My resistance to becoming an IC - it seems like just a technicality

Robert Reich describes a "race to the bottom" (see article in the link below).

I know some like IC, but for my purposes, all I can see is that I would have to hire some kind of accountant, be responsible for paying all taxes and social security. A lot of headache and extra time, which if you made much more might be worth it, but basically it seems you make the same, even less with some companies. To me it seems if you could get your own clients and get the rate that MTSOs get paid, then THAT would be worth it, but seems very difficult to do now.

It used to be that companies were at least ashamed if they were exposed as being venal and treating employees badly. Now it is almost like they are proud of whatever gains they can make at the expense of the least of their employees (those of us working for the two biggest - and worst - MTSOs can attest to that), as long as their shareholders are happy and the executives get their bonuses.

The final 3 paragraphs make the case that if you get 80% of your work from one source you should be an employee. This would mean many ICs in MT would qualify as employees. I wish the Labor Dept and IRS would take his advice and make it the law.

"The rise of "independent contractors" is the most significant legal trend in the American workforce -- contributing directly to low pay, irregular hours, and job insecurity.

What makes them "independent contractors" is the mainly that the companies they work for say they are. So those companies don't have to pick up the costs of having full-time employees.

But are they really "independent"? Companies can manipulate their hours and expenses to make them seem so.

It's become a race to the bottom. Once one business cuts costs by making its workers "independent contractors," every other business in that industry has to do the same -- or face shrinking profits and a dwindling share of the market

Some workers prefer to be independent contractors because that way they get paid in cash. Or they like deciding what hours they'll work.

Mostly, though, they take these jobs because they can't find better ones. And as the race to the bottom accelerates, they have fewer and fewer alternatives.

Fortunately, there are laws against this. Unfortunately, the laws are way too vague and not well-enforced.

For example, FedEx calls its drivers independent contractors.

Yet FedEx requires them to pay for the FedEx-branded trucks they drive, as well as the FedEx uniforms they wear, and FedEx scanners they use -- along with insurance, fuel, tires, oil changes, meals on the road, maintenance, and workers compensation insurance. If they get sick or need a vacation, they have to hire their own replacements. They're even required to groom themselves according to FedEx standards.

FedEx doesn't tell its drivers what hours to work, but it tells them what packages to deliver and organizes their workloads to ensure they work between 9.5 and 11 hours every working day.

If this isn't "employment," I don't know what the word means.

In 2005, thousands of FedEx drivers in California sued the company, alleging they were in fact employees and that FedEx owed them the money they shelled out, as well as wages for all the overtime work they put in.

Last summer, a federal appeals court agreed, finding that under California law -- which looks at whether a company "controls" how a job is done along with a variety of other criteria to determine the real employment relationship -- the FedEx drivers were indeed employees, not independent contractors.

Does that mean Uber drivers in California are also "employees"? That case is being considered right now.

What about FedEx drivers and Uber drivers in other states? Other truck drivers? Construction workers? Hair salon workers? The list goes on.

The law is still up in the air. Which means the race to the bottom is still on.

It's absurd to wait for the courts to decide all this case-by-case. We need a simpler test for determining who's an employer and employee.

I suggest this one: Any corporation that accounts for at least 80 percent or more of the pay someone gets, or receives from that worker at least 20 percent of his or her earnings, should be presumed to be that person's "employer."

Congress doesn't have to pass a new law to make this the test of employment. Federal agencies such as the Labor Department and the IRS have the power to do this on their own, through their rule making authority.

They should do so. Now."