Contract Employee's Newsletter
Helping Contract Professionals Manage Their Careers

January 01, 2002

Edited by James R. Ziegler

A Companion to:
The Contract Employee's Handbook
www.cehandbook.com

Sponsored by:
P.A.C.E. - Professional Association for Contract Employment
www.pacepros.com

If You Live Or Work Near Silicon Valley

You Simply Must Attend

The Contract Employee's Workshop

January 26, 2002

Space is limited so reserve your seat today!
Details Below

About The Contract Employee's Newsletter

The Contract Employee's Newsletter is a free e-mail publication for technical and professional contractors containing news, commentary, tips, links to useful resources, nuggets of wisdom submitted by readers, and anything else that seems appropriate at the time. The CENewsletter is distributed bimonthly or whenever issues warrant and time allows. The subscriber list is confidential and will not be disclosed outside this organization.

In This Issue

• Suggest A Topic
• Featured Topic: Agencies With Mediocre Benefits Expose Clients To Great Risk
• News and Views: Oops. IEEE Gets Burned By IRS In Reclassification Flap
• Ask Dungaree Dan: Does My Client Of 20+ Years Owe Me Retirement Pay?
• Contract Employee's Glossary: Terminology For Contract Professionals
• Contract Employee's Workshop: P.A.C.E. Launches The Contract Employee's Workshop In Silicon Valley
• Contract Employee's Project: What Is It?
• Copyright and Publication Info
• Disclaimer
• Subscribe

Read recent issues of The Contract Employee's Newsletter.

Suggest A Topic For The Newsletter

Ideas Anyone?
We continue to receive excellent suggestions for future newsletter topics. Keep 'em coming. Chances are, if a topic interests you as a Contract Professional it will certainly interest the majority of our readers.

Guest Appearances
I would like very much to publish short guest contributions to the Contract Employee's Newsletter. Maybe a marketing tactic that works for you, or a true story of agency madness? I'll cite your name, your e-mail address, and a link to your professional website. I can't pay you, but I'll make sure that everyone who reads the Contract Employee's Newsletter knows who you are and what you do. It can't hurt, and, who knows, it might help your consulting career. Contributions should be of general interest to all Contract Professionals.

Mail your suggestions to suggestion@pacepros.com.

Return to Table of Contents.

Featured Topic

Agencies With Mediocre Benefits Expose Clients To Great Risk

Temp agencies and recruiting firms widely advertise that they "mitigate the risks of co-employment". And generally speaking, they do. The IRS is less likely to reclassify contingent workers as common law employees of the client when those workers are employed by a third-party employer of record. Temp agencies collect and pay payroll taxes and income taxes on behalf of their temporary employees, and in doing so they satisfy the federal and state agencies that are responsible for collecting taxes and making sure that employees are covered for federal and state entitlements.

But it is foolish to assume that a third-party employer of record automatically confers immunity from reclassification, especially in those situations in which agency temps believe they have been harmed by being excluded from their client's benefit plan.

Temp agencies and recruiting firms offer minimal benefits at best to their temporary employees, so one might expect that agency temps would sue their agencies for better benefits. But that has not been the pattern. Instead, class action lawyers and the courts have apparently found it easier to attack the deeper pockets and greater vulnerability of large corporations.

One consequence of these suits is that large corporations are feeling pressure to require that temp agencies offer better benefits to temporary employees. The reasoning goes, if temp agencies offered decent benefits there would be little or no incentive for agency temps to sue client companies for back benefits. In this light, using the services of an employer of record like P.A.C.E. makes very good sense.

Certainly, P.A.C.E. "mitigates the risks of co-employment" by collecting and paying employment taxes for its Division Managers. In this regard P.A.C.E. is like any other employer of record. But P.A.C.E. also mitigates the risk of class action suits being filed by disgruntled contingent workers by offering "the best benefits package available to any employee in any company in the USA." In light of the Viscaino v. Microsoft Ruling (see below) it is not surprising that Microsoft has selected P.A.C.E. as an approved vendor for its highly compensated contingent workers in both Washington and California.

Below is a discussion of two class action suits where the courts ruled that client companies must compensate their agency temps for back benefits. In the Microsoft case the critical factor was "length of service." At the Metropolitan Water District of Southern California the critical factor was "client control."

