for Angelo
>
> What happens if said "subcontractor" goes out on a site and gets hurt?
The subcontractor's worker's comp policy pays.
>
> What happens if said "subcontractor" makes an error?
the same thing that happens when your employee makes a mistake.
>
> What happens when the "subcontractor" doesn't declare his income and gets caught?
The IRS goes after him since the subcontractor since is the one violating the law. As long as you have issued the 1099's, you are off the hook with the IRS
>
> Whose insurance will cover such eventualities?
In either case, Your professional liability insurance will pay since you are the licensed individual and the employee (or Sub) is NOT.
As stated before, I do the same shoddy work whether I am an employee or a subcontractor
Can Surveyors Legally "Subcontract"? JB clearcut
> JB: The IRS and the BOR are unrelated agencies.
Agreed, that was the point of my 9:19 post regarding apples and cumquats.
>However, one of them may use evidence obtained from the other party. For example, a party chief fills out an application for a PLS license. His boss, knowing the party chief will undercut him, denies the party chief's experience to the BOR. The party chief sends a copy of the IRS 1099 form he received from his boss.
Agreed, therefore, the boss should be a lying jerk attempting to unethically restricting free trade. He should also make certain that, when he mentors his employees (or subcontractors), that he educates them in the importance of valuing themselves and their service.
JBS
missed points
>
> Now with your guidance,I see that I can hire this unlicensed person as an independent contractor, give them a robot and gps and send them off to do some of my field work.
>
> You would be violating IRS laws. When I subcontract, I use my own equipment. (one of the requirements of subcontracting)
>
>
> This is great, I no longer have to pay overtime even though one of the jobs requires onsite construction staking 6 days a week, 14 hours a day. Wow, what a savings.
>
> As stated before, My subcontracting rate is about double my hourly rate as an employee. (I handle my own vacations)
>
>
> And no more unemployement insurance costs. Wow, fantastic. Especially since I've never heard of a disgruntled subcontractor filing an unemployment claim against a contractor. I mean, there's no way the unemployment people would investigate and find that I've circumvented their laws, right? 'Cause you see, I've got a contract with the guy, makes him a subcontractor not an employee, right?
>
> When subcontracting, I am subject to %15.5 self-employment tax. I also provide my own liability insurance and workers comp.
>
> And just for the record, I have never received any sick time, vacation pay, paid holidays or collected any unemployment income in the 21 years I have worked in the surveying field.
Cool, I don't even have to supply the equipment. But wait, the guy I want to hire, oops, I mean subcontract doesn't have any equipment. Hey, I know, I'll rent him some. There I go. Always a work around. And Jud says I can't think outside the box.
As to the rest of your points, no arguement here. They go right along with exactly what I'm saying. In that, the compensation package is whatever is in the subcontract we set up. The guy needs work, he'll sign.
Sarcasm off:
These laws are in place to protect the worker. They are in place to prevent unscrupulous employers from abusing their workers by claiming "contractural relationship" that really doesn't exist.
missed points
No there not, those things are there to protect special interests and nothing else. Right to work is becoming a huge problem for a lot of our population and the continuing of freedom in this country. Protectionism always expresses high reasoning and never allow the self serving truth to come out, if it does, they make a lot of noise. Like crying wolf, that noise soon gets tiresome and few listen unless forced to and that is the intent all along.
jud
survey services
I'm curious as to how one can maintain a business which offers surveying services in your state without a license being in the firms makeup.
I don't believe maintaining an office offering surveying services is dependent upon whether your client holds a license or not.
I was a contract drafter for a while, my work was supervised the same way it was when I was an employee. I have never seen a licensed surveyor stand over the shoulder of a drafter. They review the work as it is completed, make revisions, and give instruction on how it should be done.
You said it well, CC:
The real harm is that the public is getting work done by persons who don't know what they are doing.
- - - - -
Why do some people prefer to take their vehicle to the small mom & pop shop down the road instead of the going to the big dealership with many bays and a fleet of mechanics?
missed points
> No there not, those things are there to protect special interests and nothing else. Right to work is becoming a huge problem for a lot of our population and the continuing of freedom in this country. Protectionism always expresses high reasoning and never allow the self serving truth to come out, if it does, they make a lot of noise. Like crying wolf, that noise soon gets tiresome and few listen unless forced to and that is the intent all along.
> jud
that's utter nonesense. "Protectionism always expresses high reasoning." That is an arguement of the ignorant.
And just who is the special interest? The worker's who are protected from employer abuse?
As cumbersome and costly as worker's protection laws are, there is a great deal of benefit in them.
JBS,
I guess I misunderstood the Georges post, I thought he was comparing a unlicensed subcontractor who was not supervised, with a employee (green dude) for an LS who was supervised. The Georges post never said the subcontractor was subordinate to a LS's supervision. I interpreted his post to presume the subcontractor was acting independently.
If both the subcontractor and green dude are working under similar supervision, then experience has it advantages.
