# Attn: Everyone!!!!



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

Hope this got your attention. I was reading the new laws that went into effect regarding workman's comp. and it worries me and should worry all of you. I cannot post links to them bc I haven't had 15 posts yet but basically if you are anything but a sole proprietor, you are no longer exempt from workman's comp. That means anyone who operates an LLC and excludes themselves or up to three member officers from comp can no longer do this. Even worse, they are trying to base it on income. This is very alarming considering I feel like I am already overly F'd by Liberty Mutual as it is. I am trying to get an online petition going but would like feedback on proper wording, etc. This effects everyone though, so if you are the one-man-show, that also includes you unless you are a SP.

Senate Bill 92
House Bill 471


----------



## tinner666 (Nov 3, 2004)

WC can be a bxtch. In Cal, even SP's that work alone are required to have it. Doesn't make sense. I'm a SP and work alone, and just mailed in my exemption paperwork. Same mess each year to keep my license.:sad:


----------



## ProWallGuy (Oct 17, 2003)

Do you really think an online petition will accomplish anything?


----------



## Chris Johnson (Apr 19, 2007)

tinner666 said:


> In Cal, even SP's that work alone are required to have it. Doesn't make sense.:sad:


 
I believe that law was put in place since quite a few roofers were picking up 'Day Laborers' paying them cash to work on something as dangerous as a roof. Many have fell and been hurt and even a few fatalities. 

Unfortunately it only takes a few bad apples to make it a standard across the board law/rule that makes it difficult or unfair for people such as yourself.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

this is for every state? i thought WC was different from state to state.
no way am i going to be able to afford 14 % of my income. i might as well call it quits and pack up shop. what do they expect us small businesses to do? start charging even more than we already do? and then get beat out by the lowballer with no insurance at all? i don't get how we are supposed to make money when we give like 60% of it away in taxes and insurance and other crap. it's crazy i hope this isn't true for NJ.


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

Is this a federal law? If so....It's just what the industry needs! I've been writing and suggesting that very thing for many years!

It will definitely separate the men from the boys....Us legit guys will have a better chance at competing price-wise now.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

but for guys who have a small crew and don't want to have themselves on the policy because they make a lot as the owner, it's not really right. its no about separating the men from the boys. i have wc on employees but was never made to have it on myself. i give away enough of my income as the owner. another 14% is beyond crazy. i already charge enough. 

just because the owner doesn't have WC for himself, doesn't mean he's not LEGIT he still has it on his employees. that's what matters. for guys with no employees, it's crazy to make him pay WC on his whole salary.


----------



## Putty Truck (Oct 6, 2007)

I've been thinking about getting it for myself for years now. I have the paperwork and everything, but the payoff is a pittance when compared to my monthly costs.

I'm 50/50 on the deal.


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

Unfortunatly this is a federal and state law now. The NH house made it effective 9/14/07 so actually, anyone not carrying WC on themselves right now is already in violation. The federal part goes into effect on the first of the year. I have already gotten a sketchy 'mid-term' audit form from Liberty Mutual asking for me to list my income and other info. then seperatly list my no. of employees and all their info., then another section regarding if I had any subs and whether I have insurance info on them, and if not to send their personal info. I am also supposed to send a copy of last year's tax return. I thought, 'hmm, I never had to do this before'. I then closely read it again and it leaves you wide open to alot of hassle if you don't word the entire thing properly. Also, regarding the law, my understanding is you need to had WC coverage even if you are the owner unless you never set foot on the jobsite, so interpret it as you will. For me, I guess I could say that I only deliver estimates and manage foreman who complete the job and collect payment for me, while I handle marketing and sales and micromanage from my home office.


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

Also, for all of you that don't have WC already. First, it sucks. Second, you have to pay a huge lump sum up front, then in most cases you are billed over 9 or 10 months. For me I basically have 15K spread over 9 months of payments. Plus for newly insured your MOD level which is how they rate you doesn't go down from the highest possible rate for your trade until you've been insured for 3 years without any claims. For painters the starting rate is around $15/$100 of payroll, for roofers more like $50/$100of payroll. Basically this law was supposed to apply to gov't contractors and they worded it accidently and it now includes everyone. The saddest part is that it hurts the legit contractor, while the scumbag who already doesn't pay still won't. Meanwhile the fines for noncompliance have gone up substantially. Awesome!