Microsoft
During the late 1980's Microsoft hired independent contractors to perform software testing, proof reading, technical writing, and related jobs under the close supervision of Microsoft employees. An IRS audit subsequently determined that these workers were in fact common law employees of Microsoft for payroll tax purposes. In response to this determination Microsoft offered full-time jobs to some of the independent contractors, and arranged for the remainder to work as leased employees through various approved temp agencies.

Conventional wisdom would dictate that Microsoft had operated in good faith, and that its actions had successfully indemnified Microsoft from further claims of common law employment. Confident that it was operating within the law, Microsoft increased its use of agency temps throughout the 1990s to the point where, by some accounts, agency temps totaled one-third of all workers at Microsoft.

The 1990s was a decade of unprecedented prosperity for Microsoft employees who twice a year could purchase the company's stock at a 15% discount. Hundreds of Microsoft employees became paper millionaires. Indeed, anyone who had purchased Microsoft stock on the open market did very well. It was just that Microsoft employees could purchase 15% more stock for the same investment.

Call it sour grapes, or call it righteous indignation, but the agency temps felt that they deserved a piece of that prosperity. They believed that they were entitled to purchase Microsoft stock at the same 15% discount as fully franchised Microsoft employees. They wanted their piece of the prosperity pie, and they sued to get it in a series of class action suits known collectively as Viscaino v. Microsoft.

Viscaino v. Microsoft coined a new term, "Permatemp." Permatemp refers to an agency employee who works continuously at the same client for years on end. Many of the permatemps at Microsoft had worked side by side with Microsoft employees five years or more doing the same work under the same close supervision. Yet, they were denied the opportunity to become regular employees of Microsoft and participate in Microsoft's benefits package, including its lucrative employee stock purchase plan.

Over eight years and several appeals, the courts repeatedly ruled that Microsoft had misclassified upwards of 8,000 long-term contractors as "temps" when they were in fact common-law employees of Microsoft, and that Microsoft had used that misclassification to illegally prevent the workers from participating in Microsoft's employee stock purchase plan.

Invoking the principle of co-employment, the court found that the plaintiffs were employees of their agencies for the purpose of payroll taxes, but were employees of Microsoft for the purpose of participating in Microsoft's employee stock purchase plan. Apparently, the workers were somehow not sufficiently co-employed to qualify for Microsoft's stock option, health insurance, and 401(k) plans.

In the end, the final judgment was for $97 million, of which plaintiffs attorneys will reportedly receive approximately 28%.

In response to Viscaino v. Microsoft the software giant has hired approximately 3000 of its permatemps as regular employees. Microsoft also has adopted a policy that limits staffing agency employees to a maximum tenure of 12 months, after which they may not return for 100 days. Microsoft hopes that this remedy will be sufficient to eliminate the issue of permatemps, and avoid any future problems involving reclassification and co-employment of its agency temps.

There is an excellent legal brief published by the Information Technology Association of America (ITAA) that discusses measures companies can take to avoid Viscaino v. Microsoft consequences.

You will find additional background on Viscaino v. Microsoft at Washtech.

Metropolitan Water District of Southern California
The Metropolitan Water District of Southern California (MWD) supplies water to more that half of California's population. It is the largest, and by some accounts the most corrupt, water district in the United States. Now it has another distinction. MWD has just lost what may be the largest temporary employee lawsuit in the United States.

MWD downsized its headcount by laying off many of its "permanent" employees and then hiring them back as temporary workers through several third-party staffing agencies. The temps signed employment contracts with the agencies that clearly identified the workers as employees of their agency and not the water district.

As outside vendors the agencies invoiced the water district for the workers' hours. They paid the workers' salaries, withheld taxes, and provided some benefits. The benefits, however, were significantly less than those provided to regular water district employees. The downsized temps who had previously worked as regular employees of the water district lost the opportunity to continue their participation in the district's retirement plan through the California Public Employees Retirement System (CALPERS).

In their 1998 class action lawsuit the temporary workers charged that the water district hired and supervised them just like its own regular employees, making the workers common law employees of the Metropolitan Water District. The lawsuit further claimed that the district had kept the workers technically employed by outside staffing agencies in order to avoid paying for expensive CALPERS benefits.

