• 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

  • Independent Contractor my A$$

    http://equiery.com/blog/?p=1343

    Any legal experts know if this would be the last word, or can their be an appeal by the employer?
    "Friend" me !

    http://www.facebook.com/isabeau.solace

  • #2
    Do you agree or disagree with the decision?

    Comment


    • #3
      Agree with the decision!

      The ultimate goal of farming is not the growing of crops, but the cultivation and perfection of human beings.

      Comment


      • #4
        I do too, but just trying to figure out if Isabeau does or doesn't...title is confusing.

        Comment


        • #5
          Agree with the decision but am a little suprised at the amount of non-economic damages awarded by the jury. As always any time your fate is in a jury's hands it is a total crap shoot!

          Comment


          • #6
            I also completely agree with the decision. In my line of work (nanny) employers frequently try to hire unknowing household staff as independent contractors to get out of paying their share of taxes. It's shady and I'm glad the ruling agreed.

            Comment


            • #7
              Yep, not an independent contractor.

              I imagine just about anything can be appealed....whether it'll be heard or thrown out is another story...
              To be loved by a horse should fill us with awe, for we hath not deserved it.

              Comment


              • #8
                That is weird. My riders were very much independent contractors at the track but were covered under my workman's comp anyway. Was this not in Maryland? They kept saying Washington so I am not sure.
                McDowell Racing Stables

                Home Away From Home

                Comment


                • #9
                  wow...
                  Teaching Horseback Riding Lessons: A Practical Training Manual for Instructors

                  Stop Wasting Hay and Extend Consumption Time With Round Bale Hay Nets!!

                  Comment


                  • #10
                    I actually don't agree with the ruling. I have many friends in various industries that are independent contractors and quite happy with the situation. Some are on hourly pay, salary, some commission. I used to work for a pet sitting agency where I was paid a percentage of each job and they did NOT provide workmen's compensation to us and explained that up front. We had the option to purchase it ourselves and it was quite affordable $20-30 monthly I believe. I love being a 1099 and honestly after deductions I was allowed to take paid less in taxes on a yearly basis then I had compared to W-2 jobs I have worked in the past. Yes the employer saves money too but to me it was a win win for both of us.

                    Comment


                    • #11
                      You all agree with the verdict right up to the point your board doubles or triples...

                      Comment


                      • #12
                        the girl was an employee based on the requirements set out by the IRS.

                        Yes, there are many folks who *are* contractors - probably track riders would be one class of folks who were - it really depends on a lot of different factors - one of the biggest being: do you offer your services to teh public or are you working just for one business? Does the business send you for training? does the business control how you do your work?

                        there are a lot of different factors, but it is VERY clear that the girl in the OP was an employee.

                        and yes, workers comp can cover contractors - however, most employers don't want to pay it so dont usually list the IC's

                        Comment


                        • #13
                          Originally posted by airhorse View Post
                          You all agree with the verdict right up to the point your board doubles or triples...
                          Many of us agree with the decision because the jury applied the law to the facts of this particular case and reached a legally appropriate verdict. That does not mean we do not sympathize with the barn owners. It is an unfortunate set of facts for Plaintiff and Defendant.

                          Comment


                          • #14
                            I'll disagree at one point my husband who works in the financial service industry and all the sales reps are 1099 they also have an office manager/secretary who is paid a weekly salary, performs no sales, is sent to training seminars, handles the business's yearly audits, etc. and what many would consider an "employee" is legally a 1099. My brother who started out in a small company as a W-2 that specializes in accounting software and educating small businesses on how to use it (although he also isn't a salesperson) is now a 1099 and also prefers it that way.

                            Maybe I mis-read the article but I didn't see where the IRS issued a judgement against the farm just that the jury decided she should was more of an "employee" and should be paid damages and lost wages.

                            Comment


                            • #15
                              The IRS and state departments of labor are not psyched about employers trying to go the independent contractor route. The IRS has a "20 questions to see if you are an employee or independent contractor" form. From what I remember two things usual to stall cleaners make them employees, not independent contractors: They use the farm's equipment and are told when to get the job done. I believe, too, that in order to be an independent contractor, you are allowed to farm out some of the actual work to others. Most stall cleaners can't do this.

                              It's a "threshold" thing and the IRS will adjudicate if the job description is uncertain and either party isn't sure whether the worker should be an independent contractor. It makes sense to me that the jury found as they did. It makes sense to me, too, that the Equiery published this article.

                              According to my tax chick who is also a horser, the state of Oregon clamped down on this caca a while back. For that reason, there's a whole butt-load of self-care boarding barns here. It may be the wave of the future. Or the horsey set will have to start paying what they always should have for the cost of labor.
                              The armchair saddler
                              Politically Pro-Cat

                              Comment


                              • #16
                                Workers Compensation / Employer Liability coverage is MANDATORY in the state of NJ (actually most states....) If you do not carry this coverage - and you are caught....you will have to pay HUGE fines.....plus any damages/med expenses to injured employee.....this applies to legal and illegal workers......!!!!