----------



## Susan Betz (Feb 21, 2007)

Get a leasing company. List yourself as an employee. This solution works, doesn't require a huge upfront payout, and they only take a percentage of your pay, not your profits. You can take your profits separately, as the company owner. Just get it square with your accountant.

I hate the insurance companies. If there was ever a license to print money, they've got it.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

insurance companies are scumbags. they love taking your money, but never want to part with it easily. i can't stand how much of our income goes into insurance. i know it's a part of business, but i'm not looking forward to this at all. this will be as expensive as health care is fore me, which i already hate paying. it's ashame when you can't afford to buy a bigger house(me, i live in just under 1000 sq ft, in NJ) or add on a big addition, because of paying for things like healthcare and now soon to be WC. man this gets my blood boiling. i should have the RIGHT to not cover myself on this policy. 

the reason they want last years income tax return is because they want to see what you bring in, so you can't lie on the new policy and say you make less. 

i might start saying I do tile work, because i do all the tile on my jobs, that rate is 7% here instead of 14-15%. it goes up every year. that is a ton of money if you ask me. especially for roofing, 50% of every 100 bucks, how are guys supposed to make money. all this does it RAISE the amount of money people spend to get simple things done. and then you look like you are overcharging the customer. insurance is the worst part of doing business.


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

*RE:susan betz*

How and what goes into forming a leasing company. I tried to research it online and it seems pretty complex. Any info you may have would be great.

Thanks, Jay


----------



## Susan Betz (Feb 21, 2007)

Any Season said:


> How and what goes into forming a leasing company. I tried to research it online and it seems pretty complex. Any info you may have would be great.
> 
> Thanks, Jay


You don't form one, you hire one. They do payroll, taxes, worker's comp, all that stuff, for less of a fee than you'd pay a bookkeeper. Technically, employees work for the leasing company. Realistically, you are a "client company" of the leasing company and retain rights to hire and fire.

The only downside is your liability insurance still considers the leasing company's employees "your" employees, so there's no insurance savings there. But, they'd be your employees anyhow, so you haven't lost anything really.


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

*RE:susan betz*

So everything is legit though, even in that my employees would not know the difference? What you are explaining seems kind of like when I ran a college pro franchise in school and they were my employees, but I paid everything to College Pro and they cut the checks so payroll didn't even go through my account.


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

*RE:susan betz*

So everything is legit though, even in that my employees would not know the difference? What you are explaining seems kind of like when I ran a college pro franchise in school and they were my employees, but I paid everything to College Pro and they cut the checks so payroll didn't even go through my account. Also, if I am on payroll for like a couple hundred a week I am covered legitimately because I am hiring myself...So the me that it on jobsites is the one that works for the leasing company??


----------



## Giftcard (Dec 28, 2006)

Any Season, this is a new New Hampshire state law not Fed. 
http://www.gencourt.state.nh.us/legislation/2007/HB0471.html


----------



## Bone Saw (Feb 13, 2006)

the idea of paying wc on yourself as an owner/operator llc or sp is [email protected]*king ludacris. I Think its time to wrap it up


----------



## Any Season (Nov 19, 2007)

*wetwash*

there is both federal and state


----------



## Susan Betz (Feb 21, 2007)

Any Season said:


> So everything is legit though, even in that my employees would not know the difference? What you are explaining seems kind of like when I ran a college pro franchise in school and they were my employees, but I paid everything to College Pro and they cut the checks so payroll didn't even go through my account. Also, if I am on payroll for like a couple hundred a week I am covered legitimately because I am hiring myself...So the me that it on jobsites is the one that works for the leasing company??


Yep, that's about it.


----------



## Putty Truck (Oct 6, 2007)

Any Season said:


> there is both federal and state


Got a link to the federal part? I haven't heard anything.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm a SP, one man show. Now the builders in my area that sub to me are requiring me to carry WC on myself, otherwise they have to carry it for me.


