadn't been passed by Congress!) so WAS NOT LEGALLY BINDING.

Ross Perot WARNED US about the danger of making NAFTA law repeatedly during the Bush-Clinton race, which he would NOT HAVE DONE if it had already been signed.

Again, CLINTON signed NAFTA into law in 1993. There are SEVERAL links above CORRECTING your misstatement, and THIS POST corrects your "Bush brainchild" erroneous statement.

Ummm, since the US-Canada FTA did not include Mexico - and President Salinas

[ In Reply To ..]
was not party to it, and since NAFTA is the focus of the thread, I did not feel the need to trace the history of ALL free trade agreements that came before it. My bad. However, if invoking an earlier trade agreement and assigning brainchild status to Reagan gives you a prelude to "correct" me again, which you seem to feel compelled to do, and it helps you feel intellectually superior, I say go for it.

In the process, let's do try to keep our facts straight. My understanding of the Shamrock Summit is that it was Mulroney who was courting Reagan, not the other way around, and that the negotiations process took about 3 years. In other words, Reagan did not appear to be nearly as enthusiastic about FTA as Bush Sr was about NAFTA.

I got these silly notions from a couple of articles I read discussing the summit though, admittedly, I am certainly not the FTA expert you evidently feel you are. I noticed how the focus of the articles seemed to be centered around Mulroney and the bulk of the surrounding discussion talked about how his "sucking up" to President Reagan (who was mentioned only once or twice) was perceived by Canadians and their various party leaders. Said perceptions eventually led to the political divisions mentioned in my previous post that persisted for 5 years after FTA was signed.

Having said that, IMHO, the US-Canada FTA was HIS brain child, not Reagan's. BTW, another reason I think adamant support of free trade is a Bush thing is because it seems to run in the family. NAFTA may have been signed into law by Clinton after Bush Sr fast-tracked signing onto the treaty, but when junior came along, he extended free trade to Jordan, Australia, Chile, Singapore, Bahrain, Morocco, Oman, Peru, Costa Rica, El Salvador, Guatemala, Honduras, Nicargua and the Dominican Republic.

Just sayin...

Canadians were angry, Americans not. - HistoryBuff

[ In Reply To ..]
Do you always go around saying "Ummm" and "just sayin?" Sure makes you sound intelligent. (not)

ALL of these horrid "treaties" have a genesis. You can't just flip a switch and go from 3 sovereign nations one year to 3 nations in a "free-trade" (really managed trade) agreement the next. It is a GRADUAL PROCESS. The genesis of NAFTA was the FTA, and the PROCESS began with the Shamrock Summit. Yes, Mexico was added later. It began as US-Canadian probably because Americans would have been more resistant to a treaty with Mexico than Canada, since we are perceived to have more in common with Canadians, PLUS it is a different level of trade.

Mulroney was lampooned for his role in the bilateral Shamrock Summit. That's because Canadians were furious with him for selling out. They are just as angry with Harper right now. Reagan was idolized here in the States and in the Western press at large, so of course you didn't see the same criticisms of him.

Presidents and Prime Ministers are just PUPPETS. There are wealthy elites behind the scenes who tell them what to do. (If you don't know or believe this, you are truly naÃ¯ve.) There is a GLOBAL AGENDA that has been in the works for a long, long time. NAFTA is a MAJOR PLANK in that plan. That is why BOTH PARTIES were actively engaged in seeing that NAFTA came to fruition.

Yes, Bush '43 signed additional "free-trade" agreements, and I was and am against all of them. Actually you left out TAFTA, our bilateral treaty with Germany. Obama has signed them with South Korea, Panama, and Columbia. There will be MORE of them too.

Unlike you, I don't do the two-party game. Look up the Hegelian dialectic because you have been 100% Hegelianed; it's incredibly transparent from your comments.