The court ruled on behalf of the workers. According to the court, the agency temps were common law employees of the water district because the water district set their salaries and work schedules, made work assignments, and had the right to evaluate, promote, discipline, and fire them. Also, the court pointed out, the water district first interviewed and selected the workers it wanted before referring them to a staffing agency for employment. In other words, the water district had merely outsourced the payroll function to various staffing agencies while maintaining a common law employer-employee relationship with its workers.

The judgment against MWD will affect about 2,000 water district workers, and cost tens of millions of dollars in retroactive benefits, quite possibly eclipsing the landmark Viscaino v. Microsoft judgment.

Read the full court decision at www.bs-s.com/cargill.pdf.

Conclusion
There is a moral here. A company that uses a third-party staffing agency to payroll its temporary workers had better make sure that the agency provides at least as good benefits as the company provides to its own employees. Any agency that provides only mediocre benefits (and which temp agency doesn't?) is exposing its clients to great financial risk.

Fortunately, companies can rely on P.A.C.E.'s superb benefits program to give their Contract Professionals the best benefits package available to any employee in any company in the USA.

Earn your client's undying gratitude. Introduce your client to P.A.C.E. today.

Return to Table of Contents.

News and Views

Oops. IEEE Gets Burned By IRS In Reclassification Flap

It seems that no one is safe from the fickle finger of fate, IRS style. In the cruelest of ironies the IRS is going after the Institute of Electrical and Electronics Engineers, Inc. (IEEE), a Section 501(c)(3) non-profit organization, for employment taxes that were not withheld from the wages of a reclassified conference worker.

Moreover, the IRS has hinted that it may review IEEE's documentation for other independent contractors -- both at conferences and in other capacities. The IRS also suggested that Conferences should use the services of a (God Forbid!) Temporary Agency in the future.

[Note to: IEEE Directors and Executive Committee. Using a traditional temp agency may not be enough to protect the IEEE from financial risk. First, read the CENewsletter story above about how staffing agencies with inadequate benefit plans expose their clients to huge financial risk. Next, contact P.A.C.E. to find out how P.A.C.E. mitigates both the risk of IRS reclassification and the risk of class action lawsuits by disgruntled agency temps.]

The story is chronicled on the IEEE web site. I do not know just when the reported events took place, but the footnote on the story page reads "Modified:07-Nov-2001."

This story is ironic because the IEEE offers training and education on independent contractor issues. I do not for a minute believe that IEEE conference organizers were trying to pull a fast one on the IRS. It just goes to show you that no organization is exempt from IRS reclassification.

The IEEE Mission Statement, compiled by the IEEE Tax Compliance & Research Team states in part that its mission is:

"to minimize IEEE’s worldwide tax liability with absolute integrity; and to file, in a timely and prudent manner, all tax returns and reports as required by U.S. federal, state & local, and Non U.S. tax authorities."

Oops! ;-)

Return to Table of Contents.

Ask Dungaree Dan

Does My Client Of 20+ Years Owe Me Retirement Pay?

Q: Dear Dan -- I have become enlightened by your Contract Employee's Handbook website about the differences between an employee vs. an independent contractor. I never knew I had rights. Now I am wondering if it is too late to do anything about it.

I have worked for 20+ years at the same Fortune 500 company as an independent contractor. Looking back now I see that I was treated as an employee except when it came to benefits. I started out being the lowest paid person in the group. I worked 40 hours a week full time. No paid holidays, sick days, vacation days. No medical benefits. No other employee benefits. I worked when and where I was told. I never was asked to sign a contract. Basically, they would write up a P.O. for the year to do work for various departments and I would bill against it.

I was never given 1099 or W-2 forms. I was responsible for my own estimated taxes, which I did faithfully. I never was given the chance to increase my pay without a real hassle, with answers like, "I wish I could give everybody a raise but I can't."

Anyway, as of November 5, 2001 this has ended. I am told that they still want me to work for them as an independent contractor with a signed contract and P.O., strictly like your handbook states. The company is going to split up into 3 separate companies January 1st. I don't know what to do if anything. And I am now seeing people that I have worked with retiring with full benefits, and I have worked longer.