----------



## Bone Saw (Feb 13, 2006)

tnt specialty said:


> Is this a federal law? If so....It's just what the industry needs! I've been writing and suggesting that very thing for many years!
> 
> It will definitely separate the men from the boys....Us legit guys will have a better chance at competing price-wise now.


this is prolly the single biggest steaming pile of assuming BS ive ever read in this forum


----------



## Vinny (Jul 21, 2007)

Anyseason, I hope like heck your wrong on this. I have a very good Insurance agent and he hasnt said a word about this. 

If there is such a law I hope its written in such a way that there is a cap on it like GL ins. On GL as an owner / corp officer you are capped at $15,000 of your payroll so the hit is minimal.

If its a hit on the toatl pay you take or profits I will do everything possible to avoid paying such a cost. Insurance companies are a State endorsed Mafia. They are crooks and should be regarded as such. Thier power is comparable to the IRS. 

I often hear how when someone mis reports or under reports employee payroll is the reason your rates are so high. What a crock of F n shi%. The reason you rates are so high is becuse insurance companies have laws protecting thier right to profit and insurance company CEO,s are greedy pices of . 

If everyone paid 100% of excatly what they owed today, rates wouldnt drop 1 cent and any one who would believe the contrary is either delusional or an ostrich with thier head buried in thier a$$.


----------



## Susan Betz (Feb 21, 2007)

Ahren said:


> I'm a SP, one man show. Now the builders in my area that sub to me are requiring me to carry WC on myself, otherwise they have to carry it for me.


You're the kind of businessman who would get hit the hardest by this bs. Most leasing companies have a minimum payroll they'll work with. If you don't qualify, you're at the mercy of the insurance companies.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

Susan Betz said:


> You're the kind of businessman who would get hit the hardest by this bs. Most leasing companies have a minimum payroll they'll work with. If you don't qualify, you're at the mercy of the insurance companies.


Absolutely. In an effort to keep my overhead as low as possible to try to compete with all the hacks and lowballers around me, I've elected thus far not to carry WC on myself. Sure, this measure is going to eventually weed some of these people out, but in the meantime, in light of the housing and credit mess that's going on, it's going to make it that much harder.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

Bone Saw said:


> this is prolly the single biggest steaming pile of assuming BS ive ever read in this forum


 
BTW, right on, bro. I'll second that emotion.:thumbsup:


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

I'd like a link this new law, if not shut up and stop all this hysteria.
Worker's Comp is at the state level not federal.
Show us what the hell your are talking about.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

It's not simple hysteria. I'm going to have to read into senate bill 92. All I know is that the builders that I subcontract from are now requiring me to carry WC on myself. They tell me that because I work on their houses, and they supply materials, I am now considered an employee under the new law. They don't want to have to carry WC on me (understandably), so I have to now carry it on myself.


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

I agree Mike.....

I cannot locate any such Fed. law/bills.....

I wonder if thise state law actually requires WC on the biz. owner? That would be odd. 

To clear up a few things;

WC is a cost of doing business....(unless you cheat)

Typically when you utilize an "employee leasing co.", your own experience mod. follows you or is established.
By utilizing a leasing co. you typically don't get to participate in any of the rebate programs that you would, had you been the policy holder.
The leasing co. avenue is good for those that don't have adequate capital to sustain their own payroll labor burden.

We have a severe problem here in Colorado of contractors missrepresenting employees as subcontractors in their attempts to circumvent paying appropriate labor burdens, such as WC, and the applicable fed & state taxes. By labeling their employees as "subs" this also affords the wide-spread use of illegal immigrant labor, wich is rampant here.

The two laws that are popping up around the country would serve us all better;
One is the requirement of any and all contractors to carry WC ins; Employees or not.
The other is to enforce existing employment laws considering employee/independent contractor relationship determinations. Typically, courts have found that to be an independent contractor, the independent contractor must offer and perform an independent trade/proffession than that of the employer. IOW; A roofing company cannot "sub" roofing.
It only makes logical sense


----------



## Giftcard (Dec 28, 2006)

http://www.winnipesaukee.com/forums/showthread.php?t=5317 

Don't no if I can post this link if not please remove Thanks.


----------



## silvertree (Jul 22, 2007)

I'm following this post and want to see what comes up, but right now I carry a work comp policy but don't pay on myself. I pay $1000 to have it and it's more or less a no interest loan to my Insurance company. Recently I paid an architect $1500 and I paid about $35 WC on her, I will 1099 her when I do taxes. I file monthly so whatever I pay for labor I just send in a check at the requested rate. My insurer,(not agent) is Auto Owners Insurance. This is through my NHBA membership.