When you begin a post by ridiculing word choice and - insulting someones intelligence, then

[ In Reply To ..]
embark on a journey of intellectual descent down the illuminati/global conspiracy path, and start couching your ever-escalating vituperative castigations in terms of wildly unrelated rhetorical and philosophical esoterics, it becomes clear that the potential for productive, insightful, mutually beneficial dialog has been lost in a vast black hole of unrequited intellectual egocentrism in search of its ultimate autoerotic nirvana.

Knock yourself out, dear. I want to part of that trip. I yield the floor, so feel free to seize the last word....it's apparent you would never be able to tolerate anything less. While you're at it, take your last best pot shot at me. At this juncture, your lectures are reverberating within the confines of an empty auditorium, as I am not into beating dead horses and never been much of a fan of dimestore divas.

O had his congress for 2 years; did nothing. - no message

[ In Reply To ..]
x

Except for saving the auto industry, avoiding a major depression - with

[ In Reply To ..]
Wall Street reform, protecting homeowners from foreclosures, major credit card reform, instituting extensive small business loan programs, Paygo, hiring incentives that ultimately resulted in adding 3 million jobs, repealing Don't Ask Don't Tell,and comprehensive health care reform...just to name a few.

Govt. Motors, 3 million minimum wage jobs - LOL

[ In Reply To ..]
Spin, spin, spin! That's all you Obamabots can do because YOU HAVE NO SUBSTANTIVE POINTS!

Govt. Motors is a JOKE, a BLACK HOLE for taxpayer dollars to disappear into, enriching the CEO and the union THUGS!

Want to talk about the WAGES of those 3 million jobs (McDonald's-type, unskilled labor jobs), hmmm?!

If you read the classifieds - allie

[ In Reply To ..]
many, many companies from airlines to banks to marketing and retail are looking for independent contractors. A news cast recently showed how major airlines are starting regional airlines and hiring paid-per-flight pilots. These people make, if they're lucky, $20,000/yr.

Endless jobs ads call for people with their own transportation, specific insurance policies, computers, software, etc. when these companies have the facilities and the above but just don't want the expense. Or, you have companies hiring "interns." Just the other day while job-hunting, I commented to my husband how much tax revenue must be lost due to these practices.

President's Speech--Insider trading - sm

[ In Reply To ..]
I work for a large company and we get notices that we are banned from trading pre-earnings reports, etc. Why is our congress allowed to inside trade?

Excerpt from president's speech: I've talked tonight about the deficit of trust between Main Street and Wall Street. But the divide between this city and the rest of the country is at least as bad - and it seems to get worse every year.

Some of this has to do with the corrosive influence of money in politics. So together, let's take some steps to fix that. Send me a bill that bans insider trading by Members of Congress, and I will sign it tomorrow. Let's limit any elected official from owning stocks in industries they impact. Let's make sure people who bundle campaign contributions for Congress can't lobby Congress, and vice versa - an idea that has bipartisan support, at least outside of Washington.

Throw Them All Out! - MT

[ In Reply To ..]
Insider trading in Congress is RAMPANT, and it's the primary way they earn their wealth while in office. If average Americans were to engage in the same practices, they would be prosecuted and thrown into prison. Just one more example of how the "political class" is EXEMPT from the laws they pass that you and I must abide by.

There is an entire book written on this. It's entitled (appropriately), "Throw Them All Out."

They just recently had a story about this on - 60 minutes

[ In Reply To ..]
I teach my kids to be honest and work hard, when I feel more and more like you should lie, cheat and steal to get ahead in life! How can you teach kids hard work and dedication pay off when they clearly see it doesn't?

CERTAIN "special" companies will be exempt. - MT

[ In Reply To ..]
If history is any guide, small and moderate-sized companies will be scrutinized and have the book thrown at them, while the larger, international megacorps will get off scot-free. Also, anyone at the helm of a company who is close to the administration and the goons within it will also get a free pass. (That goes for ANY administration, whoever is in office, not just the present one.)

Similar Messages:

Oct 30, 2013

I am a self-employed medical transcriptionist. I work for a single practice as an independent contractor. I need to "hire" other independent contractors to help me keep up with my work load, but I have no idea how to go about doing this. Any and all information and advice from others who have done this would be greatly appreciated, thanks!!! ...

