How Much Should I Get Paid? (attorneys, law, firm)

[longknocker02]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I don't think you can even pretend to be an independent contractor if more than a certain percentage of your income comes from one source.

That should not matter at all.

[EscapeCalifornia]

Originally Posted by longknocker02

That should not matter at all.

Tell that to the IRS.

[yukiko11]

I think it depends on what your deal is.
If you are going to be living in the house, you have to consider your room and board as part of your compensation. They may want to pay you 350 plus room and board, however the entire value of what you are getting is taxable. They should be withholding taxes from your total wages and also paying their half of the FICA tax. If you work as an independent contractor, figure that your taxes are going to be about 30% of your total wages which would be another 200 per week. Therefore, if you live in you will be clearing about 150 per week. You could make more money working at Mcdonald's and not have to work 12 hours a day.

[longknocker02]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

Tell that to the IRS.

Why? The IRS will get paid either way, either fully by the OP as an independent contractor or through both parties if the family decides to take the procedural steps necessary to classify the OP as an employee. The family would submit their 1099, and as long as the IC reported that amount in full, that should be fine. Are you seeing something that I am not seeing?

It would make no sense on the family's part to go out of their way to make her an employee. It would subject them to potential liability stemming from acts conducted in the scope of her business (including driving on the job). I am not familiar with employment law in Colorado, so it would obviously be wise for both parties to check with the applicable state agency on this issue.

Out of law school, I worked as a contractor for a company. I worked only for that company, focused on one or two clients, and everyone but a couple administrative types were considered ICs. Hell, my best friend makes $90/hour for a 20+ lawyer firm, and he is an IC. I actually prefer being an IC: higher wages than a comparable position with normal employee benefits, mileage at over 50 cents (.585 last year), taxes are not due until the following April 15th, so you can use your tax money as leverage to invest until it is due, and so on.

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by longknocker02

Why? The IRS will get paid either way, either fully by the OP as an independent contractor or through both parties if the family decides to take the procedural steps necessary to classify the OP as an employee. The family would submit their 1099, and as long as the IC reported that amount in full, that should be fine. Are you seeing something that I am not seeing?

It would make no sense on the family's part to go out of their way to make her an employee. It would subject them to potential liability stemming from acts conducted in the scope of her business (including driving on the job). I am not familiar with employment law in Colorado, so it would obviously be wise for both parties to check with the applicable state agency on this issue.

Out of law school, I worked as a contractor for a company. I worked only for that company, focused on one or two clients, and everyone but a couple administrative types were considered ICs. Hell, my best friend makes $90/hour for a 20+ lawyer firm, and he is an IC. I actually prefer being an IC: higher wages than a comparable position with normal employee benefits, mileage at over 50 cents (.585 last year), taxes are not due until the following April 15th, so you can use your tax money as leverage to invest until it is due, and so on.

It is not up to the employee or the employer to determine if a job can be classified as a independent contractor. It is the characteristics of the job that defines that issue, and if it meets the criteria as define by the applicable legal entity, in this case the State of Colorado. Changing the job responsibilities and work does not necessarily change the status of that employment for that specified job title and even changing the job title does not avoid the regulations. Your experience in being an Attorney, in doing law work, does not equate with the job title of a Nanny, doing domestic work.

If the employer has to assume liabilities for specific actions, then the employer cannot always abrogate that responsibility by saying that their employee has acting independently, when in fact, the nature of the job does not entail an independent action. An employer cannot violate statute and use that illegal action as a defense. You are correct in advising them to see a state agency, as I indicated in my first post.

I am not an Attorney but I am aware of these issues, multiple times, in my past employment situations. From my experiences, many people who hire domestic help will not check for the appropriate regulations. They will try to avoid the expense until they get caught, and then they will claim ignorance. As, you are aware, ignorance of a law is not a defense. A person seeking to do this type of work is best served by learning the applicable laws and reporting violations. Domestic household employment is constantly in the news, because many politicians are caught by the failure to pay appropriate taxes for their help, as in recent issues in the Obama administration.

Livecontent

[Count David]

Originally Posted by EscapeCalifornia

I don't think you can even pretend to be an independent contractor if more than a certain percentage of your income comes from one source.