Do you think there is something I can do or is it too late? I just didn't know. -- Signed: Looking For Answers Or A Lawyer

A: Dear Looking -- This is a long response to your query, but I trust that you will find the informantion well worth your time.

Taking what you write at face value, I would say that your client is T*O*A*S*T. Take that company off the barbie because it is DONE. Converting you to an independent contractor, complete with a signed contract and a formal purchase order, is too little, too late. Besides, simply signing a contract does not, in and of itself, make you an IRS-compliant independent contractor. Even having you go through a third-party employer of record (i.e., temp agency, recruiting firm, etc.) will do little to protect your client from having the IRS reclassify you as the company's common law employee.

Why? Because every contingent worker, whether an independent contractor or an agency temp, is technically a co-employee of the client company. In practice, the IRS, the courts, and various government agencies invoke the principle of co-employment when the contingent worker is treated overtly like a regular employee, or is in some way harmed by the client company. Examples are violations of Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) regulations, Occupational Safety & Health Administration (OSHA) regulations, the Americans With Disabilities Act (ADA), and violations of other laws that are designed to protect the rights of employees.

Government agencies, including the Internal Revenue Service (IRS), U.S. Department of Labor (DOL), Immigration and Naturalization Service (INS), State Departments of Employment, Workers Compensation Departments, State Labor Departments, the U. S. Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC), and the Occupational Safety and Health Administration (OSHA) make it their business to make sure that all workers are properly registered for public entitlements and that they are protected by rules and regulations governing the workplace. These regulations apply to regular employees. They do not, for the most part, apply to independent contractors.

Consequently, there is an overwhelming bias in government agencies and the courts to classify workers, all workers, as employees of the firm that pays for their work.

If the courts and government agencies believe that a client company is abusing the "employee" rights of a contingent worker all they have to do is reclassify the worker as that company's common law employee.

It is then up to the company to prove that the worker is in fact an independent contractor and not their common law employee. In other words, the company is guilty until proven otherwise.

At the crux of this matter is the issue of control. If a company has the ability to harm a contingent worker, then that company is exerting control over the worker, and the worker becomes the company's common law employee for the purpose of levying fines, penalties, and other remedies.

Even if there is no apparent harm to the contingent worker, and even if the contingent worker is perfectly happy in the role of an independent contractor, the courts and government agencies can reclassify the worker as the client's common law employee based on the level of control exercised by the client over the activities of the worker.

Once the worker is reclassified as the company's employee the IRS and state agencies can go after the company for back payroll taxes, back income taxes, penalties, and interest. Furthermore, the courts can rule that the worker is entitled to compensation for retroactive health benefits, retirement benefits, and even stock options that the worker would have received as a regular employee of the company.

Imagine the financial consequence to a large company with many contingent workers. Reclassification can be a company's worst nightmare.

The departments of employment of every state, and various other state and federal agencies, publish lists of common law factors for the classification of employees and independent contractors. The most commonly cited list of common law factors is published by the the IRS.

From time to time agencies update their lists. Factors that once carried weight as discriminators are today poor indicators of worker status.

For example, working at home once suggested independent contractor status, but today, with teleworking so common among employees, working at home has become a poor discriminator. Using the company's computers and equipment used to indicate an employer-employee relationship. But in today's high tech environment it is often imperative that outside vendors perform their work on their client's own computers. The IRS once held that being paid by the hour indicated an employer-employee relationship. But the IRS now downplays this argument in light of the fact that accountants, lawyers, and other independent professionals are commonly paid by the hour.

In a 1987 Revenue Ruling [87-41, 1987-1 CB 296], the IRS devised a list of twenty common law factors to help companies and IRS agents determine the tax status of individual workers. The 1996 IRS training manual trimmed that list to eleven factors organized in three general areas of control. They are:

• Behavioral Control -- Facts which illustrate whether there is a right to direct or control how the worker performs the specific task for which he or she is engaged. For example, specific procedural instructions and periodic or on-going training by the company indicate an employer-employee relationship.
  
  
• Financial Control -- Facts which illustrate whether there is a right to direct or control how the business aspects of the worker’s activities are conducted. For example, making a significant investment in one's business, incurring unreimbursed expenses, offering one's services to the general public, project-based payment, and the opportunity for profit or loss indicate that the worker is an independent contractor or vendor and not an employee.
  