Nov 17, 2009

In order to comply with the standards and criteria the Federal Government has set forth to determine who qualifies for IC status, MD-IT has designed a couple of very basic questions to see if an individual is eligible to be classified this way. 1. Is your business incorporated, a LLC, S-Corp, or Partnership, with a separate FEIN, or are you a sole proprietorship with a registered DBA (fictitious name)? If yes - can you provide evidence of such? (copy of registration ...

Dec 13, 2010

Is it illegal not to pay independent contractors twice a month. It was agreed to in the hiring process? ...

Jun 06, 2012

When Nuance bought Webmedx they said they intended to keep the Independent Contractors. They have now "laid off" the last of one, with no notice. They were able to get around the 2-weeks notice by laying them off instead of officially terminating them. They talk about re-instating them "soon," but since Nuance has no other independents that the one they inherited with Webmedx, I certainly have my doubts about any reinstatement. ...

Feb 18, 2013

This is my first year filing taxes as an IC. It seems over my head, but maybe just because this is my first time. I really would like to avoid the 250+ my local tax person wants to charge and apply that amount to the taxes I will be owing. So is it that difficult or should I just let the pros do it? Thanks ahead for any advice ...

Sep 13, 2014

To the independent contractors out there...How much do you usually average per hour when being paid per lines? I just recently took a job a new company, what they offered in cpl seemed to be decent, but once I got working the software they use is extremely hard to get a good line count. It seems I just keep typing (and/or edit for the SR) away, but the lines take forever to add up. I think we are paid 72 characters for line, no spaces, no headers/footers, and you ...

Dec 13, 2009

Why are there so many companies wanting independent contractors these days ? Some of us need benefits ! ...

Dec 18, 2012

Could anyone tell me if Landmark hires employees or independent contractors? Would appreciate your help on this. I went to their website but it does not mention it. Thx. ...

Aug 22, 2012

Here are the two places you need to contact. File those claims! Don't let these cheats get away with this. and MOST IMPORTANTLY contact the companies who contract with the company who isn't paying you - I'm sure they would like to know the (lack of integrity) of the company they are dealing with. California Dept of Consumer Affiars: http://www.dca.ca.gov/publications/small_claims/index.shtml Small Claims Court Advisor: http://courts. ...

Feb 19, 2014

Didn't realize it would affect my workflow so much. ...

Oct 05, 2012

mixing up the words "offshore" and "outsource." Outsource is what the hospitals do when they send transcription to M-Modal or whomever. Offshore is when it goes to our "international labor partners" in India. Outsourcing jobs we can live with; offshoring is starving us to death. Get it right already!!!!!!!!! ...

Feb 12, 2013

We normally get paid on the 17th - but it falls on a Sunday this time, which means we SHOULD get paid 2/18/13. Got an email that we have to wait until 2/19/13 to get paid now. I have an email from WAYYYYYYYYYYYY long time ago from the owner that if this happened, we would get paid the previous Friday - anybody else have that email? Is this legal? ...

May 14, 2010

From each paycheck? Is it 15%? I might be becoming one. ...

Oct 13, 2009

Dear President Obama:How's the new job? Keeping busy? Financial security? I'll bet. Are the American people keeping the mortgage on the White House up to date? Great. Kids have everything they need? Wonderful. The American dream.Me? I lost another job to offshoring - AGAIN! It's funny, I can't seem to find any concrete figures on just how many U.S. jobs are offshored. There are only estimations by different a ...

Nov 08, 2010

While President Obama is touring India, I sure hope he finds our jobs, loads them onto Air Force One, and brings them back to us...along with the wages that we once earned. Instead though, we'll probably just get T-shirts (made in China) that say "I are a global MT." ...

Feb 20, 2011

It means that if you do ACH you get your pay 9 days after you should have gotten your pay. Think about what that means for your bank account versus what it means for their bank account. It is significant when multiplied by hundreds of employees. It means much worse if you get an actual check in the mail. ...