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

I was received my yearly visit from my insurance co,auditor and no mention of this was made.
I wasn't even asked if I had been a sub on any of my projects.

Ahren,
Do you just pay WC on the jobs where you work as a sub?



Years ago ,when I looked into WC for myself,the policy would have been $5ooo/yr with a max compensation of $20,000/yr.
Didn't seem worth it.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

Ahren said:


> It's not simple hysteria. I'm going to have to read into senate bill 92. All I know is that the builders that I subcontract from are now requiring me to carry WC on myself. They tell me that because I work on their houses, and they supply materials, I am now considered an employee under the new law. They don't want to have to carry WC on me (understandably), so I have to now carry it on myself.


that's just a state thing. i am a builder and at the end of the year, i get audited for insurance, WC and GL when WC asks for a list of all the subs i paid, i have to break down labor and material. well not all my subs do that for me, they just send me an invoice with one bill. well about two months ago, my auditor called me up and said that three of my subs didn't have work comp insurance and i had to pay for it. so my policy i had to help cover guys that didn't have it, isnt even enough to pay these subs WC.
so im stuck paying several thousand dollars. 
this is the reason why builders are requiring you to do it. 
i know the reason why you don't cover yourself as a one man show, because right now, after losing my guy last spring i 've worked alone all summer and fall so far. i couldnt' afford to cover myself. 

the insurance companies should give the one man show subs a break and not make them have work comp. because by law, so far, you dont need to cover yourself, yet they come back and wack the builders for it. 
it doesn't make sense, even if i get a sub to sign a waiver prior to starting any work for me, because he's a one man show, it doesnt matter. i still get hit by it. 
i'm going to have to start limiting who i use for subs because of this. it's not about the federal law or state law. it's the GD insurance companies trying to get more money out of everyone.
i had to go back to these three subs and ask them that they send me brand new invoices for every job they did for me, breaking down their labor and material. that way I pay a lot less than if it was all labor.

i see both sides of the story. so i feel for ya. 
the one man or two man shows shouldn't have to cover the owner on a WC policy. there are a lot of one man contractors out there. and this will cause a lot of people to start lying in order to stay in business. we can only be taxed so much. i see this just like a tax.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

tnt specialty said:


> The two laws that are popping up around the country would serve us all better; One is the requirement of any and all contractors to carry WC ins; Employees or not.


first of all, if you are a one man show without employees, why should you be forced to cover yourself, that is more than most guys can handle. also, just because a builder hires someone and pays them like a sub, as long as that person can show they have a legit business themselves and they pay their TAXES, what difference does it make? I had a guy that worked for me almost every single day, yet he was a one many show carpenter and had all the GL insurance and paid his taxes on his own. if the contractor is using illegal workers without tem being legit subs, then i see your point in your state. insurance companies need to come out with WAIVERS for subs who are one man shows to sign when working on a jobsite, so that they won't be hit for that guys WC at the end of the year.


----------



## send_it_all (Apr 10, 2007)

ApgarNJ said:


> but for guys who have a small crew and don't want to have themselves on the policy because they make a lot as the owner, it's not really right. its no about separating the men from the boys. i have wc on employees but was never made to have it on myself. i give away enough of my income as the owner. another 14% is beyond crazy. i already charge enough.
> 
> just because the owner doesn't have WC for himself, doesn't mean he's not LEGIT he still has it on his employees. that's what matters. for guys with no employees, it's crazy to make him pay WC on his whole salary.


Then maybe it is time to incorporate and pay yourself a somewhat meager paycheck like I do. Then come up with an owner's salary and call it overhead. That would be a way to ease the pain of paying for your w/c. you would be paying 14% of your paycheck...not 14% of everything you make. You could make up for it by paying your house and truck payments out of the company. You could probably justify the house payment easily enough if your office is at home like a lot of us....Just a thought.


