• Welcome to the Chronicle Forums.
    Please complete your profile. The forums and the rest of www.chronofhorse.com has single sign-in, so your log in information for one will automatically work for the other. Disclaimer: The opinions expressed here are the views of the individual and do not necessarily reflect the views and opinions of The Chronicle of the Horse.

Announcement

Collapse

Forum rules and no-advertising policy

As a participant on this forum, it is your responsibility to know and follow our rules. Please read this message in its entirety.

Board Rules

1. You’re responsible for what you say.
As outlined in Section 230 of the Communications Decency Act, The Chronicle of the Horse and its affiliates, as well Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd., the developers of vBulletin, are not legally responsible for statements made in the forums.

This is a public forum viewed by a wide spectrum of people, so please be mindful of what you say and who might be reading it—details of personal disputes are likely better handled privately. While posters are legally responsible for their statements, the moderators may in their discretion remove or edit posts that violate these rules. Users have the ability to modify or delete their own messages after posting, but administrators generally will not delete posts, threads or accounts upon request.

Outright inflammatory, vulgar, harassing, malicious or otherwise inappropriate statements and criminal charges unsubstantiated by a reputable news source or legal documentation will not be tolerated and will be dealt with at the discretion of the moderators.

2. Conversations in horse-related forums should be horse-related.
The forums are a wonderful source of information and support for members of the horse community. While it’s understandably tempting to share information or search for input on other topics upon which members might have a similar level of knowledge, members must maintain the focus on horses.

3. Keep conversations productive, on topic and civil.
Discussion and disagreement are inevitable and encouraged; personal insults, diatribes and sniping comments are unproductive and unacceptable. Whether a subject is light-hearted or serious, keep posts focused on the current topic and of general interest to other participants of that thread. Utilize the private message feature or personal email where appropriate to address side topics or personal issues not related to the topic at large.

4. No advertising in the discussion forums.
Posts in the discussion forums directly or indirectly advertising horses, jobs, items or services for sale or wanted will be removed at the discretion of the moderators. Use of the private messaging feature or email addresses obtained through users’ profiles for unsolicited advertising is not permitted.

Company representatives may participate in discussions and answer questions about their products or services, or suggest their products on recent threads if they fulfill the criteria of a query. False "testimonials" provided by company affiliates posing as general consumers are not appropriate, and self-promotion of sales, ad campaigns, etc. through the discussion forums is not allowed.

Paid advertising is available on our classifieds site and through the purchase of banner ads. The tightly monitored Giveaways forum permits free listings of genuinely free horses and items available or wanted (on a limited basis). Items offered for trade are not allowed.

Advertising Policy Specifics
When in doubt of whether something you want to post constitutes advertising, please contact a moderator privately in advance for further clarification. Refer to the following points for general guidelines:

Horses – Only general discussion about the buying, leasing, selling and pricing of horses is permitted. If the post contains, or links to, the type of specific information typically found in a sales or wanted ad, and it’s related to a horse for sale, regardless of who’s selling it, it doesn’t belong in the discussion forums.

Stallions – Board members may ask for suggestions on breeding stallion recommendations. Stallion owners may reply to such queries by suggesting their own stallions, only if their horse fits the specific criteria of the original poster. Excessive promotion of a stallion by its owner or related parties is not permitted and will be addressed at the discretion of the moderators.

Services – Members may use the forums to ask for general recommendations of trainers, barns, shippers, farriers, etc., and other members may answer those requests by suggesting themselves or their company, if their services fulfill the specific criteria of the original post. Members may not solicit other members for business if it is not in response to a direct, genuine query.

Products – While members may ask for general opinions and suggestions on equipment, trailers, trucks, etc., they may not list the specific attributes for which they are in the market, as such posts serve as wanted ads.

Event Announcements – Members may post one notification of an upcoming event that may be of interest to fellow members, if the original poster does not benefit financially from the event. Such threads may not be “bumped” excessively. Premium members may post their own notices in the Event Announcements forum.

Charities/Rescues – Announcements for charitable or fundraising events can only be made for 501(c)(3) tax-exempt organizations. Special exceptions may be made, at the moderators’ discretion and direction, for board-related events or fundraising activities in extraordinary circumstances.

Occasional posts regarding horses available for adoption through IRS-registered horse rescue or placement programs are permitted in the appropriate forums, but these threads may be limited at the discretion of the moderators. Individuals may not advertise or make announcements for horses in need of rescue, placement or adoption unless the horse is available through a recognized rescue or placement agency or government-run entity or the thread fits the criteria for and is located in the Giveaways forum.

