Freelancer Payment Protection Act

Talking about aberrant behaviour, I actually joined the Freelancers' Union a couple of years ago, to get into their health insurance group.

Freelance artists and writers make zilch, and so generally can't afford lawyers, which makes them pretty easy prey. I don't know that this bill is the right answer, but anecdotally the problem seems to have got a lot worse recently.

Cheers

Phil Hobbs

Solidarity^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H Solder forever

I understand why they want this law, and I agree it is probably not the best way to fix the problem, but I am not sure I know a better solution. I think the real problem underlying this is that financially shaky start-ups are hiring lots of temporary employees and calling them consultants, but half-expecting not to pay them if the company does not do well. The people taking these jobs have usually been looking for work for a while and see it as better than nothing, so they go along with the charade as presented to the IRS. However, they are not paid as well as consultants which, among other things, makes up for the risk that one might not be paid.

So the big question is: how do you tell the difference between an exploited temporary worker who deserves to have first dibs on a failing firms cash, and a real consulting business person who in effect has extended credit to the client and waits in line with other creditors to have bills paid? I have been doing real consulting for nine years usually with multiple projects and clients at any one time. I am not sure I know of a good way to determine who is really a temporary employee vs. who is a consultant that would not cause a lot of headaches for people like me. Yet clearly, there is a trend of companies trying to cheat the labor laws.

It came to me under the heading "this should be law everywhere!" from someone here in Oregon, so it set me off.

And if it takes off in New Yawk, it's going to look attractive to the Oregon Legislature and any other legislature with pretensions of progressiveness.

Are you in New York? This is apparently a state bill, not national.

Jon

"anorton" fired this volley in news:YMmdnfAJ9MOTdlrSnZ2dnUVZ snipped-for-privacy@earthlink.com:

Clear up the question! I require a down-payment on all contracts. It is stated to cover initial material costs and design/manufacturing labor. The contract clearly states that other periodic payments must be in hand by certain dates, or work stops. The customer doesn't get the finished product until 75% of the total amount is paid and cleared. They have only 25% to "play with" upon "acceptance".

The payment schedules are set such that although I may break even if not paid the last 25%, I will never be in arrears on what I owe my vendors and to ME in the form of pay for the work already performed.

A gross margin of 25% is not excessive, and I've not had a customer balk at the agreements yet. Reasonable people are reasonable to deal with. If the customer refuses the terms, I seek other work. I'm still buying supper and paying the mortgage.

Lloyd

LLoyd

Then you'll love this. Talk about Big effingPaternalistic Brother

Breaking News Alert

Ahm movin to Canada....

I, too, do not like Big Brother getting involved. Once invited in, never leaves.

Got stiffed twice: First time a very long term client slowly got way behind and owed me enough to run my office for over a year. My fault for allowing the accumulation without being paid. My client, principle owner of his firm died suddenly, leaving a widow and 10 year old daughter - died broke with a lot of debts. Since I considered him a FRIEND and he was my very first client I blew off the debt without saying anything. About six months later, his widow showed up in a truck filled with their electronics lab equipment! Asked me if I wanted it, YES OF COURSE!, because she was being offered a few hundred dollars for all of it, and would rather have me get it. Actually, the load was worth more than my outstanding bill. Second time a client just would not pay, although using and receiving revenue from my efforts. So our CFO, simply went to their lobby and announced was there for payment and would leave upon being paid - and said that EVERYTIME anybody came into the lobby. In about 1 1/2 hour, received payment in full.

We try to set up our billing to never be behind more than small claims actions, keeps it low, painless and easily collected.

One client started out by getting 'sloppy' about keeping up with the pay schedules, claiming bookwork etc.So I stopped work, went to the CEO's office and 'talked' with him, until resolved, even charged for my time to do that. After that, never another problem. I bet they're glad they did that, because in the first 5 weeks of working with this client I saved them over $800k real money - they got to cancel a terrible purchase contract and were signing other purchase orders, all which I stopped. Over the course of the next 18 months saved them another $500k, plus tons of 'invisible' dollars.

The thing to remember most about governmental involvement, is that when it comes time for YOU to collect, they change the rules. FICA, for example. etc etc. To really, develop an understanding of attitude towards debtors, simply look at the VA system. I don't know about you, but for someone to actually put their life on the line for my safety, I feel indebted to. And, think it a travesty that that person is getting stiffed on promised payments and worst of all getting stiffed on healthcare for damages done while carrying out duties?!

Legislators straighten out what you've already set up before embarking on setting up something new.

At the $100K level you ought to take precautions. At least use an L/C and have a trusted person on the ground. Believe me.

Best regards, Spehro Pefhany

Have the client open a purchase order with a payment limit that you can bill against. This isn't perfect, but it at least insures a few people in the firm know you are doing work and significant money will be spent.

The initial meeting to discuss the project is a freebie. Only a lawyer could get away with billing just to talk about doing work.

I rather not see this law passed. It implies somebody could do crappy work and expect to get paid.

the problem with big sugary drinks is that it makes people obese and they get diabetes and then those of us with jobs have to pay for their medical care in emergency rooms - if the law said that anyone who was obese or smoked did not have to be treated for medical conditions without regard for their ability to pay, then I wouldn't care if you drink your giant sugar bombs all day, but when I have to pay for your medical condition, then I have a say in what you eat.

Strange, I normally drink the equal of several of those big sugary drinks during my Sunday bicycle ride and invariably lose weight.

-- Cheers,

John B.

Freedom is not free. If you want to sacrifice freedom to pinch a half a cent off your insurance premium, please move to Cuba or somewhere.

Fuhrer Bloomberg.

How are they going to deal with self-dispensed drinks? Have armed guards preventing people from getting refills?

I'll be drinking _more_ pop (soda) now that the Coke Freestyle machines have arrived...

"Spehro Pefhany" wrote

They need to encourage children to report their parents' illegal drinking activities to the authorities.

Ahh, yes, the good ole days... when you could actually trick kids into giving a f*ck about something other than themselves... LOL

so, it is your position that you should have freedom so long as I pay for it? isn't that what you right wing fools have been objecting to, and now that is what you want? could you at least be consistent in your biases instead of flipping about like a blob of jelly in the wind

No. Bloomberg was saying on TV last night that a customer could buy as many 16-oz. drinks as they want.

The whole idea is to stop the restaurants from playing one-upmanship with bigger drinks, at the health expense of customers who, research shows, tend to drink as much as they're given.

I agree that it's a stupid and nannyish idea, but it's not to stop you from drinking more. It's to stop the vicious circle of restaurants selling ever-larger drinks, which many (most?) customers drink until they're empty. Another well-intended law that is going to grate many of us like sandpaper.

BTW, it doesn't apply to bottled drinks.

Cripes. It's as bad as when I was in elementary school, and we were told -- by stories and films --- that SOME kids' parents actually were commie spies, and it was our job to...uh....let someone know.