Responses

I need you to reply to post 1 and post 2 . Make sure you put which post for the both of them so I can know which one to attached it to.

Post 1

The distinction of employees and independent contractors for a company or business is important. The classification of someone who works in your business makes a difference in how the company pays them and how the individual will pay their taxes. Employees are paid as salaried or hourly, on commission, or a combination, and may be subject to overtime. Employees are taxed on their income (they receive a W-2 form showing their annual income), and the company or business must withhold federal and state income taxes and FICA taxes (Links to an external site.)(Social Security and Medicare) from them. The company or business must also make FICA tax payments (the balance small business).

If someone is working for a company or business as an independent contractor, (Links to an external site.)typically the organization doesn’t withhold federal or state income taxes from the amounts organization pays them. Also, the company or business is not required to make payments for FICA taxes. The independent contractor must pay their own income taxes (called self-employment taxes), along with income tax on earnings and the company or business will issue them a 1099 form for filing tax purpose (the balance small business).

How does this case parallel and differ from (Roadway, Dial-a-mattress, and St. Joseph News-Press) cases? Parallel – This case parallels with the Roadway, Dial-a-mattress, and St. Joseph cases in that all of the carriers were given contracts establishing the employment relationship, they were not given an application. The individuals were provided instruction as to when product should be picked up and delivered but the carries still maintained control of work and control on hiring additional help to assist with the completion of work if need be; provided space and limited supplies to assembled the product; established payment; established the responsibility and protocol of filing taxes; dictated the use of vehicles company or personal as it relates to sign usage and maintenance; and what if any company rules, discipline policies applied to them (i.e. the carrier). Differ– This case differs from the Dial-a-mattress case due scheduling. In the Dial-a-mattress case the trucks are scheduled for work and not the carrier. If the carrier is a no show, then the truck is reassigned to the next available carrier.
Which of the company’s argument for ‘independent contractor’ status is most compelling? I think that Dial-a-mattress argument for independent contractor is most compelling. Dial outlines in their contracts between owner-operators the responsibilities of the owner-operator/carrier as it relates to hiring their employees; they do not have access to the grievance procedure established for Dial employees; Dial doesn’t prevent the owner-operator from working elsewhere; Dial has no requirement regarding the equipment use because the carrier is responsible for their vehicle; Dial provides a check made payable to the owner-operator’s company and not the individual; Dial maintains a schedule of starting times ranging from 5 a.m. to 8 p.m. for the owner-operators’ truck; Dial does not maintain a list of the drivers and helpers used by the owner-operator; a review of the rules/personnel policies of Dial’s human resources department supports their positon of having no responsibility with respect to the owner-operators, their drivers or their helpers; relating to termination and suspensions Dial doesn’t have a progressive disciplinary system applicable to the owner-operator; as it relates to entrepreneurial activities the owner-operator are permitted to perform additional work, beyond their regular services for Dial and the owner-operator may use their trucks to cultivate business separate and apart from Dial’s operation (Dial v. Local 363, Industrial and Allied Trade Workers).
Which of the union’s arguments for “employee” status are most compelling? I would say that (7) Provision of tools, supplies, and a place to work and (9) Parties’ intent. The provision of tools states the employer provides supplies and a place of work. The employer furnishes computers; maintains distribution centers compete with route tables, cubby holes, and downloading facilities for the computers. The carrier must report to a distribution center to obtain newspapers. The parties’ intent implies an independent contractor-client agreement. The carriers have no choice in whether they are considered independent contractors or employees; rather, the employer simply labels them “contractors.” To say that this contract reflects the carriers’ intent is therefore dubious. Many of the carriers speak Spanish, but the contract is written in English. The contract is not negotiated by independent equals; it is simply the dictation of terms by one side and is not reflective of mutual interests (Holley, Wolters, and Ross 2017).
Is this simply a case of who wins “more” of the nine factors? Or are some factors inherently more important than others? If so, which ones in this case are more important? I don’t think this is a case of who wins “more” of the factors. I would argue the most important factor is the contract agreement entered into between the carriers and the company. When individuals sign a contract they are agreeing to the terms and conditions of that said contract. According to the text the carriers at the Clarion are independent contractors for the following reasons: they maintain great control over the details of how they complete their work. They are not subject to any sort of “progressive discipline system” for problems with deliveries. They are free to hire full-time substitutes, hold multiple routes, and deliver other papers in addition to those distributed by the employer and they can work as substitutes for other carriers. As carriers they own, control, and maintain their own vehicles. They buy supplies and are free to work anywhere. The parties’ “Contractor’s Agreement” clearly states the type of agreement that the carrier and newspaper are forming. Also, the carriers are not subject to employee pay and benefits, but are paid in the same manner as other outside vendors (Holley, Wolters, and Ross 2017).
If you were an Administrative Law Judge working for the NLRB, how would you rule in this case and why? If I were an Administrative Law Judge working for the NLRB as part of my ruling I would first establish if the parties were either an independent contractor or an employee. To establish this critical point, I would apply the common law “right of control”. In Spirides v. Reinhardt, the court held that if an employer has the right to control and direct the work of an individual, not only s to the result to be achieved, but also as to the details by which the result is achieved, and employer/employee relationship is likely to exist (Wisconsin.gov). Once the relationship is established then I would rule accordingly. In the case of the Independent Contractors? Or Employees? I would rule that the carriers are independent contractors.