5. Do not post copyrighted photographs unless you have purchased that photo and have permission to do so.

6. Respect other members.
As members are often passionate about their beliefs and intentions can easily be misinterpreted in this type of environment, try to explore or resolve the inevitable disagreements that arise in the course of threads calmly and rationally.

If you see a post that you feel violates the rules of the board, please click the “alert” button (exclamation point inside of a triangle) in the bottom left corner of the post, which will alert ONLY the moderators to the post in question. They will then take whatever action, or no action, as deemed appropriate for the situation at their discretion. Do not air grievances regarding other posters or the moderators in the discussion forums.

Please be advised that adding another user to your “Ignore” list via your User Control Panel can be a useful tactic, which blocks posts and private messages by members whose commentary you’d rather avoid reading.

7. We have the right to reproduce statements made in the forums.
The Chronicle of the Horse may copy, quote, link to or otherwise reproduce posts, or portions of posts, in print or online for advertising or editorial purposes, if attributed to their original authors, and by posting in this forum, you hereby grant to The Chronicle of the Horse a perpetual, non-exclusive license under copyright and other rights, to do so.

8. We reserve the right to enforce and amend the rules.
The moderators may delete, edit, move or close any post or thread at any time, or refrain from doing any of the foregoing, in their discretion, and may suspend or revoke a user’s membership privileges at any time to maintain adherence to the rules and the general spirit of the forum. These rules may be amended at any time to address the current needs of the board.

Please see our full Terms of Service and Privacy Policy for more information.

Thanks for being a part of the COTH forums!

(Revised 1/26/16)
See more
See less

Independent Contractor my A$$

Collapse
X
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

  • #61
    MVP, read the article. "McCartney was awarded: $14,390 for past medical expenses; $9,620 in lost wages and $250,000 in noneconomic losses. The noneconomic losses award is not impacted by the state cap on noneconomic damages in non-medical malpractice lawsuits."

    The damages were not capped per the article; this is not a malpractice or product liability case.

    It's not unusual for a plaintiff to sue for multi-millions and settle for significantly less. Without knowing all the facts, it is hard to gauge how serious the injury or the jury's rationale for the non-medical damages. It's high, so my guess is that the jury was sending a message.

    I'm with QH4me -- this isn't a very high dollar case on actual damages. It suggests to me that it would be settled rather than adjudicated. I know that's what I would have done if I were the BO.
    Where Fjeral Norwegian Fjords Rule
    http://www.ironwood-farm.com

    Comment


    • #62
      some folks here clearly have a very incorrect view of the law. I highly encourage ANY small business to find a GOOD and KNOWLEDGEABLE person to help you so that you are not unknowingly breaking the law and putting your bushiness at risk .

      While the laws can be complex it isn't that hard to make sure you are legal.

      And also FWIW, in *general* for non high risk positions, if you add apprx 12 - 15% to an employees hourly wage that should cover your portion of the cost of hiring them. Unless of course you are hiring roofers and that number would go up to 100% ....

      Comment


      • #63
        I find this interesting-- as a consultant, my contract is VERY detailed on these points. It specifically states that I am expected to work for other entities, provide my own equipment (computer) and that the client has to provide me with access to their systems using that equipment, and that my working hours, location, etc are not defined by the entity with which I have the contract. I had to make it even clearer a few years ago.

        Obviously a 17 year old does not know any of this, but I find even in the big-dollar companies that folks still do not know the rules and try to play the "I'm paying you so you work by my rules" game.
        Originally posted by PeanutButterPony
        you can shackle your pony to a lawn chair at the show...so long as its in a conservative color.

        Comment


        • #64
          Originally posted by mbm View Post
          ?

          I think that the IRS and states are cracking down on incorrect categorization of folks - they are not against 1099 contractors per se.

          If someone is truly offering services to the public then they are an IC. It is pretty darn clear. It is not about the time you work for someone.

          We can use me as an example: I offer accounting & bookkeeping services to small businesses - you can find my info on Google, yelp, etc. I have my own URL, etc. It is very easy to classify me as an IC because of these facts.

          Now, if I were only providing services to one company, if I went to work 9-5 and had to do as they say, when they say to do it - while I am providing the same services I would be classified as an EMPLOYEE.

          Most folks who say it is unclear are trying to bend the line... in most cases it is very very clear.