                                Comment


                                • #17
                                  I see why Equiery posted the article too and think it is a great lesson that barn owners need to be very specify and have very clear contracts with anyone that works on their farm. When things aren't spelled out like I imagine they weren't in this case things can end up dicey.

                                  I am aware of the 20 questions from the IRS guidelines and just based off those to the lay person I can see where stall muckers, farm help, etc. can get dicey on the classification if things aren't very specifically laid out.

                                  I think it is hard unless there was a clear contact between the girl and farm owners to say what the set up truly was. At 17 where are her parents? I have a hard time believing she and her parents didn't know her liabilities up front of being a 1099 much less I'm not quite sure why she repeatedly put herself in what she felt was a dangerous situation. The article states that in the field while filling the feeders she couldn't keep her eye on the other 30 horses in the field and that she was leading a horse to the feeder and was kicked. She had been kicks before and didn't feel it was safe so why did she continue to work there? Why would a parent allow their child to work in what they felt was a dangerous place? To me it just doesn't add up.

                                  Maybe they sent her to a seminar to help educate her on how to be a better horse person (sounds like she maybe needed it if she didn't know you should try and lead a horse through a bunch of other horses' especially at feeding time).

                                  I feel bad that she was injured but the whole situation just doesn't jive for me. It seems like she found a place to work essentially as a trainer that was willing to help educate her and when she got hurt she put the blame on them.

                                  Either way like I said a lesson to barn owners and another legal issue to worry about.

                                  Comment


                                  • #18
                                    Originally posted by Kwalker024 View Post
                                    I'll disagree at one point my husband who works in the financial service industry and all the sales reps are 1099 they also have an office manager/secretary who is paid a weekly salary, performs no sales, is sent to training seminars, handles the business's yearly audits, etc. and what many would consider an "employee" is legally a 1099. My brother who started out in a small company as a W-2 that specializes in accounting software and educating small businesses on how to use it (although he also isn't a salesperson) is now a 1099 and also prefers it that way.

                                    Maybe I mis-read the article but I didn't see where the IRS issued a judgement against the farm just that the jury decided she should was more of an "employee" and should be paid damages and lost wages.
                                    just because it was done, doesn't mean it was legal. To me, it is petty clear who is an employee and who is a contractor. a contractor basically controls their work environment, the work they do, how they do it etc. They usually have more than one client etc.

                                    just because folks get paid under the table doesn't mean it is the way it should be.

                                    a stall clean *could* be a contractor if they sold their services to many barns - there are actually businesses out here that do that... so they would in fact be 1099 contractors.

                                    and to address the issue of the girl, at 17 i am sure she didnt understand the ramification one way or another ... i mean what 17 year old would? most people don't understand the ramifications - this is why so many businesses are stupid enough to hire people under the table that should be employees.

                                    Comment


                                    • #19
                                      Maybe we are debating two different things because I'm definitely not for paying under the table but am ok with 1099 type situations. I can assure you the people I know are not breaking the law.

                                      If you notice I don't blame the 17 year old for not being completely aware of what legally 1099 means to her but rather where the heck her parents were. I do hold the 17 year old accountable for repeatedly doing something she felt was dangerous and then suing when she got hurt. Maybe the barn owners are complete jerks (although if they helped her acquire more horse knowledge through seminars I'd imagine they can't be that bad) but she didn't have to go into the pasture of she felt unsafe. Se could have either said no or quit and found a different job.

                                      Everyone is happy until someone gets hurt and it is definitely a lesson to people in the industry to have very specific contracts to protect themselves.

                                      Comment


                                      • #20
                                        Originally posted by Kwalker024 View Post
                                        I actually don't agree with the ruling. I have many friends in various industries that are independent contractors and quite happy with the situation. Some are on hourly pay, salary, some commission. I used to work for a pet sitting agency where I was paid a percentage of each job and they did NOT provide workmen's compensation to us and explained that up front. We had the option to purchase it ourselves and it was quite affordable $20-30 monthly I believe. I love being a 1099 and honestly after deductions I was allowed to take paid less in taxes on a yearly basis then I had compared to W-2 jobs I have worked in the past. Yes the employer saves money too but to me it was a win win for both of us.
                                        I assume you carried your own liability type insurance then?
                                        As an independent contractor it is your job to have your own insurance.


                                        I cleaned stalls (in exchange for money off board) for several years. I considered myself an independent contractor. I used my own wheel barrow and pitch fork and there was no set time for the stall cleaning.

                                        Comment

                                        Working...
                                        X