References

Murray, J. (2019, November 27). Difference Between Independent Contractor and Employee Classifying Workers-Why it Matters. Retrieved January 11, 2020, from https://www.thebalancesmb.com/ (Links to an external site.).

Gould, Fox, Liebman, & Brame. (n.d.). AFL-CIO, Petitioner. Case 29-RC-8442.

Holley, W.H., Wolters, R.S., & Ross, W. (2017). The labor relations process. Boston, MA: Cengage Learning.

Civil Rights-Worker Classification. (n.d.). Retrieved January 11, 2020, from https://dwd.wisconsin.gov/ (Links to an external site.).

Post 2

How do the cases parallel-and differ from those cases?

The parallels of the cases are significant. All three cases center on drivers or carriers delivering products for a company under “independent contractor” status. In each of the cases the drivers either used their own vehicles or leased them. Additionally, none of these cases showed any significant training provided, outside of someone showing the recommended routes. All cases showed the drivers as having signed a contract for a set period of time. Also, drivers in all three cases were able to hire their own substitutes. Lastly, all drivers were able to determine for themselves how they go about doing the deliveries, at least, for the most part.

The St. Joseph News-Press and Dial-A-Mattress Operating System cases were, in my opinion, much closer in terms of parallels. The Roadway Package System differed from these two cases in a couple of significant ways. First, in the Roadway case, the drivers were controlled by Roadway to a much greater extent. The drivers were forced to wear uniforms and have the colors and logo of the company on their vehicles. Additionally, the type of vehicle used by the drivers was also required to meet specific criteria. Both of these speak to “control of work.” Furthermore, Roadway required that drivers make their vehicles available every weekday in order to meet the obligations of their contract. Again, this differs from the St. Joseph News-Press and Dial-A-Mattress Operating System cases, due to neither case showing drivers or carriers being required to have their vehicles available in order to meet the contract. This again speaks to the level of control that was being placed by Roadway on these drivers. Lastly, Roadway’s drivers were not allowed to have other means of employment while conducting business for Roadway. This is another glaring difference between the cases and continues to supplement the argument of control of work and greatly reduces the opportunity for a supposed “independent contractor” to meet their entrepreneurial potential.

Which of the company’s arguments are most compelling?

In my opinion, the St. Joseph New-Press case provided the most convincing argument for independent contractor status. The primary reason I believe this is because of the lack of control that the employer had on the driver or carriers’ ability to conduct the work. The drivers determined how and when the deliveries were made, they provided their own vehicles without specification, and they were responsible for finding a suitable substitute vehicle or driver. Additionally, the drivers were not held to any employee handbook or work rules overall. Lastly, the company prohibited the drivers from displaying the company’s insignia. All of these items served to reinforce my opinion that the drivers for St Joseph News-Press were independent contractors.

Which of the union’s arguments for “employee” status are most compelling?

Without question, I felt the Roadway case presented the most evidence of the drivers being employees. This is based on the facts of the level of control being dictated over how the deliveries were done, the use of uniforms and company logos on vehicles, and the requirement for vehicles to be made available at a specific day and time. All of these factors suggest control of work. In supplement, the fact that the drivers were not allowed to have additional deliveries for other customers indicates control of work, supervision, or being held to work rules, and reduction of ability for entrepreneurial potential. Again, each of these factors leads me to believe these drivers should be afforded employee status.

Is this simply a case of who wins “more” of the nine factors? Or are some factors inherently more important then others? If so, which ones in this case are more important?

I do not believe it is simply a case of who wins more of the nine factors. I do believe that some factors are more important then others. In my estimations, the elements of control of work, supervision, and entrepreneurial potential are the ones I found to be most compelling. In terms of the St. Joseph New-Press case, I felt the lack of control by the employer on how the drivers operated was what really sold me on their independent contractor status.

If I were an Administrative Law Judge working for the NLRB, how would you rule in this case and why?

As previously described, I would unquestionably rule in favor of the drivers being deemed independent contractors. The primary reasons for this, would be the lack of control by the employer on the how the deliveries were made, the lack of supervision or being subjected to work rules, and the fact that the tools being used primarily, their vehicles, were their own. Lastly, the flexibility that the drivers had to have other means of employment while fulfilling this contract suggests the driver’s entrepreneurial potential is not being impacted and further supplants their status as independent contractors.

References:

Roadway Package System, 326 NLRB 72 (1998). National Relations Labor Board Website. Retrieved from https://www.nlrb.gov/search/cases (Links to an external site.)

Dial-A-Mattress Operating Corp., 326 NLRB 884 (1998). National Relations Labor Board Website. Retrieved from https://www.nlrb.gov/search/cases (Links to an external site.)

Saint Joseph News-Press, 345 NLRB 31 (2005). National Relations Labor Website. Retrieved from https://www.nlrb.gov/search/cases (Links to an external site.)

Holley, W., Ross, W., Wolters, R. (2017). The Labor Relations Process. (11e). Boston: Centage Learning.

4 hours ago

REQUIREMENTS

Alabama A & M University

College Management

Answer preview…………………..

apa 436 words

Responses

Related Assignments