Posted on October 21, 2009 by Joseph M. Wallin

Classifying Workers as Non-Employees - Intern, Volunteer or Contractor - Is Risky

By Mary E. Drobka
10.21.09

We are often asked, “Is it OK not to pay ourselves until we obtain funding?” or “I don’t have to pay someone who wants to volunteer for my company just for the experience, right?” We’ve also been told, “I don’t have to worry about overtime, payroll taxes or benefits because I only use contractors!” Each assumption is risky.

Considering the advantages, disadvantages and consequences of how you classify workers is critical for emerging companies striving to hold down start-up costs. But any company hoping to manage compensation outlays must also be aware of the risks involved when classifying someone other than as an employee. The money you think you may be saving can all be lost, and additional costs and penalties incurred, if you don’t classify workers correctly from the start.

Continue reading . . .

Tags: ,
Posted on September 15, 2009 by Stuart Campbell

When is an Employee's Off-Site Work (e.g., from Home) Compensable.

A recent Ninth Circuit decision indicates that employers probably do not have to compensate employees for time they spend checking email or voicemail from offsite locations for incidental work related activities like picking up the employee's daily assignments or work schedule. In contrast, however, the court's holding indicates that an employer is obligated to compensate an employee for off-site activities that are directly related to the employee's job duties such as performing or completing a work assignment, unless the time spent is de minimus. A more detailed analysis of the Ninth Circuit's decision in Rutti, et al. v. Lojack Corp., and its implications for employers is set forth in the attached article by my colleagues Judith Droz Keys and Michelle D. Fife, www.dwt.com/LearningCenter/Advisories

Tags: , , , , , , , , ,
Posted on August 10, 2009 by Stuart Campbell

Considerations for Washington Employers Using Employment Arbitration Agreements

A Washington State Court recently held that provisions shifting costs to an employee in employment arbitration agreement as invalid.  Washington State employers should be aware of this ruling and its ramifications in determining whether to use employment arbitration agreements.

See: Washington Appeals Court: Cost-Shifting Provisions in Employment Arbitration Agreement Invalid by Michael J. Killeen and Sheehan Sullivan Weiss.

Tags: , ,
Posted on August 5, 2009 by Stuart Campbell

Emerging Companies in California - Legal Developments

Emerging companies in California should be aware of legal developments concerning vacation pay policies and the payment of sales commissions. 
 

Tags: ,
Posted on April 8, 2009 by Joseph M. Wallin

Don't Forget--COBRA Has Changed

The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act changed COBRA.  Under the Act, certain persons who lose health care coverage as a result of an involuntary termination of employment are entitled to a subsidy of 65% of the employee's cost of COBRA coverage.  Before April 18 of this year, employers subject to COBRA must distribute revised notices to qualified beneficiaries who had a qualifying COBRA event between September 1, 2008 through December 31, 2009.  You can find out more information about this here.

Tags: , ,