  
• Relationship of the Parties -- Facts which illustrate how the parties perceive their relationship. That is, what is the intent of the parties? Is the relationship formalized by a written vendor contract or employee agreement? Are there employee benefits? Can the worker be fired at will? How critical is the worker's involvement in the company? Is the worker performing specialized tasks or is the worker performing the company's regular business activities?

I recommend that you download and read relevant sections of the IRS training manual, Independent Contractor or Employee? IRS Training Course 3320-102(10-96), from the IRS website. Of particular interest is Lesson Two, which discusses the common law factors used by the IRS that distinguish an employee from an independent contractor.

Also, download IRS Form SS-8. The questions in this form will help you identify how you are being treated as an employee. If you want, you can complete this form and send it to the IRS. They will then make a determination whether you qualify as an employee or independent contractor. Wanna bet what side they will come down on?

Let's evaluate your working conditions over the past 20+ years in the light of the IRS's three general areas of control.

• RE: "I have worked for 20+ years at the same Fortune 500 company as an independent contractor."

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as employee.
Independent contractors work for multiple clients on short-term assignments with termination dates specified by a contract. Typically, employees work for a single employer for extended periods of time, and have an open-ended relationship.

• RE: "I worked 40 hours a week full time. No paid holidays, sick days, vacation days. No medical benefits. No other employee benefits."

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as an independent contractor.
Employers provide benefits to their employees. They do not provide benefits to independent contractors. However, if it is determined that other factors suggest that you are indeed an employee, the fact that the company withheld benefits can be viewed as a violation of your rights as an employee.

• RE: "I worked when and where I was told."

Behavioral Control: Supports worker status as employee.
The company clearly had the right to direct or control how you performed the specific tasks for which you were engaged.

• RE: "I never was asked to sign a contract."

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as an employee.
Independent contractors work under the terms of a signed contract with their client. The absence of a formal contract implies an open-ended employer-employee relationship.

• RE: "Basically, they would write up a P.O. for the year to do work for various departments and I would bill against it."

Financial Control: Supports worker status as an independent contractor.
A purchase order indicates that the company is actually purchasing your consulting services on a pay as you go basis.

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as an independent contractor.
The presence of a purchase order implies the existence of an unwritten contract between you and the company.

• RE: "I was never given 1099 or W-2 forms."

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as an employee.
Employers must deduct applicable local, state and federal income taxes as well as payroll taxes from their employee’s pay. Total wages and withheld taxes are reported on IRS Form W-2, Wage and Tax Statement, and given to the employee at the end of the year. Employees file a copy of IRS Form W-2 with their local, state and federal income tax returns. Companies give a Form W-2 to their employees. They do not give a Form W-2 to independent contractors.

Companies use IRS Form 1099-MISC. to report to the IRS annual payments over $600 paid to unincorporated independent contractors. Companies do not have to prepare Form 1099-MISC. for corporations, although many companies make it a practice to prepare Form 1099-MISC. for all their vendors, even when it is not required. Backup withholding is reported if the client withheld a 31% income tax assessment because the independent contractor failed to supply a Social Security number or valid tax identification number.

If the company never issued either form in the 20+ years you worked for them, and you are not the employee of an incorporated entity (e.g., a one-person corporation), then the company is out of compliance whether you were an employee or an independent contractor. The fact that the company did not pay backup withholding to the IRS implies that they considered you to be an employee who they were paying "under the table."

I guarantee you that the IRS will use this lack of compliance as justification to classify you as a common law employee of the company so that it can go after back taxes, penalties and interest. The consequence for you will be a huge tax credit or refund (possibly with interest) for the taxes that you previously paid during the allowable look-back period for such matters. (I am not an accounting or legal professional, so I can't tell you how far back the IRS will go.) Civil courts, on the other hand may be able to go back beyond the allowable look-back period, in which case you would benefit even more should you sue for back benefits and retirement funds.

In all likelihood, the IRS and your state government will view the total amount paid to you by the company as net pay, and go after the company for the unpaid payroll taxes and income taxes on top of the amount they already paid you. This is good news for you and VERY BAD news for the company.