Jun 15, 2010

Well, we will see what kind of response I get back. I'm not expecting much, but I thought it was high time i did my part in contacting my representatives and the White House about the sad state of OUR union :) ...

May 03, 2011

I have already written them a very "level-headed but concerned" toned email about the way my job has changed. I included the "round-robin" work where we get work from lots of different accounts. I also mentioned that, in my opinion, the new MT director isn't treating people the way she should. All of this is affecting the quality and quantity of our work and will lead to patient error and damage our relations with clients. I mentioned how Webmedx seems to have changed. And then I gave some ...

Jan 29, 2014

to pay their employees more of a living wage. Does anyone think he will listen to the President? ...

Jun 22, 2014

Not necessarily pen and paper, but I saw where one can email the President. I don't know if anyone has done this or not regarding the sad state of affairs our profession has become, but it might be worth a try. I will do it even if no one else does. I mean, what could it hurt? Of course, it would be in a respectful way and all. Otherwise, I will see the men in the dark suits at my door. I will explain about what it used to be like and then what it has bec ...

Mar 20, 2012

The latest issue of Plexus (MT industry journal) makes reference to the fact that the president of AHDI told a group of MTs to start training either as coders or in some EHR capacity. Her point is having a broad base is our best bet at keeping/getting a good job in rapidly changing HIM these days. ...

Oct 22, 2014

I am so tired of these companies hiring for an IC position and then when you are not at your keyboard johnny on the spot at 11 a.m. every day to start your day and sometimes start at 12 p.m. or 12:30 p.m., they are calling your cell, sending threatening E-mails. They never stipulated in their contract that if you say, per se, you are going to work 11 a.m. to 7 p.m. and you start a little later, say 12 p.m. and work until the work is completed still getting getting the work completed well w ...

Jun 03, 2013

The phrase is She will be evaluated by PT, OT and speech therapy, corrected to She will be evaluated by PT, OT and Speech Therapy. I thought it was only capitalized in when followed by a proper name like Montana Central Hospital Speech Therapy. Thanks. ...

Jun 22, 2015

7 cpl, no spaces, pay once a month... give me a freaking break! PLUS having to buy their software at $200, (but refundable should you ever quit) taken out of your check in "4 easy payments." Yeah... sign me up!! ...

Nov 11, 2009

Hi Everyone, I'm a transcriptionist with 20+ years of experience. Way back 20 years ago I had my own service and, for various reasons, closed it and went to work for someone else. Now I'm tired of paying the middle man all of my hard earned wages and would like to get back into the truly self-employed aspect of transcription. Back then we just transcribed from tapes. The problem is that technology has changed to so much during that time, I hardly know where to start ...

Mar 10, 2010

Would a few independent contractors mind sharing your CPL rate? I currently work as an employee and have three years experience. I am looking into IC jobs, but I am having difficulty finding information easily on the difference in rates between IC jobs and employee jobs. Thank you! ...

Jul 11, 2010

How does anyone become an IC (independent contractor)? What is the process exactly? Any help would be appreciated. ...

Aug 19, 2011

I recently got a reply on a job as an IC for a company but in order to work for them I have to have an EIN. How do I get one and how do I figure out my taxes and all the stuff that goes with it? ...

Jun 13, 2013

I was thinking of applying for an IC job until I saw this (and much more, but this did it for me). If you have been offered an independent contractor position it is very important that you calculate the ultimate cost to you as a taxpayer to see if the salary being offered is worth the time and effort. For example, if you are being offered $15 an hour as an independent contractor and $12 an hour as a payroll employee, you may initially be tempted by the fact that your "take home" pay will be ...

Aug 21, 2013

I have been thinking about getting my own contracts instead of working for a big company. Can anyone please advise me on how to go about this? I have been working for five years as an MT and I was just content with what I had but I won't be getting a raise anytime soon (haven't for the past 5 years) and I know that I would be making more independently. So what are the steps of getting your own contracts? What do I need to know before I begin? Thank you all ...