post #10
As a freelancer, I'm seeing a trend as I look for more work. I wasn't going to post about it, but I decided to in the event that maybe I'm mistaken and can learn something new.
One of the benefits of being a freelancer (or independent contractor) is that I work when I want, and I set my own hours. Yet I'm seeing more ads like this one (for an accounting role) stating that it's a full-time role (in this instance, they specified 35 hours a week), and "specific work hours...will be defined in the written contract agreement.". No. That's not an independent contractor, that's an employee.
Now I get that some independent contractor roles are going to require set (or specific) hours some of the time (for example, a photographer who has to take photos of a company's product will need to be on-site during regular business hours to get access to the product), but something like accounting doesn't usually require an on-site presence (unless of course the company doesn't allow remote access, but even so, specific hours shouldn't be dictated by the company).
Why are companies trying to deny employees benefits by saying the job is an independent contractor role when it's clearly an employee role? If this role only required a few hours a week (giving someone plenty of time to work for more clients), maybe I'd buy the independent contractor classification. But if you're requiring 35 hours a week on-site, that's a full-time job. There's nothing independent about it.
Companies, don't do this. You can get in a lot of trouble for intentionally misclassifying an employee as an independent contractor.
Freelancers, have you run into this? If so, did you apply to the job anyway? Did you mention anything about it maybe *not* being an independent contractor role? I am genuinely curious if the meaning of independent contractor has changed (I included the response I got when I asked Google if a company can control an independent contractor's hours).