It is my guess that the employer also never asked you to complete either IRS Form W-9 for independent contractors or IRS Form W-4 for employees. One or the other of those forms must be kept on file at the company. Interestingly, if the company also failed to complete INS Form I-9 in order to verify that you are legal to work in the United States they may also have to contend with the US Immigration and Naturalization Service.

• RE: "I was responsible for my own estimated taxes, which I did faithfully."

Relationship of the Parties: Supports worker status as an independent contractor.
Good for you, but this is about what you did, and may be irrelevant if the IRS classifies you as an employee based on what the company did.

• RE: "I never was given the chance to increase my pay without a real hassle, with answers like, 'I wish I could give everybody a raise but I can't.'"

Financial Control: Supports worker status as an employee.
Employers set the wages of their employees. Companies do not set the rates they pay their vendors. Vendors set their own rates and companies decide whether they are willing to pay what the vendor charges. Also, employers give raises to their employees. Vendors raise their own rates. Statements like "I wish I could give everybody a raise but I can't" clearly indicate that the company was exercising financial control as if you were an employee.

It is also clear that you had little opportunity for profit or loss, further supporting your status as an employee of the company.

On balance the evidence suggests strongly that you were an employee, and that the company was paying you "under the table" so it could avoid paying taxes to the government and avoid giving benefits to you. That a Fortune 500 company should do this is simply incomprehensible.

Read the accompanying article in this issue of The Contract Employee's Newsletter concerning the matter of claims by reclassified employees against their former client companies for retroactive benefits.

It appears to me that you have an excellent case for a lawsuit to recover lost benefits based on your observation that you are "now seeing people that I have worked with retiring with full benefits, and I have worked longer."

I have several suggestions. First, do not under any circumstanses go back to work at this company as an independent contractor, and do not sign an independent contractor agreement with them. Don't even work through a third-party employer of record as an agency temp. Working as a temp at this company will only support their contention that you were an independent contractor all along when in fact you were clearly the company's common law employee.

Second, contact your State Department of Employment, and file a claim for unemployment insurance. Explain to the interviewer that you only recently became aware that you may have been an employee all along, and ask them for a determination of worker status based on the facts as you have explained them to me. Hell, show them a copy of this article.

Third, contact your State Department of Labor. Ask them also for a determination of worker status based on the facts and the determination of the Department of Employment.

Finally, if both state agencies find that you were in fact a common law employee of the company, I recommend that you do the necessary research to locate an aggressive labor law attorney who specializes in employee misclassification. I am not authorized to give legal advice, but based on your side of the story I think you have an excellent case against this company for full retirement benefits and compensation for other company-paid benefits that you had to pay for with your own money. -- Signed: Dungaree Dan

Questions for Dungaree Dan
Send your questions about contract employment to Ask Dungaree Dan. We will try to answer all of your questions, and we will publish the most interesting ones in The Contract Employee's Newsletter.

Return to Table of Contents

Contract Employee's Glossary

Terminology For Contract Professionals
More terms from Appendix B: Glossary of Terms for Contract Professionals of The Contract Employee's Handbook.

COBRA
COBRA stands for the Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act of 1985. The provisions of this federal law require employers who employ 20 or more persons to provide employees and their dependents with the opportunity to continue health care coverage when coverage would otherwise end because of a qualifying event such as termination, death, divorce or legal separation, coverage through Medicare, or when a covered dependent ceases to be a dependent child. The minimum continuation period is 18 months, and the maximum continuation coverage is three years. Some states may have more stringent COBRA laws. For example, California requires continued coverage if the employer employs only 12 persons.

Cold call
A cold call is a telephone call or drop-in visit made directly to a potential customer soliciting business without prior contact. Cold calling is the act of making a cold call.

Common law
Common law is the body of law developed in England primarily from judicial decisions based on custom and precedent, unwritten in statute or code, and constituting the basis of the English legal system and of the system in all of the U.S. except Louisiana. Essentially, common law is law that comes from common practice, as opposed to legislation.

Common law employee
A common law employee is any worker who is determined to be the employee of an employer based on established common law criteria.