----------



## Chris Johnson (Apr 19, 2007)

Ontario (When I lived there) had it's WC program run by the Province (State), when I was a one man show all builders required a clearance certificate prior to me being paid the last 10% of my invoice. I did not have coverage for myself but as an independant contractor (Same as the IRS rules in the US) I could obtain a clearance certificate and get paid. Perhaps something along those lines is needed here to stop people like ApgarNJ having to pay for legit subs.

Just a thought


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

The laws I've run across don't require the owner's or one-man show's to buy WC for themselves...In fact, most won't allow you to!

The law mandates that every contractor have a policy...The minimum policy premium is typically $ 750.00/year or less for Pete's sake! If you have no payroll/employees; You pay no premium. It's a very small price to pay to keep all honest.


----------



## Chris Johnson (Apr 19, 2007)

send_it_all said:


> You could probably justify the house payment easily enough if your office is at home like a lot of us....Just a thought.


 
That's the one you don't want to play with, all of a sudden the house is actually owned by the corporation and becomes an asset. Get sued and your house is on the line. Sell the house and you don't get the capitol gains exemption. You have to keep all personal and business completely seperate.

You're thought process is good however, pay yourself a meager salary to minimize your income and therefore less WC, pay yourself a bonus which is not subject to WC.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

We also have a problem here in CT of people misrepresenting employees as subs. I completely understand why builders are requiring me to carry WC under the current laws. If I were a builder, I'd do the same thing. I whole- heartedly agree that steps need to be taken to get rid of these people that don't do it the right way. They are nothing but a hinderance that give us all a bad reputation, and prevent us from making the money that we deserve.

However, as a SP, the decision (stupid or not) to carry WC on myself should be mine alone to make.

I don't now, nor have I ever, tried to cheat anyone. Not my customers, not the government, no one. Everything I do, I do the right way. I never cut corners to try to save a buck. I am 100% honest with my taxes. I carry plenty of liability insurance. I keep my license current. I make a conscious effort to keep my overhead down so that I can bring the best value to my customers that I possibly can. I'm simply an honest guy, trying to earn an honest buck. Having to carry WC on myself is an expensive, unnecessry overhead cost that is going to force me to raise my prices for no good reason. It's just one more thing to add to the already hurting economy.

And what's worse is it's not going to get rid of the hacks. In CT, you don't need to do squat to get your license as a Home Improvement Contractor. All you have to do is fill out a form and send a check for $160. You don't have to take any classes, take any tests, or in any way prove that you have any experience whatsoever. I know people who GC their own houses, and get their license just so they can get contractor price breaks on materials. This is the issue that my state seriously needs to focus on, in addition to making sure that people who are actually supposed to carry WC do so.


----------



## Mike Finley (Apr 28, 2004)

This :



Ahren said:


> All I know is that the builders that I subcontract from are now requiring me to carry WC on myself. They tell me that because I work on their houses, and they supply materials, I am now considered an employee under the new law. They don't want to have to carry WC on me (understandably), so I have to now carry it on myself.


and your original post of: 



Any Season said:


> Hope basically if you are anything but a sole proprietor, you are no longer exempt from workman's comp. That means anyone who operates an LLC and excludes themselves or up to three member officers from comp can no longer do this. Even worse, they are trying to base it on income. This effects *everyone* though, so if you are the one-man-show, that also includes you unless you are a SP.


Are very, very different things. 

I'm sorry if CT where you reside is doing this to you, but it's the east coast, you get used to getting bent over out there don't you? :laughing:

Seriously, give your WC carrier a call on Monday and find out what the real deal is and post back here and clear all this up. Hopefully it turns out it's not as bad as you think it is for you. :thumbsup:


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

*And what's worse is it's not going to get rid of the hacks. In CT, you don't need to do squat to get your license as a Home Improvement Contractor. All you have to do is fill out a form and send a check for $160.* You don't have to take any classes, take any tests, or in any way prove that you have any experience whatsoever. I know people who GC their own houses, and get their license just so they can get contractor price breaks on materials. This is the issue that my state seriously needs to focus on, in addition to making sure that people who are actually supposed to carry WC do so.

Actually,that is just the renewal cost now.
First time appliers have to come up with between $600-$700.All these monies go into a fund to help HO's that have problems with contractors.
Only if the HO hired a licensed contractor.
So it helps stifle the urge of HO's to hire the unlicensed.

