Employees / Contractors

[TennesseeBred]

What is the name of your state (only U.S. law)? Tennessee
-----------------------

Hi all.. Here's the short backstory -

I've recently resigned from my current position as Sr. Supervisor at this Big Company to Co-Manage my father's business. He has been in the Construction business for over 35 years.


Some more information

The plan was to change the company's name or establish a new one with me being the majority owner. No, this isn't because we're trying to get away from anything, he has talked about the business being for his kids more than him. He's 60 and is more ready to retire than anything.


So here's the thing

I've noticed that my father will sometimes have way too many people out on a job even when the job does not require that amount of people. For an example; he may have 3 jobs going at once and will have 7 - 12 people out at each one.

But, if he only has 1, he will sometimes still have way too many people out there..

We know this is a waste of money.. So, im focused on the following first

1.) Increase his footprint - create some new services that will allow us to place 2 - 3 guys throughout the area on smaller jobs.
2.) Reduce the amount of employees he currently have


BUT HERE'S THE BIG QUESTION

I would still like to have access to these amount of workers without having them on payroll eating up the $

Is there a way I can individually employ each one on a Contractors Agreement for each individual job when they are needed? If so, how would that agreement look and what things do I really need to look out for?


We really need to be flexible here. If I only have 1 job that needs 7 people, I need to be able to carry only what's needed with the ability to add and takeway, legally.




Just to add on..

Hes in the housing/commercial business.. Business changes quickly. 1 month you can have (5) $10,000 jobs and the next month you may only receive (2) $5,000 jobs. So flexibility is crucial.

 

[Zigner]

Nope - even if you hire them for a day, they're employees, even if only for the day.

Now, you CAN look in to hiring from a temp agency.

 

[Dave1952]

Is this a legal problem? You seem to be trying to restructure your business. Have you spoken to your father about why he does not use contractors instead of employees? I don't see how you hope to have "access" to people you are not paying. When the industry is busy you can count on your employees to show up.

 

[LdiJ]

Is this a legal problem? You seem to be trying to restructure your business. Have you spoken to your father about why he does not use contractors instead of employees? I don't see how you hope to have "access" to people you are not paying. When the industry is busy you can count on your employees to show up.

Contractors are contractors, employees are employees. A business does not have the option to choose how to designate workers. Their designation depends on the details of the situation.

So, lets give some examples...

A home construction company could opt to use contractors for specific areas of work...electrical contractors, plumbing contractors, framing contractors, etc. However, those contractors would be bidding on the work, would charge a set price, and would provide their own crews, and could not necessarily be held to a specific timetable...just maybe a completion date, depending on the contract...and the company could lose some profit in those areas.

An employer on the other hand does not necessarily have to give their employees 40 hours a week. They can use them "as needed" but would have to understand that they might not be able to keep those employees for the long term. If the employer cannot give them enough hours on a consistent basis then they would likely opt for other employment...and they might be eligible for unemployment during those periods that they are not being used or only are partially being used.

It sounds to me like your father has opted to keep at least a core crew of employees fully employed all the time. That would generally mean that he feels that those employees are vital enough to the business that keeping them is more important than reducing payroll on bad months.

You, on the other hand seem to be imagining some utopian ideal where you can avoid treating anyone as an employee, but will always be able to have the people you need, when you need them...and that is not realistic.

The suggestion that was made of using people from a temp agency might be the best compromise, but I suspect that you will still need a core crew of employees that you keep on the payroll, even if that core crew is a bit smaller than your dad's core crew. However, at the same time, there is nothing that will total your business worse, than having contracts that you cannot fulfill because you cannot provide enough people with enough skills to fulfill the contracts.