Talk:Independent contracting in the United States

	United States portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject United States, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of topics relating to the United States of America on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the ongoing discussions. Template Usage Articles Requested! Become a Member Project Talk Alerts United StatesWikipedia:WikiProject United StatesTemplate:WikiProject United StatesUnited States articles
???	This article has not yet received a rating on the project's importance scale.

Business Low‑importance

	Business portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Business, a collaborative effort to improve the coverage of business articles on Wikipedia. If you would like to participate, please visit the project page, where you can join the discussion and see a list of open tasks.BusinessWikipedia:WikiProject BusinessTemplate:WikiProject BusinessWikiProject Business articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Law Low‑importance

	Law portal This article is within the scope of WikiProject Law, an attempt at providing a comprehensive, standardised, pan-jurisdictional and up-to-date resource for the legal field and the subjects encompassed by it.LawWikipedia:WikiProject LawTemplate:WikiProject Lawlaw articles
Low	This article has been rated as Low-importance on the project's importance scale.

Title VII and Independent Contractors

Will you discuss how Title VII of the Civil Rights Act of 1964 does not apply to independent contractors? — Preceding unsigned comment added by 72.235.4.63 (talk) 02:43, 5 November 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Country-specific

This page should probably be renamed, or at least labeled, as US-specific. 85.156.230.157 (talk) 09:02, 5 April 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Reclassification of Interpreters/Translators as employees

This issue is becoming important as United State taxing authorities look for additional ways to increase revenues. By reclassifying workers as employees rather than idependent contractors, these same authorities burden the employer with the tax rather than the independent contractor, and thereby assures that the tax will be paid. This means that there will be one entity paying the tax, the employer, rather than the many independent contractors. Also, the employer will be burdened with the benefits paid to the other employees. The problem is that these costs will then be added to the overall cost of labor that is charged to the customer, and in some cases, like intepreters/translators, these costs will increase to the same agencies that want to make this change.Grapedad (talk) 13:43, 2 March 2009 (UTC)[reply]

Text regarding home working attributed to Department of Labor

The article specifically cites text on the subject of home working as belonging to the the Department of Labor, as if the DOL actually made the statement, by phrasing: "According to...", when in reality the text comes from a book, not authored by DOL. The text additionally contains a phrase not generally favored in Wikipedia: "Experience has shown". Who's experience? etc etc. I removed the text. The edit was reverted shortly thereafter. Not wishing to begin an edit war, my personal feeling is that the text should be removed or altered to make it clear that the DOL made no such statement on home working. I don't have an issue with raising the subject of home working in this context, but the statement as cited confuses the reader into thinking the DOL made it, and they did not. — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.182.1.135 (talk) 12:39, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Ah, I understand why you made that edit now. But how do you know that the DOL didn't make that statement, without checking the given book reference? For all we know somebody from the DOL could've been interviewed for the book. I didn't add the text and don't really mind if it's taken out, so I won't re-insert it until we get confirmation one way or the other. Graham87 13:53, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

Thanks Graham87. I guess the only way to know for sure is to look at the book, to see if a more direct DOL source can be found therein. Perhaps someone with a copy can more adequately source the text. In fact, this article relies quite heavily on that book as a source. Thanks for your edit help on the Tom Richards article btw :). — Preceding unsigned comment added by 192.182.1.135 (talk) 14:26, 16 February 2015 (UTC)[reply]

External links modified

Hello fellow Wikipedians,

I have just modified 3 external links on Independent contractor. Please take a moment to review my edit. If you have any questions, or need the bot to ignore the links, or the page altogether, please visit this simple FaQ for additional information. I made the following changes:

When you have finished reviewing my changes, you may follow the instructions on the template below to fix any issues with the URLs.

Y An editor has reviewed this edit and fixed any errors that were found.

If you have discovered URLs which were erroneously considered dead by the bot, you can report them with this tool.
If you found an error with any archives or the URLs themselves, you can fix them with this tool.

Cheers.—InternetArchiveBot (Report bug) 12:37, 15 December 2017 (UTC)[reply]

"Qualified independent contractor" listed at Redirects for discussion

An editor has identified a potential problem with the redirect Qualified independent contractor and has thus listed it for discussion. This discussion will occur at Wikipedia:Redirects for discussion/Log/2022 December 18 § Qualified independent contractor until a consensus is reached, and readers of this page are welcome to contribute to the discussion. Gingermead (talk) 11:10, 18 December 2022 (UTC)[reply]