I'm an independent contractor and 100% of my income came/comes from one source.

I would think that if one customer can give you enough work to keep you busy/take up most of your time than there shouldn't be anything wrong with it (law-wise).

[livecontent]

Originally Posted by David Aguilar

I'm an independent contractor and 100% of my income came/comes from one source.

I would think that if one customer can give you enough work to keep you busy/take up most of your time than there shouldn't be anything wrong with it (law-wise).

That has absolutely nothing to do with the issue. The basic problem is that some employers like to have people work for them, as direct contractor, so they can avoid paying overtime, that is following the Fair Labor Standards Act. An employee cannot be just stated as exempt (that means exempt from the act) and getting the set minimum and get paid overtime--just on a whim.

Again to be an independent contractor, one must meet certain regulations that are defined. Who directs and supervises you; where do you do the job; whose tools you are using etc. and certain classes of jobs can never be defined as independent contractors.

Labor laws are very strict in the requirement of defining who is non-exempt (meaning that they are covered under this act) and get paid the proper wages and overtime.

All states have implemented laws that cover intrastate (jobs within the state) commerce to implemented regulations that following federal regulations for interstate (jobs outside and between the states) commerce.

In addition employers try to avoid paying taxes, social security contribution and providing other benefits. They convince gullible and stupid people to accept the situation because they tell the employee that he will get to keep more of his money; nobody will know; they will not have to report the income---bla, bla, bla---all bull, the employer is is only out for the own purposes.

The employer looses any credits he would have for social security retirement and disability; he doesn't realize that until many years latter. Or if he is unlucky and get ill, he finds, he is not qualified for disability. He finds he has no unemployment insurance because he assumes that he pays that tax--unemployment insurance is paid by the employer. He has no workman's compensation insurance--again it is paid by the employer.

The employer loves to get around the Fair Labor Standard Act by designating the employer as a supervisor, so to claim the status as exempt from overtime. However, most stupid people do not realize that they are being taken advantage of, because there are strict regulations that govern supervisory work---you have to supervise a certain percentage of the time and you have to supervise a certain number of employees.

You see these crimes all over the service industry, especial restaurant, where they work a person to death and then claim he should not get overtime. You see subcontracting temporary work in the computer industry for example, where the worker is working side by side with a company employee and receiving no benefits because these companies want to reduce their costs. Temporary workers and long-term temporary are told--prove yourself, and we will give you a job with benefits--it is said over and over again to a new group, that replaces them.

Why am I so angry??? Well, for example, one of jobs, I filed a claim that I was being still being considered exempt when they got rid of many of the people I supervised and I was suppose to do all the work, many hours a week. Well, they were forced to pay me back wages and reclassify my job as non-exempt. Guess What???? I worked much less hours because they did not want to pay overtime.

This is only one of my terrible experiences in the work force in many types of jobs; I have seen it everyplace. That is why I have made a big effort to read and understand the applicable laws. That is also why I am referring the OP to the State Division of Labor. However, I know from experience, that she will not bother because she is so impressed by making this money and will continue to make the mistakes. Employers know this because there are new crops of these naive individuals coming into the workforce everyday. Of course she does not think that the nice family hiring her, to do a babysitting/nanny job, are employers--they are just nice people--baloney. I am willing to bet for the hours the parents are away, they are high-powered professional people with huge incomes, who know exactly what they are doing.

Do not fool me, I have gone through much. I have laughed at their pig-faced lawyers and the "sweet-heart" union bed mates, and fought their muscled brainless goons when I have been cornered in the workplace, and maybe it is good I cannot work because I can
Livecontent

Gee, I am sounding like my old New Yawk self---sorry, it is ingrained.

[Nav]

Oh, and dont forget the overtime. Colorado labor laws say anymore than 12 hours worked in a 24 hour period is considered overtime. Add to the fact that you are talking 70+ hours a week it could be some serious pay. But realistically, you would most likely be placed on salary and exempted from overtime rules.
If you are a live-in nanny, then none of this applies sine the employer can count your living expenses as part of your compensation.

Nav

[bande1102]

You're going to be considered a household employee. Here's a link to the IRS that defines a household employee Publication 926 (2009), Household Employer's Tax Guide

[Vamp143]

How much does a Lawyer get paid?