Then again, the green dude might very well be a very sharp individual who is quick to figure higher level complexities. He may be understand better how to determine the location of a previously uncalculated point of curvature change.
Irregardless, I wouldn't be too quick to put experience before ability.
That doesn't mean that the surveyor must stand behind the draftsman and direct every movement of the pen. That doesn't mean the surveyor must follow the rodman around in the field and direct every shot. That doesn't mean the surveyor can't subcontract another firm to provide its employees to perform the work. It doesn't mean the surveyor must only use direct employees. Those two have no connection with the ultimate responsibility for direct supervision.
This contradicts what Lucas says. No, you don't have to stand over your employees, but the surveyor still needs to have control and instruct his crews on how the work is done. By the IRS rules, it sounds like a surveyor would not have the authority to tell a contract crew not to use RTK to locate improvements under an overpass ... once you make that statement, they're no longer a contract crew ...
clearcut
> I'm curious as to how one can maintain a business which offers surveying services in your state without a license being in the firms makeup.
>
> I don't believe maintaining an office offering surveying services is dependent upon whether your client holds a license or not.
>
>> http://www.nh.gov/jtboard/lslaw.htmbr >
While the subcontracting work I do often involves surveying, it does NOT involve land surveying.
And you you want to discuss this matter further, maybe you should come out from your cloak on anonymity and put your cards on the table.
Let us all dig around in your business practice and make insinuations about illegal activities.
> By the IRS rules, it sounds like a surveyor would not have the authority to tell a contract crew not to use RTK to locate improvements under an overpass ... once you make that statement, they're no longer a contract crew ...
I can't see how telling a contract crew NOT to use RTK is any different from telling a contract paining crew NOT to use oil-based paint on your job. Certainly the prime has the right to specify subcontractor methods without violating IRS rules.
Perry, quoting from the Lucas article (which apparently quotes the IRS): Behavioral control means “does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?”
It sounds like anything other than "I want this area surveyed to these standards" is telling the worker what to do, which apparently isn't allowed. The surveyor may assume that the contract crew would know not to use RTK under an overpass, and may reject the work if it doesn't appear to met the specs, but apparently giving basic instructions (instead of specs) would void a "contract worker" claim.
I don't think the painting analogy works because the painted surface is the "deliverable", the end product, and the contractor can control that. With surveying, the data is the deliverabl, not the methods, and the crew must be left to collect the data however they like, as long it meets specs. This is more like telling the painter to use a brush, not a roller, and use up-down strokes, not side to side ...
If the surveyor can't have some control over "how the worker does his or her job", then I don't think use of contract crews can satisfy a direct supervision requirement.
clearcut
Perry, I didn't mean it to come across as an attack. I was hoping you had a logical explanation on the distinction. I just noticed that your state law on business makeup is similar to mine and a unlicensed individual wouldn't be able to maintain a business which offers even just field surveying, much less general land surveying.
Anyways, I'm curious how the distinction is made between field surveying and land surveying in your state?
Here it isn't.
> Perry, quoting from the Lucas article (which apparently quotes the IRS): Behavioral control means “does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?”
> It sounds like anything other than "I want this area surveyed to these standards" is telling the worker what to do, which apparently isn't allowed. The surveyor may assume that the contract crew would know not to use RTK under an overpass, and may reject the work if it doesn't appear to met the specs, but apparently giving basic instructions (instead of specs) would void a "contract worker" claim.
> If the surveyor can't have some control over "how the worker does his or her job", then I don't think use of contract crews can satisfy a direct supervision requirement.
Pseudo, you're reading way too much into the words "what" and "how." We're talking about a contract with a scope of work (technician work, by the way). The work simply has to be described in the contract scope and the results must be performed in such a way as to be verifiable by the surveyor. It's up to the contractor to decide whether they want to use RTK, robotic, remote sensing, cloth tape, or swag. It's up to the surveyor to select their crew (contractor, employee) and to verify the work they're performing.
You do that with your crews already, don't you? Therein lies the real problem in our profession. The surveyor isn't involved enough in the project to even give instructions to the crew.
I keep it simple by subcontracting a licensed surveyor.
JBS
> JBS,
> .....I interpreted his post to presume the subcontractor was acting independently.
>
> If both the subcontractor and green dude are working under similar supervision, then experience has it advantages.
clearcut,
Maybe I don't understand here. The subcontractor isn't the primary contractor with the owner, I assume the licensed surveyor is hired to do the work and he has a direct contract with the subcontractor of his choosing. If their contract is with the pls, then they have to work under his direct supervision don't they?
Are you referring to a realtor or a construction contractor subcontracting to an independent nonlicensed sureyor and the licensed surveyor being kind of a third party who has to stamp the survey?
Also, just a personal opinion, but I think 'regardless' is a much nicer-looking word than 'irregardless' (and 'irregardless' can imply a double-negative as in "not regardless".
JBS,
I am curious, in regards to the licensed subcontractor you use, do you control only the results, or do you also obtain the means and methods of accomplishing the results?
