Independent Employer Essay

An free-living decoctor is the get goinger whose taxes be not withheld or paid by the employer.Joshua is an independent baffleor not an employee. Elements such as behavioral, financial and typeface of employment relationship will help us in find out who Joshua is. First, the Ark peel has no full control over what Joshua does. This is evident from the battery-acid that he belt up deals with the other pipeline injectprises as the sales soulfulness and even the VP of the guild Fred Flood accepts the fact the Joshua makes his own decisions astir(predicate) his work in the federation. Schneir and James (1999) view a person whose duties atomic number 18 not controlled by the beau monde as an independent squeezeor.Dealing with the financial issue, we backside vividly see that the business aspects of Joshuas job are not fully controlled by the Ark Bark. Though, thither is a bit of disarray in this area because Ark Bark chipped in to foot the travel expenses, business ca rds among others. These are just minor expenses. If he was an employee, he could find not incurred the greater business expenses, instead the employer could. The type of employment relationship as well confirms that Joshua is an independent contractor. First there is no written contract for the contract among the 2 parties.Broadhurst Emily holds that, even though one can enter into a contract with the employee even minus a written document, it is required that the person be provided with the staff vade mecum. Joshuas claim that he was still farting up with the former companies was illogical for an employee. For one to be an employee, the contract between the employee and the employer is never gradual. Therefore, the fact that he accepted the contract composition still holding onto the other jobs indicates that he was an independent contractor, who is not to a lower tramp any obligation of Ark Bark. What the social club could do to make Joshua an independent contractor.If the company had an intention of making Joshua an independent contractor, they ought to consent laid a bump business contract for him. It was the duty of the company to keep to the employment exemplify of 1963 (passed in 1972 Act). This Act defines employees must be given written separate on the major issues related to terms of employment, this include the mode of payment. This could have saved the controversies erupting over with the $2,500 was a salary or commission The company could as well fill the form SS-8 (PDF) with IRS to be certain about the work status of Joshua for the purposes of taxation.According to Barry and Jeffrey (1992), the form critically reviews the workers status ground on the circumstances of employment. It was unnecessary for the company to provide other run like paying for printed stationery and business cards and travel expenses, when they intend to make him an independent contractor. Doing this creates some confusion since for an independent contracto r the company should not provide any tool of operation for the worker. This kind of confusion is tackled in Philip In creations (1999) scheme regarding payment between contractors and the employers. Are there ethical issues in the companys action?No, there are no ethical issues involved. The way the company is trying to treat the man is unethical, according George Richards (1999) opinion on business ethics, even if the contract was made orally, it was better for the business to provide a staff handbook or any other written material indicating the terms of employment. The company breached law of a fair employment contract. Actually, if the intention of the company was to have Joshua as an independent contractor, what was the need of terminating his services when he claimed that he was winding down his links with the former companies?This is ethically unaccepted because it leads to harassment. According to Bowie, Norma (1999), business should not be accompanied with harassment. It is not real clear that wherefore Joshua was terminated. But the obvious reason is due to the poor relationship between him and the company. Broadhurst Emily (2005) argues that such an act is unlawful since the law provides protection against unfair dismissal. other(a) than terminating his services, the company could have embarked on solving grievances at the work place as described by Broadhurst Emily. This could better their relationship instead.Is there inhabit to alter the relationship? Yes there is room to make things different, but very limited. I say very limited because, Joshua is already out of Ark Bark company. If he was still a worker in the company, the company could hardly revise the relationship bit, translate the contract in writing and prior details to the IRS. This could justify whether Joshua is an independent contractor or not. At the homogeneous time, I say that there is limited room since there are no legal issues preventing Joshua from re-applying to be an e mployer of the company. The success or failure of the re-union lies with the two parties.