But,
Yes,it is still to easy to obtain a license to work in this state.
Next step,logically ,would to provide proof of WC before renewal.
After all ,aren't we still the Insurance Capital of the world?
It's only going to be a matter of time.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

Mike Finley said:


> This :
> 
> 
> 
> ...


To clear things up: AHREN and ANY SEASON are two different people.


----------



## Bone Saw (Feb 13, 2006)

tnt specialty said:


> To clear up a few things;
> 
> WC is a cost of doing business


*IF* you have employees.




tnt specialty said:


> ....(unless you cheat)


why does not having employees automatically mean misclassifying around here. Some people actually operate solo







tnt specialty said:


> The two laws that are popping up around the country would serve us all better;
> One is the requirement of any and all contractors to carry WC ins; Employees or not.


this is the most idiotic pile of garbage I've ever heard, 
making an entity with no employees pay wc would be like making everyone pay into a child support and alimony fund married or not kids or not.


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

send_it_all said:


> Then maybe it is time to incorporate and pay yourself a somewhat meager paycheck like I do. Then come up with an owner's salary and call it overhead. That would be a way to ease the pain of paying for your w/c. you would be paying 14% of your paycheck...not 14% of everything you make. You could make up for it by paying your house and truck payments out of the company. You could probably justify the house payment easily enough if your office is at home like a lot of us....Just a thought.


i've thought about this, but I like the LLC thing, one tax return to file, and just simpler. a bunch of my friends who are INCed are complaining now that some major change in the fed corp tax is killing them, and they are now forming LLCs. 

i have a min policy and it's 10,000 worth of salary for anyone i might hire. if/when I find someone that is reliable enough to put on payroll, then i bump that up and they are making me money, so i don't mind paying the WC high policy. i've had employees in the past but had such bad luck with finding someone good, i started just using a solo sub carpenter to work with me, and pay him in full he has a business, GL insurance, a legit bus. this works for me. i would rather have a few employees but putting ads int he paper just gets me morons who say they know construction, but really don't.
part of me likes having no employees and part of me wants to have several working for me, with a second truck/crew someday to make even more money. 

TNT, the min policy is not what we are complaining about. it's if they force us owners to cover all of our income with a policy and it costs us 15-25k a year in a policy. that's crazy. 
i pay like 1800 a year for my policy. it covers me for like i said before, subs that stiff me with no work comp. it usually covers that. some years when i showed them that all my subs have WC, i actually got money back those years.

i agree that most guys, solo or not, should have a minimum policy like i have just to show they have it on a cert of insurance for builders. 

having it on my salary is something i never want to do. i would rather take that 14% or so of my salary and invest it. than to give it to some insurance company.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

Bone Saw said:


> this is the most idiotic pile of garbage I've ever heard,
> making an entity with no employees pay wc would be like making everyone pay into a child support and alimony fund married or not kids or not.


 
Absolutley right. This is nothing short of yet another example of State-sponsored extortion by the insurance companies. Now, every time I get a boo-boo, I'm putting in a claim. Might as well get something for my money.


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

Bone Saw & Ahren;

If you had no employees....you wouldn't pay any premiums!!!!!

Where does it say otherrwise? Most WC ins. co.s won't allow the owner to buy WC inc. on him/herself!

I'm not talking about owners having to cover themselves...never heard of that and don't know if it's possible.

What I'm talking about is elliminating a major employer fraud practice of missrepresenting employees's as subs. That's it.

If your honest and ethical, it wouldn't affect you in the least...If fact, it would help the industry as a whole.


----------



## Bone Saw (Feb 13, 2006)

tnt specialty said:


> Bone Saw & Ahren;
> 
> If you had no employees....you wouldn't pay any premiums!!!!!
> 
> ...


couldn't agree any more with this statement, however it is contradictory to what you previously stated, and has nothing to do with op's statement. :blink:


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

You are not listening to what I am saying. 

