11 ms·

That risk is eliminated with foreign contractors. It's import/export of services.

by bitL 3y ago

makeitdouble 3y ago
On an individual basis that makes sense (in particular if you really handle it like a service exchange contract, with little to no management on how the person do their work) In this day and age though, I wonder how much it actually works . For instance if one of your contractor does something completely illegal in your country and you get media backlash for it, you're in a tight position if that thing was perfectly legal on their side, and wasn't covered by the contract as you had your own country's law in mind. I'm not sure you could push your country's law on them, nor that it would help your situation as your company is still fronting the backlash.
- ipaddr 3y ago
  That seems so rare it is not worth worrying about
  - makeitdouble 3y ago
    In the grand scheme, having remote workers not handled by a proxy company is also extremely rare. And even in that setup, we all remember Nike and many other apparel makers stuck with the "child worker in a factory" image basically forever. Or Apple being questionned about FoxConn's working conditions, or the environmental impact. When it comes to PR, pushing the responsibility to the foreign contractor doesn't looks like a good working strategy IMHO.
AmericanChopper 3y ago
It’s actually made substantially worse by the fact that every jurisdiction that you “hire” a remote worker in is another jurisdiction whose laws you have to comply with. An American contractor suing an American company in a Californian court is at least a risk their legal department should know how to manage. An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements, is something they’d be much less equipped to handle. Then just multiply that by the number of jurisdictions they hire these remote workers in, which is information they might not even have.
- thaumasiotes 3y ago
  > An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements Does "contractor" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? This would be like me buying an iPhone and then Apple suing me for not paying proper sick leave entitlements.
  - AmericanChopper 3y ago
    It means something different in every location, and I’m just using Australia as a random example. The fact is that channeling your payroll through an offshore company doesn’t allow you to skirt local labor laws. It would be more like you selling me a faulty iPhone, then after realising that my country had consumer protection laws, you were forced to fix it.
    - thaumasiotes 3y ago
      You're talking about one company suing a second company for not meeting the first company's legal obligations. This is gibberish.
      - AmericanChopper 3y ago
        The risk of “misclassification” where an independent contractor sues to be classified as an employee, or where some labor or tax authority takes legal action to have a contractor reclassified (with or without the consent of the contractor/employee) exists in basically every jurisdiction. The only thing that changes if you move your contractors overseas is the jurisdiction where that dispute will be heard, because it will happen in the jurisdiction where the contractor/employee is located. Even if you put aside the mischaracterisation risks, each jurisdiction is likely to have different worker safety, entitlements, tax… obligations, even for contractors. If any disputes arise relating to those, they’re also going to be heard in the jurisdiction of the contractor/employee. I can understand where your misunderstanding comes from, thinking they’re all just businesses providing services to other businesses. But this interpretation is very naive, and the legal reality is massively more complicated than you’re making it sound. Governments really don’t like independent contractors, they’re subject to far more restrictions than ordinary businesses, and companies employing their services are usually exposed to risks that they don’t have when dealing with ordinary businesses.

That risk is eliminated with foreign contractors. It's import/export of services.

by bitL 3y ago

That risk is eliminated with foreign contractors. It's import/export of services.

On an individual basis that makes sense (in particular if you really handle it like a service exchange contract, with little to no management on how the person do their work) In this day and age though, I wonder how much it actually works . For instance if one of your contractor does something completely illegal in your country and you get media backlash for it, you're in a tight position if that thing was perfectly legal on their side, and wasn't covered by the contract as you had your own country's law in mind. I'm not sure you could push your country's law on them, nor that it would help your situation as your company is still fronting the backlash.

ipaddr 3y ago
That seems so rare it is not worth worrying about
- makeitdouble 3y ago
  In the grand scheme, having remote workers not handled by a proxy company is also extremely rare. And even in that setup, we all remember Nike and many other apparel makers stuck with the "child worker in a factory" image basically forever. Or Apple being questionned about FoxConn's working conditions, or the environmental impact. When it comes to PR, pushing the responsibility to the foreign contractor doesn't looks like a good working strategy IMHO.

AmericanChopper 3y ago

It’s actually made substantially worse by the fact that every jurisdiction that you “hire” a remote worker in is another jurisdiction whose laws you have to comply with. An American contractor suing an American company in a Californian court is at least a risk their legal department should know how to manage. An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements, is something they’d be much less equipped to handle. Then just multiply that by the number of jurisdictions they hire these remote workers in, which is information they might not even have.

thaumasiotes 3y ago
> An Australian contractor suing an American company in an Australian court, followed up by an Australian labor authority taking action against them for say not paying proper sick leave entitlements Does "contractor" mean something different to you than it does to everyone else? This would be like me buying an iPhone and then Apple suing me for not paying proper sick leave entitlements.
- AmericanChopper 3y ago
  It means something different in every location, and I’m just using Australia as a random example. The fact is that channeling your payroll through an offshore company doesn’t allow you to skirt local labor laws. It would be more like you selling me a faulty iPhone, then after realising that my country had consumer protection laws, you were forced to fix it.
  - thaumasiotes 3y ago
    You're talking about one company suing a second company for not meeting the first company's legal obligations. This is gibberish.
    - AmericanChopper 3y ago
      The risk of “misclassification” where an independent contractor sues to be classified as an employee, or where some labor or tax authority takes legal action to have a contractor reclassified (with or without the consent of the contractor/employee) exists in basically every jurisdiction. The only thing that changes if you move your contractors overseas is the jurisdiction where that dispute will be heard, because it will happen in the jurisdiction where the contractor/employee is located. Even if you put aside the mischaracterisation risks, each jurisdiction is likely to have different worker safety, entitlements, tax… obligations, even for contractors. If any disputes arise relating to those, they’re also going to be heard in the jurisdiction of the contractor/employee. I can understand where your misunderstanding comes from, thinking they’re all just businesses providing services to other businesses. But this interpretation is very naive, and the legal reality is massively more complicated than you’re making it sound. Governments really don’t like independent contractors, they’re subject to far more restrictions than ordinary businesses, and companies employing their services are usually exposed to risks that they don’t have when dealing with ordinary businesses.