The US tax authority (IRS) has a similar set of rules; if you can set your hours and working conditions and have your own equipment or tools it justifies not being an employee. There are of course important corner conditions like hiring a contractor who operates some machine you own.
In general, though some people prefer to be contractors, these rules are in place because some employers try to classify de facto employees as contractors to avoid paying taxes or providing required benefits. Google, FB etc have complex contractor rules for their third party contractor agencies to steer clear of that and make sure they save on taxes and benefits.
> if you can set your hours and working conditions and have your own equipment or tools it justifies not being an employee. There are of course important corner conditions like hiring a contractor who operates some machine you own.
Note that security guards can be structured as contractors despite obviously not being able to choose where or when they work. There's a big list of things that "weigh in favor" of one status or the other. There aren't definitive answers unless you've recently won a lawsuit against the government (which always wants employee status for everyone).
The guards are still usually W-2 employees; but they’re employees of the firm that’s been contracted. Referring to them as “contractors” is more a colloquialism, but it marks someone that works for an outside firm versus someone that’s in-house and on the company team, even if they work in the same office day in and day out.
Yeah, there's a big disparity between UK and US terminology here.
I'm the UK, a "contractor" is typically in business on their own account, applying for jobs directly to the end client.
In the US, it seems like a "contractor" frequently works for an outsourcing company. In the UK we'd typically call these people "temps" or "consultancy staff" depending on the source.
It's Temp/Vendor/Contractor lumped together as "people who work here but allegedly aren't legally employees of thia company, so we can deceive about all the great benefits "all" our "employees" get.
Doesn’t consultancy staff also cover people working for an actual consulting company?
I have worked on long contract - one or two years - for clients in the past helping them structure and put in place large projects and while I was technically there full time it was pretty clear that this was temporary, I was filling a punctual need the business wouldn’t have after and there was a somewhat clear idea of when we would part.
These relations are not necessary a way to pay less or not give benefits. I was actually paid a lot better than if I had been working there.
> In the US, it seems like a "contractor" frequently works for an outsourcing company. In the UK we'd typically call these people "temps" or "consultancy staff" depending on the source.
I think contractor is still used in that case in the UK sometimes too. The obvious example being construction firms.
Are security guards employed as 1099 common? I was under the impression that most companies were just outsourcing and guards were actually full time employees of companies specialising in security in the same way most cleaning staff works for a cleaning company.
I think guards are a bit different. Don’t companies usually contract a security company and they hire employees (or get contractors who might work for multiple companies)? Those companies are free to choose which gigs they want.
In general, though some people prefer to be contractors, these rules are in place because some employers try to classify de facto employees as contractors to avoid paying taxes or providing required benefits. Google, FB etc have complex contractor rules for their third party contractor agencies to steer clear of that and make sure they save on taxes and benefits.