This discussion board is open for all questions and comments in a new thread, bu

Question

This discussion board is open for all questions and comments in a new thread, but please also address the following:

1. Why might a person working for a corporation prefer to be an employee instead of an independent contractor?

2. Why might a person working for a corporation prefer to be an independent contractor instead of an employee?

3. Should employers always be liable for their employees acts? Why or why not, and what limitations, if any, would you impose on that liability?

4. Is a franchise worth the cost and restrictions? Why would anyone want to pay for and abide by a franchise agreement?

Explanation / Answer

1. A person may prefer working as an employee as it has additional benefits over and above the wage as compared to an independent contractor. For example - Corporations are required to provide their employees with health insurance coverage and other benefits like worker's compensation. Further, the employee is duly compensated for the overtime hours in accordance with the labour laws, however, a contractor has a fixed payment contract. Lastly, there is a sense of job security for an employee. His employment is not solely dependent on a project he is working on but an independent contractor' services/payments are stopped post-closure of the project.

2. A person who loves the flexibility in terms of working hour and working independently might prefer working as an independent contractor. An independent contractor can work for multiple companies at one time (earns more), work according to his schedule (No fixed office timings) and works independently on his/her assignment.

3. Employers should not be always liable for their employees' actions. If an employer has taken sufficient measures to conduct background checks of hired employees, have policies in place to check harassment and trains employees on do's and don'ts then an employer has done its duties sufficiently well. For example - All the Salespeople of Company X have been given cars for their day-to-day work. They can use the car for client lunches and dinner, however, they are strictly prohibited from driving under the influence of alcohol, Salespeople have undergone the training multiple times and understand the policy. Assume, Salesperson A took a client for dinner and then drove back home. On the way back he met with an accident and was inebriated at that point in time. In general by law employer is liable for employee's action as it is in course of his employment. Dinner with a client is a part of due course of employment. However, I feel an employer should not be liable it took sufficient effort to train employees in this regard.

Related Questions

Navigate

• Browse (All)
• Browse T
• Subjects

Integrity-first tutoring: explanations and feedback only — we do not complete graded work. Learn more.