*I am a sole proprietor with no employees. All of the builders that I subcontract from just told me, this week, that I now have to, by law, pay for a Workers Compensation policy for myself, because if I don't, then they, by law, as the builders, have to cover me, because the new law, which is a law, states that I am now technically considered an employee of the builders.*

*I also agree, 100%, that companies who have employees should be required by law to have to pay WC for those employees. I know many other companies who try to skirt the issue by claiming that their employees are "sub-contractors". I feel that the practice is wrong. *


----------



## ApgarNJ (Apr 16, 2006)

only if the SUB that they hire isn't really a real company and they say they are.
why can't i hire some solo carpenter to do some work for me and pay him like a sub, he's paying his own taxes, insurance etc. he's legit. i'm not saying i don't want employees but you get a lot more work done when you just pay someone with more experience. as long as the dont work every single day for you, i believe it's for 9 months straight, they aren't considered an employee. there are some carpenters around here that work for other customer home builders and that one builder may keep that one carpenter busy for the entire year. yet this one carpenter has his legit business setup. he sometimes does other jobs for other clients, but mostly for the one builder. why should he be on the builders books as an employee? i see nothing illegal about that. all the right taxes are being paid and insurance. 
what's the beef. i wish there were more qualified people out there to hire for an employee, i could take on even more work than I am now. the fact is, there is no real good place to turn to, to find good people. they are all punk kids for the most part who got everything given to them by their rich parents and so they dont' care about anything but the paycheck at the end of the week, and they never show up on time.


----------



## KillerToiletSpider (May 27, 2007)

ApgarNJ said:


> only if the SUB that they hire isn't really a real company and they say they are.
> why can't i hire some solo carpenter to do some work for me and pay him like a sub, he's paying his own taxes, insurance etc. he's legit. i'm not saying i don't want employees but you get a lot more work done when you just pay someone with more experience. as long as the dont work every single day for you, i believe it's for 9 months straight, they aren't considered an employee. there are some carpenters around here that work for other customer home builders and that one builder may keep that one carpenter busy for the entire year. yet this one carpenter has his legit business setup. he sometimes does other jobs for other clients, but mostly for the one builder. why should he be on the builders books as an employee? i see nothing illegal about that. all the right taxes are being paid and insurance.
> what's the beef. i wish there were more qualified people out there to hire for an employee, i could take on even more work than I am now. the fact is, there is no real good place to turn to, to find good people. they are all punk kids for the most part who got everything given to them by their rich parents and so they dont' care about anything but the paycheck at the end of the week, and they never show up on time.


Going union would end your labor search problem.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

ApgarNJ said:


> only if the SUB that they hire isn't really a real company and they say they are.
> .


Are you implying that I'm not a legit. company? Because according to the DCP, my insurance company, and the IRS, I am. Only about 20% of my work comes from builders. The rest I sell on my own. When I obtain building permits, I also have to prove that I am a legit. company. I satisfy all requirements at the local, state, and federal levels.


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

okay...One more time, then I'm done.....

You wouldn't pay WC ins. on yourself as a sole prop. or any other owner position, unless your an employee of a corp. But you would need to HAVE a policy. There's typically a very minimal policy fee involved, (no premiums); Typically $ 500 - $ 750 for the year. If you have no employees/payroll, you have no premium. That is not a catastophic financial burden by any stretch. That's a very inexpensive way to help cleanse our industry of alot of scumbags.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

I agree. Enough of this. I haven't had an oppurtunity to call my agent yet to get all the specific details, seeing as I'm just recently learning this. With the weather tommorow, I'll be able to find out. I will make it a point to post the results.

edit: I just can't resist the compulsion. Even if it is just a minimal amount, I still can't grasp how being forced to take 5-$700 and basically throw it in the garbage is going to help me eliminate any of my scumbag competition. They can easily do the same. The bigger issue at hand are the non-existant licensure requirements in my state.


----------



## daArch (Jun 8, 2007)

QUICKLY I WRITE:

1st, this thread is too long now to glean all the OPINIONS !

2nd, WC has ALWAYS been a state by state thing.

3rd, The WW (Wonderful Wendy, my wife) works WC for One Beacon, I'll ask her for the definitive FACTS if this is/will be a Federal thing

4th, one comment I saw quickly that I want to debunk. In Mass since circa 2003, independant sole proprieters have been ALLOWED (although not mandated) to carry WC on thenselves.

Again, many rumors being dispersed here (I'm the master of rumors, so I can spot them quickly). I will ask the WW and get back to you.


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

Let me lay-it-out.....

