I've taken on the topic of W-2 Employees vs 1099 Independent Contractors multiple times. There's a new rule likely to be finalized in Oct… a new rule that does not really change anything IMO.
This is a common debate/discussion/point of confusion among RESIDENTIAL CONTRACTORS.
• Most common employer question: Why should I take on the expenses/risks of having employees?
• Most common “worker” question: Why shouldn’t I take the tax advantage of staying a subcontractor?
• Easy answer #1: Because neither of you have much choice in the matter.
• Easy answer #2: Because a Brand cannot be properly represented without employees.
For decades, there have been laws and regulations in place guiding the classification of employees vs subs. Schedule control, material support, financial freedom, etc… All are intentionally vaguely defined terms. These have served nobody, except for the government agencies in charge of enforcing violations and the bottom-feeding lawyers that take on the cases of disgruntled ex-subs because they discover they should have been employees all along.
How can you control the representation of your Brand if you rely on subcontractors who are not beholden to you by law? The SECOND you provide a work schedule, instruct them to wear a logoed shirt, provide general tools/equipment, or allow them to drive a company vehicle or carry a company phone, they are an employee.
Funny thing is… Individuals (sub, employee, employer) do not have the LEGAL AUTHORITY to waive their basic employment rights. ANY document is considered null and void upon discovery of misclassification (most commonly after a serious injury) and the EMPLOYER is immediately and retroactively held accountable for the cascade of regulatory consequences. Not fun, and in my opinion… Not worth the risk.
Protect your team. Protect yourself. Protect your BRAND!