Independent Employer Essay

An commutative press outile organ is the role player whose taxes are not withheld or paid by the employer.Joshua is an individual boil downor not an employee. Elements such as behavioral, financial and type of employment affinity will help us in determining who Joshua is. maiden, the Ark bark has no full control everywhere what Joshua does. This is evident from the point that he in time deals with the other dividing line enterprises as the sales person and even the VP of the family Fred Flood accepts the f achievement the Joshua makes his own decisions about his work in the guild. Schneir and pack (1999) view a person whose duties are not controlled by the comp any as an independent contractor.Dealing with the financial issue, we can vividly suppose that the business aspects of Joshuas job are not fully controlled by the Ark Bark. Though, there is a bit of confusion in this area because Ark Bark chipped in to foot the travel expenses, business cards among others. These are clean minor expenses. If he was an employee, he could reach not incurred the greater business expenses, instead the employer could. The type of employment affinity also confirms that Joshua is an independent contractor. First there is no written contract for the contract between the both parties.Broadhurst Emily holds that, even though one can enter into a contract with the employee even minus a written document, it is mandatory that the person be admitd with the staff handbook. Joshuas claim that he was politic winding up with the former companies was illogical for an employee. For one to be an employee, the contract between the employee and the employer is neer gradual. Therefore, the fact that he accepted the contract while still retention onto the other jobs indicates that he was an independent contractor, who is not under any arrangement of Ark Bark. What the company could do to make Joshua an independent contractor.If the company had an intention of making Joshua an independent contractor, they ought to have laid a die business contract for him. It was the duty of the company to keep to the employment be of 1963 (passed in 1972 Act). This Act defines employees must be given written evidence on the major(ip) issues related to terms of employment, this include the mode of payment. This could have saved the controversies erupting over with the $2,500 was a salary or commission The company could as hearty fill the form SS-8 (PDF) with IRS to be certain about the work stance of Joshua for the purposes of taxation.According to Barry and Jeffrey (1992), the form critically reviews the workers status based on the helping of employment. It was unnecessary for the company to provide other services like paid for printed stationery and business cards and travel expenses, when they intended to make him an independent contractor. Doing this creates some confusion since for an independent contractor the company should not provide any tool of operati on for the worker. This kind of confusion is tackled in Philip Inmans (1999) scheme regarding payment between contractors and the employers. Are there honest issues in the companys action?No, there are no ethical issues involved. The way the company is trying to treat the man is unethical, according George Richards (1999) opinion on business ethics, even if the contract was made orally, it was better for the business to provide a staff handbook or any other written material indicating the terms of employment. The company breached law of a fair employment contract. Actually, if the intention of the company was to have Joshua as an independent contractor, what was the need of terminating his services when he claimed that he was winding down his link up with the former companies?This is ethically unaccepted because it leads to harassment. According to Bowie, Norma (1999), business should not be accompanied with harassment. It is not very clear that why Joshua was terminated. But the pellucid reason is due to the poor descent between him and the company. Broadhurst Emily (2005) argues that such an act is unlawful since the law provides protection against unfair dismissal. Other than terminating his services, the company could have embarked on solving grievances at the work place as set forth by Broadhurst Emily. This could better their relationship instead.Is there room to alter the relationship? Yes there is room to make things different, but very limited. I tell apart very limited because, Joshua is already out of Ark Bark company. If he was still a worker in the company, the company could simply revise the relationship bit, translate the contract in writing and forward details to the IRS. This could give up whether Joshua is an independent contractor or not. At the same time, I ordain that there is limited room since there are no sanctioned issues preventing Joshua from re-applying to be an employer of the company. The success or failure of the re-unio n lies with the two parties.