> >1) The company you work for sets you salary or gives you bonuses. (MS must
> >have been giving them bonuses) I can remember EDS at my last job tip-toeing
> >around this point.
> >2) I don't remember
> >3) I don't remember
> >
> >Well, I know there were three, but my mind is failing me, it's been a while,
> >I'll have to look for an article on this later.
> >
> >That's what it was though...
> >
> <snip>
>
> I recall that there are more than three criteria, at least from
> a federal tax perspective, and if memory serves me correctly,
> something like eleven. Individual states should be in
> "harmony", but may codify additions.
>
> It boils down to the definition of "statutory employee", which
> the the federal government is again reviewing. This is a bit
> of a research project on its own.
>
> Erick
Hmmm... I don't entirely doubt that there are more than three. I know that they
only needed three to convince the judge that they were as you said "statutory"
employees. It is quite a complex endeavor. But this is definitely the new subject
for labor in the future. Hopefully this type of employeement system doesn't become
commnon. It reminds me of the "sweaters" in the 20's (not that I was around, just
the same situation) Sweaters were basically the contractors of today.
+==============================================================+
Christopher Pall
Delphi Programmer & Western Michigan Student (CS)
ThinkBiz
Kalamazoo MI USA
email:X97PALL@WMICH.EDU Website:WWW.ILI.NET/~pallc
ICQ#:4287896
-----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE-----
iQA/AwUBNI6GTv2kTvlaW1HNEQKT7ACfRXgcLMt6EZadk17JhiV062PDeH4An0OK
NsjqICK0CU3Bu8YhD3pa45an
=8pOm
-----END PGP SIGNATURE-----
+==============================================================+