By requiring all to have a POLICY, everyone is subject to audit. The current status, in alot of states, is that the owner/company "op's out" of WC, because they claim to have no employees, which leaves the company with no WC policy.

The small owner/company, (or big, for that matter), is free to go about skirting employer responsibilities, such as paying appropriate labor burdens, (the big one being WC), and continue missrepresenting employees as independent subcontractors.

And yes, in my experience, in states such as Calif. that does have a viable contractor license program, this is a non-issue, however, even Calif. has recently adopted a manditory WC policy requirment for roofing contractors, (why only roofing, I can't understand).

Here in Colorado, we desperately need a manditory WC law, directly due to the fact the practice of missrepresting employees as independent contracors has gone beyond embarrasment to the construction industry. There are just about zero employees in the residential construction industry here. Ad to that, the lack of state contractor licesning; It's a real mess.

Mass. gov't. sounds like it has good intentions, just a bit confused. Nothing a bit of tweaking couldn't correct.

Yes, in my experience, WC is addressed at the state level.....Not sure of Federal responsibilities, other than U.S. Dept, Of Labor laws, which of course involve employer responsibilities to/for employees.

Most all the WC carriers we've had over the years would not cover a sole prop./owner, unless an employee of the corp., other than employer liability. I say most, because I would have no desire to ask.

If you truly work by yourself and/or have no employees, what's the problem with the few hundred dollar WC policy fee? If everyone has to pay it, then it's just a cost of doing business. As it is now, the jacklegs/uncprupolous/unethical have an advantage over us legit outfits.


----------



## Ahren (Nov 20, 2007)

I'm still waiting for a call back from my agent.

TNT,

I completely understand what you are saying. I am on your side here. My state is so progreesive in other areas, yet so far behind when it comes to contractors. We are definitely in desperate need of some reforms. I am constantly losing work to low-balling jackasses. The new laws are indeed well intentioned, but just worded a little wrong. They forgot about little old me. It's not even about the money, I can afford it. It's just the fact that I'm forced to give up ten tanks of gas for no legitimate reason, that's what irks me a little bit. And although it's a good step, I just don't feel that they are getting to the core of the problem.

I don't know, maybe I should look at it a different way. Maybe I should look at it as paying a "let's try to start getting rid of the jackass" tax. If they can eventually get it right, it would be money well spent.


----------



## oldfrt (Oct 10, 2007)

*If you truly work by yourself and/or have no employees, what's the problem with the few hundred dollar WC policy fee? If everyone has to pay it, then it's just a cost of doing business. As it is now, the jacklegs/uncprupolous/unethical have an advantage over us legit outfits.
* 

What's to keep the jacklegs etc.,from buying a token WC policy and just have other jacklegs etc., calling employees independent contractors

The small amount of a few hundred dollars won't stop what you are hoping it will,but the insurance companies would love it!


----------



## tnt specialty (Apr 19, 2007)

Oldfrt; That "token" WC policy is auditable......(is that a word?)...

If at some point along this WC policy path a contractor has hired a contractor w/o a WC policy....the last policy holder pays. That's why it's so important to get WC certs from all your subcontractors.

It's simple/straight-forward, and WORKS!

BTW; It most-likely cost the insurance co.s far more than a few hundred bucks a year to maintain a non-premium producing policy. However, in the long-run, they reap millions in otherwise lost revenue.


----------



## RCPainting (Jan 29, 2006)

I agree with tnt, in Utah, having a WC policy, (among a lot of other stuff) is required to get your license. Unlicensed guys don't last long around here. 
From the Utah WCF site
"Who is an "employee"?
For workers' compensation purposes, an "employee" is anyone, including a contractor, subcontractor or contractor laborer, who works for an employer in providing the goods or services of a business.
For premium calculation purposes, employers may exclude from their payroll base any subcontractor or contract laborer for whom they have obtained a valid certificate of workers' compensation insurance.
The requirement to report uninsured subcontractors includes sole proprietors and partners who do not have employees of their own. These sole proprietors may purchase a workers' compensation policy of their own, thus enabling them to provide evidence of valid coverage. Sole proprietors who have no employees and who do not wish to cover themselves may purchase a three-year exclusionary, or waiver, policy for $50."


----------