If only controlling the results, wouldn't that be paramount to brokering services? By that I mean if one isn't overseeing the means and methods, then where is the responsible oversight?
>
> You do that with your crews already, don't you? Therein lies the real problem in our profession. The surveyor isn't involved enough in the project to even give instructions to the crew.
>
> I keep it simple by subcontracting a licensed surveyor.
>
> JBS
In my mind, there is a big difference between crews I hire, and contract labor. When I hire a crew, i'm allowed to tell them how to do a job from start to finish and I Can be sure they are using equipment that I know to be in good calibration, and further an hourly employee might not be tempted to cut corners in the same way a crew working on a flat rate per job basis might.
But, it's not just me, Lucas appears to have same take, that is a stretch to say you have direct supervision of a contract crew that meets IRS regulation. Maybe it's possible, but imagine the field day a lawyer could have questioning a surveyor on this subject. The surveyor is stuck scrambling to claim direct supervision without claiming he had control over the way the work is completed? Not a position I'd like to be in.
> JBS,
>
> I am curious, in regards to the licensed subcontractor you use, do you control only the results, or do you also obtain the means and methods of accomplishing the results?
>
> If only controlling the results, wouldn't that be paramount to brokering services? By that I mean if one isn't overseeing the means and methods, then where is the responsible oversight?
Thought that might get your attention. I am in direct supervision of the work. I do the research, I do the control, I do the reconnaissance. I then subcontract the field work. I provide the preliminary calcs, the control, and the contractor provides the technical field data. He locates what I need in a manner that meets the standards, just like any field crew would do. He provides me with the data, and will provide a site plan. I then take the data, review it, check it, and incorporate it in my final analysis. I prepare the final drawing and certify it. I most often will provide the final corner positions and the caps, and have the contractor set the monuments.
The contractor can choose what equipment he wants to use, when he does the work, and what techniques to employ given his particular equipment of choice. I don't tell him when to do the work, or what process to use to do the work. I just tell him what the end product is that I expect. If I didn't trust their techniques and their ability to perform the necessary service, I wouldn't be contracting them.
I also contract with a local company who sets street monuments. I'll stake the monument position. They straddle it, drill the hole, set the monument to specs, and pour the collar. I'll return and stamp the cap. Is it ok if they're not licensed surveyors? Is it ok if they're not employees? Of course it is. That's nowhere akin to "brokering services."
Do you broker your equipment maintenance to a dealer? Do you oversee their work? Do you check their results? I certainly hope so. What about the title company most surveyors rely upon to do their research? What about the software company who performs your calculations? What about the drafting service that you send the red-lines to? To think that the surveyor somehow is the only one who must complete all phases of the work is absolutely ludicrous and is not the standard practice of any surveyor that I know.
Now that you've mentioned "brokers," what is so bad about brokers? They serve an absolutely essential part of commerce. The "broker" isn't in responsible charge of the survey. They're not, in fact, even surveying. They are providing a "brokerage" service which packages surveyors from all over the country to provide a one-stop service for their clients. Something most surveyors don't have the business sense to do themselves.
The only issue is whether the contractor is clearly responsible for their own employees and withholding, insurance, etc. They are. No problem. If they aren't, then there's a problem (if the threshold is exceeded). Don't most of your contracts require proof of insurance, etc.?
JBS
> In my mind, there is a big difference between crews I hire, and contract labor. When I hire a crew, i'm allowed to tell them how to do a job from start to finish and I Can be sure they are using equipment that I know to be in good calibration, and further an hourly employee might not be tempted to cut corners in the same way a crew working on a flat rate per job basis might.
Not to me. I'm not about to hire any joe contractor off the street to provide field work for me. I know the contractor I hire. I know their equipment, I know their technique, and most of all, I know their reputation. I don't have to micromanage the contractor. They know what they're doing, have been doing it for years, and have the proper equipment to do it. It's good business sense, not ignorance run amok.
> But, it's not just me, Lucas appears to have same take, that is a stretch to say you have direct supervision of a contract crew that meets IRS regulation. Maybe it's possible, but imagine the field day a lawyer could have questioning a surveyor on this subject. The surveyor is stuck scrambling to claim direct supervision without claiming he had control over the way the work is completed? Not a position I'd like to be in.
The IRS doesn't give a crap about my direct supervision. You're mixing apples and cumquats again. The IRS only cares that my contractor is following the appropriate labor laws and is properly withholding taxes from his employees. I'm only concerned with that fact and the fact that he's properly insured from the contracting sense.
As far as the board is concerned, did I provide direct supervision over the survey? I'll tell you that I provide more direct supervision than most surveyors including any surveyor who hasn't left their desk chair while directing 10 crews (or any number) without ever setting foot on the job site. I perform the survey work, I'm responsible for the survey work, and I certify the survey work. I also ensure that all aspects of the work performed meet the standards of practice. The board isn't going to be too concerned over my work unless it falls below the standard of practice.
JBS