          So, yes, if you get overwhelmed and you need an office worker - unless you hire someone who offers those services to the public (and those folks are out there) you will need to hire the person as an employee.

          As for cost - a REAL IC will charge far more than an employee - why? Because they need to cover the "employer taxes" that they have to pay... they also have to pay for their overhead. So a 1099 IC will charge usually about twice as much as an employee would.

          My suggestion would be to ask before you make an error that could have large ramifications.
          An attorney and accountant presented the evening we were advised to be careful of using "independent contractors" in a new business seminar. Then talked to my own attorney, and he agreed that it is tightening up. But then again, attorneys almost always tell you to be conservative.

          So I probably will plan for the worst if needed to take someone on. The suggestion to me was that this was a new wave, in an attempt to gather more taxes collected (paid for by the employer) up front, of course.
          But he thought, "This procession has got to go on." So he walked more proudly than ever, as his noblemen held high the train that wasn't there at all. H.C.Anderson

          Comment


          • #65
            Originally posted by Gestalt View Post
            I live in OR and hadn't realized things had changed. When I worked for a trainer ($5 an hour) I did not clean stalls. My job was to tack up and untack the in-training horses. My reward was a couple of lessons throughout the day on client horses that weren't scheduled to jump that day.
            Haha! You got the only legit/worthwhile horse job in this one-horse state. Maybe the mid-Willamette valley is just a horse desert for good trainers and opportunities.
            The armchair saddler
            Politically Pro-Cat

            Comment


            • #66
              Originally posted by IronwoodFarm View Post
              MVP, read the article. "McCartney was awarded: $14,390 for past medical expenses; $9,620 in lost wages and $250,000 in noneconomic losses. The noneconomic losses award is not impacted by the state cap on noneconomic damages in non-medical malpractice lawsuits."

              The damages were not capped per the article; this is not a malpractice or product liability case.

              It's not unusual for a plaintiff to sue for multi-millions and settle for significantly less. Without knowing all the facts, it is hard to gauge how serious the injury or the jury's rationale for the non-medical damages. It's high, so my guess is that the jury was sending a message.

              I'm with QH4me -- this isn't a very high dollar case on actual damages. It suggests to me that it would be settled rather than adjudicated. I know that's what I would have done if I were the BO.
              Oops! Read too fast. Thanks for correcting my mistake. It would be interesting to know whether the jury was interested in punishing the defendant or sending a policy message to similar employers. Hmm.
              The armchair saddler
              Politically Pro-Cat

              Comment


              • #67
                Originally posted by airhorse View Post
                You all agree with the verdict right up to the point your board doubles or triples...


                This is exactly why I do everything myself. I don't know who can afford employees!
                http://www.facebook.com/pages/Fentre...24774504235082

                http://fentressfieldsequestriancenter.com/

                Comment


                • #68
                  employees cost about an additional 15% of the hourly rate which would include employer taxes and workers comp.

                  its not *that* expensive!

                  so a barn worker that makes $10/hr and works 20 hours a week would cost 800 without ER costs and 920 with.

                  that is 120 per month. that would NOT double anyone's board.....
                  Last edited by mbm; Feb. 23, 2013, 12:23 AM.

                  Comment


                  • #69
                    I feel that girl absolutely should have been treated as an employee, but it's partially based on my experience.

                    I worked for a book publisher for a year. I was hired on as a receptionist; I worked 40 hours a week in their office, on their computers/equipment. There was a daily schedule and I was expected to be present. I was also considered an independent contractor - it was the only option presented to me, I needed a job, so I agreed. I was offered no health insurance.

                    6 months later they made me a salaried employee and started taking takes out and offered health insurance - but I had to push and push for it. A month later, the company went bankrupt and I showed up to work one morning to be told it was closed.

                    Well, when I went to sign up for unemployment, technically I hadn't been an "employee" for the required 3 months to receive unemployment of 50% of a paycheck. I got $20 a week and had to request the IRS open an investigation into whether I SHOULD have been considered an employee all along. I had to write letters, prove my points as to why I was an employee, and basically gave them every bit of evidence I could come up with.

                    Thankfully, they found in my favor - but I lived on $20 a week (and I own a horse!!!) for two months. I had savings (thank goodness) and just this past week started a new job. But, I have serious issue with companies listing people who ARE employees as independent contractors. It had never occurred to me that it could cause such an issue with unemployment - if I'd realized that, I probably wouldn't have taken the job in the first place.
                    Dapplebay - home of original equestrian clothing and accessories.

                    Comment

                    Working...
                    X