Common law factors
Common law factors are guidelines drawn from past experience. For example, the IRS and many state and federal agencies have issued lists of common law factors that in the aggregate discriminate between employees and independent contractors. The IRS once published a list of 20 common law factors, known popularly as “the twenty questions.” The list has been shortened and modified somewhat in the 1996 IRS training manual called Independent Contractor or Employee. The training manual identifies 11 common law factors in three areas of “control.” The courts have cited at least 57 common law factors over the years in determining worker status.

Return to Table of Contents

Contract Employee's Workshop

P.A.C.E. Launches The Contract Employee's Workshop In Silicon Valley

We have set a date, time, and place for the long-awaited Contract Employee's Workshop.

• Get Gigs Without Recruiters
  
  
• Bill What You Are Worth
  
  
• Keep More Of What You Bill
  
  
• Get The Benefits You Deserve

I authored The Contract Employee's Handbook, and I write and edit twice-monthly this Contract Employee's Newsletter. I founded P.A.C.E. over three years ago to help Contract Professionals retain the freedom and financial advantages of self-employed Independent Contractors while receiving The Best Benefits Package Available to Any Employee in Any Company in The USA.

Now I bring you this one-day workshop that enhances and supplements my efforts to give you the knowledge and tools you need to succeed as a Contract Professional. I hope you will attend.

If you are currently a Contract Professional receiving contract assignments through a recruiting firm … this workshop is for you!

If you are considering becoming a Contract Professional … this workshop is for you!

The registration fee for The Contract Employee's Workshop is an amazing bargain at just $50 per person! Bring a friend to the workshop and receive a $10 rebate.

I look forward to meeting you in person at The Contract Employee's Workshop!

Watch for additional dates and locations in future issues of The Contract Employee's Newsletter.

After the initial shakedown I'll take the workshop on the road to those cities across the US that express the greatest interest in The Contract Employee's Workshop.

I'm open to suggestions. E-mail your ideas and suggestions to Workshop@pacepros.com

Return to Table of Contents.

The Contract Employee's Project

The Contract Employee's Project is the larger context under which the following interrelated vehicles operate to promote and defend the interests of Contract Professionals:

• The Contract Employee's Handbook
  
• The Contract Employee's Newsletter
  
• The Contract Employee's Workshop
  
• Professional Association for Contract Employment (P.A.C.E.)

  Return to Table of Contents.

Copyright and Publication Info

Copyright (c) 2002, James R. Ziegler. All rights reserved.

You may copy or forward this free publication provided it is left intact with all links and this notice unchanged. Any unauthorized duplication, including republication in part or in full for commercial use, is an infringement of copyright.

Published by:
P.A.C.E. - Professional Association for Contract Employment
1355 Willow Way, Suite 244
Concord, CA 94520
USA
http://www.pacepros.com/

Editor:
James R. Ziegler, Ph.D.
Executive Director
P.A.C.E. -- Professional Association for Contract Employment
(925) 680-0200
cenewsletters@pacepros.com

Return to Table of Contents.

Disclaimer

The Contract Employee's Newsletter is designed to provide information in regard to the subject matter covered. Use is granted with the understanding that the publisher and authors are not engaged in rendering legal or financial advice. If expert assistance is required you should seek the services of a competent professional.

The purpose of this information is to educate and entertain. The publisher and contributors shall have neither liability nor responsibility to any person or entity with respect to any loss or damage caused, or alleged to be caused, directly or indirectly, by the information contained in this Newsletter or by information contained in any web site or resource referenced by citation or hypertext link within the pages of this Newsletter.

Return to Table of Contents.

Subscribe to The Contract Employee's Newsletter

The Contract Employee's Newsletter: Sign Up Now! Useful News & Updates

Return to Table of Contents.

Sign-off

I hope you have found the information in this newsletter to be interesting, informative, and provocative. I encourage you to share the CENewsletter with your friends, colleagues, coworkers, clients, and agency recruiters.

Why clients? Because you need every ally you can get. Why agency recruiters? Because they need to know the jig is up.

Wishing you success in your contracting career,

James R. Ziegler, Ph.D.
Executive Director
P.A.C.E. -- Professional Association for Contract Employment

Return to Table of Contents.

>>> Return to the P.A.C.E. Home Page