False Self-Employment

[Zanthorus]

In two articles I've read today I've come across mentions of this phenomena.


Many [workers] are made to become ‘self-employed’, offered a contract for specified services but actually under direct control and supervision. They are employees in all but name but lack the rights, benefits and protections they would otherwise get.


...in Greece there is also the phenomenon of around 300,000 “false self-employed workers”. These are workers who have in reality been forced to set themselves up as self-employed. In reality they work for a boss who can freely assign the manner, the time, the place of work, and the working conditions and thus this form of working is essentially employment by a boss, but with the added advantage that he can sack them whenever he wants, as formally he is the workers’ “client”. Bosses prefer this method of employment because these workers are not treated legally as employees; they don’t have the same legal rights as the rest of the working class, such as monthly salaries, paid holidays, etc. Employers can fire them freely, even without any compensation. We must also add to the list the 200,000 “part-time” employees, most of whom work full-time but are being paid half-time.

Can anyone give me any more info on this, and how it affects workers and gives advantages to the capitalists?

[Sperm-Doll Setsuna]

I'm not so knowledgable on the subject as such; but in a similar vein, my father, who could be considered to be petit-bourgeois, owns his own mode of production - a small building with a room for painting cars and a car-oven for drying the colour; by all capitalist means he should be an independent business owner, but obviously this is ignoring the larger context. Instead, he has "clients", which is to say insurances by car-retailers that want cars repainted, and they variously use coercive threats of ending their contracts in order to bring down, or keep down, the prices; there are only three of these, and having contract with one alone is insufficient for operation, and they collaborate - a practical monopoly.

Thus, though not expressively, the managers of the car-retail shops that contract the insurance claims onto him are his bosses; except, they could simply end the contract at any time for any reason they see fit. Since he is legally speaking "self-employed", the work-hour laws and such do not apply, and 12-hour days are almost universal with no over-time (otherwise 8 hour weekday law apply for employees), as well as no paid semester, working week-ends etc. This of course benefits the capitalist, as they minimise their expenses in more than one way, and get a lot more for what they pay.

[Die Neue Zeit]

In two articles I've read today I've come across mentions of this phenomena.

Can anyone give me any more info on this, and how it affects workers and gives advantages to the capitalists?

I read somewhere that Florida strippers were this kind of contract workers. :(

[28350]

On a related note, does anyone know about the freelancer's union in the US?

[JazzRemington]

To be sure, there are a lot of places where one is employed that requires signing a contract. In others, there's a "verbal agreement" that's (supposedly) understood. But what makes someone technically employed is the fact that they give up control of their labor power to their employer. If you are in a production relation where you don't have complete and total control over how, where, when, etc. but the other person has control of these things, you work, then you are employed by this person. I think what this does is makes the workers think they aren't something like proletariats but petit-bourgeoisie - the "ideal" of capitalism (or at least American capitalism). It's more of a way to muddle class consciousness, if anything.

[mikelepore]

Can anyone give me any more info on this, and how it affects workers and gives advantages to the capitalists?

Don't know about other countries, the tradition in the U.S. is that you are legally called an "independent contractor" if you are paid a certain amount for fulfilling a particular task that is described by specifications. Perhaps you will install some electrical wiring, plumbing, paint the building, or you will write a certain computer program. You provide your own tools. Use any method you wish as long as the completed job meets the specifications. You don't have a specified time when you have to appear at work or go home each day. You have to be finished by a particular calendar date.

However, if you are called an "employee", the employer controls your time and actions. Between the starting time and ending time each day, the employer may tell you what method and sequence of actions to use, whether to stand up or sit down, how to dress, etc. The employer provides the tools. Although you may be fired, you can't be sued for breaking a contract if your work isn't completed by a certain date or if the quality of your work doesn't meet specifications.

There are some reasons why a company might want to use contractors instead of employees. If you're a contractor, the employer doesn't contribute toward a pension plan or benefits, or pay certain taxes. The employer doesn't invest in your tools or training. If your work doesn't meet a certain quality, they don't have to pay you, or in the case of incidental damages they can sue you for financial remedy. No need to announce layoffs, because it was always understood that when your contract is fulfilled youre gone.

[ArrowLance]

Can anyone give me any more info on this, and how it affects workers and gives advantages to the capitalists?

I have a bit of experience with contract work and my grandmother is knee deep in it. She drives paper routes but since she works on contract and is 'self employed' she gets no benefits. Also any damages to the car whether from an accident or wear and tear are her liability. She has to pay for the gas and in the end makes meager pay at best. After 30 or so years of doing this she is down to the point where fuel and car repairs are costing her more than the routes bring in.

Additionally the contract system greatly reduces the ability of the workers to organize. I can see the benefits of unionizing for my grandmothers occupation but since all the workers are 'self employed' it is difficult to do so. The buisness gets off with forcing their 'employees' to pay for their own gas and damages incurred by the excessive driving.

If it wasn't done on contract it would be most likely that the employer would have to pay to make at least affordable extensive, commercial, car insurance available if not provide the vehicles.

I don't have much to say on the subject from an intellectual standpoint past what i have mentioned in this testimonial. But I hope this example sheds some light on the conditions of this sort of labour.

[iskrabronstein]

There are many types of regional and local financial services providers that operate in such a manner; a corporation provides the goods (whether insurance policies, or mutual funds, or property investments) at slight cost to the agent, in return for a percentage of return, to my knowledge generally substantial.

Essentially this represents simply an example of risk-farming; rather than paying a fixed wage to an employee regardless of sales performance, the corporation that owns the goods under sale simply takes a commission on sales of products, also gaining the continued financial support of the clients procured by the ostensibly self-employed agent.

All real financial risk is pushed off onto the agent, with generally very little real cost from turnover caused to the corporation. It is the direct exploitation of the small bourgeois by stronger financial interests; obviously there is a large amount of failure and liquidation of assets by the agents themselves, but some salesmen profit well enough to make the enterprise appealing to many people - to the detriment of the class.