Golf Club Atlas
GolfClubAtlas.com => Golf Course Architecture Discussion Group => Topic started by: Patrick_Mucci on September 11, 2013, 01:48:10 PM
-
Both may now be deemed to be employees and not independent contractors.
This would have far reaching consequences and might spell the end of caddies if expanded and upheld.
A federal Judge has made a ruling in favor of a class action suit on behalf of strippers at Rick's, in NYC,
I'd prefer strippers as caddies, but I might be in the minority
-
Both may now be deemed to be employees and not independent contractors.
This would have far reaching consequences and might spell the end of caddies if expanded and upheld.
A federal Judge has made a ruling in favor of a class action suit on behalf of strippers at Rick's, in NYC,
I'd prefer strippers as caddies, but I might be in the minority
I will be in the minority with you.
-
This is terrible news.
Why?
-
Pat,
How does this connect over to caddies? What was the basis of the decision? Was it around identifying hours required to work?
By the way, I'll join you and Franklin in the minority!
-
When you say both "may" be deemed employees and not independent contractors, do you mean the status is optional up to the employer? Or are they not allowed to be independent contractors?
This is a big issue, as the IRS rigorously attacks the independent contractor status and has brought severe grief to many employers by collecting back payroll taxes never paid for independent contractors later found to be employees. There are a bunch of tests including the wearing of company clothing. (I assume this was not a problem with the strippers!)
So what was the ruling? What did "may" mean?
If it made caddies employees rather than independent contractors, I can see how that would be a big problem for clubs.
-
Here's the article:
http://www.nytimes.com/2013/09/11/nyregion/strippers-are-protected-by-labor-laws-judge-says.html?_r=0
-
I'd prefer strippers as caddies, but I might be in the minority
You're in luck. Safe travels to Vegas.
http://www.vipgolfservices.com/las_vegas/caddymates/caddies.asp (http://www.vipgolfservices.com/las_vegas/caddymates/caddies.asp)
-
Pat,
How does this connect over to caddies?
If caddies are deemed employees they maybe be subject to PPACA, which wouldbe costly to the clubs, so much so that they might dispense with their services.
It also presents another path by which to attack private clubs
What was the basis of the decision?
Was it around identifying hours required to work?
You can read the details in various publications
By the way, I'll join you and Franklin in the minority!
-
Pat,
How many caddies work 30 hours/ week? How many of them do so for more than 4 months per year? How many of them are willing to have their pay taxed fully in exchange for health insurance when they can simply buy it through the state or federal government?
-
Pat,
How many caddies work 30 hours/ week? How many of them do so for more than 4 months per year? How many of them are willing to have their pay taxed fully in exchange for health insurance when they can simply buy it through the state or federal government?
It almost doesn't matter. If you're a club with a caddie program which is less than critical to the membership,this is just one more argument against having a caddie program. This just makes it easier to say "screw it,it's not worth the potential problems".
-
Many clubs - including Augusta National - already use outside vendors to handle all of their caddies (including recruiting, training, managing, etc.). I doubt if any strippers were working through external vendors to obtain their employment. So the practice of using external vendors to handle a club's caddies may set them apart from the circumstances pertaining to this court case.
Having a person work almost exclusively, on a regualr basis at a single work place, and have to perform their job duties per the work place's requirements is a big stretch from the traditional definition of a "contractor". However, there are some parameters where these types of workers can still meet the legal definition of a contractor. This particular case is probably not so much of a threat to the system of caddie programs, as much as it indicates that these places of business did not adequately meet the definition of a contrator per these workers.
Nevertheless, trying to meet the standards of a caddie remaining as a contractor can possibly get too complicated than is worth the effort at some clubs. Perhaps in addition to having some companies outsource caddies to golf clubs & resorts, an alternative business could be created offering consulting services to clubs and resorts in what they must do to meet the requirements of their caddies being defined as contractors.
-
Caddies are independent contractors directly by federal law. I'll get the cite.
On edit: I'm wrong. The IRS treats them generally as independent contracters butthe proposed lelegislation died in committee.
-
Strippers and caddies may have a lot in common...
... because they get lots of business from GCAers?
-
Caddies are independent contractors directly by federal law. I'll get the cite.
On edit: I'm wrong. The IRS treats them generally as independent contracters butthe proposed lelegislation died in committee.
John:
You might be referring to when former caddie, Rep Dan Burton when he was Chairman of House Ways & Means Comm., passed legislation that requires the IRS to classify caddies as contractors. Howerever, since then I know of one instance in Calif that resulted in a caddie being classified as an employee and thus qualifying for Workman's Comp. I only know the very basics of these two matters and have nothing more of any substance per the details.
I agree that overall the status of caddies as contractors has survived when previously tested. My own opinion is that the threat to caddies losing their independent contractor status is currently very minimal, but should not be completely ignored.
-
Go on then, Paddy-lad,
Please explain to me in lovely green italics the architectural relevance of this thread.
Yours expectantly
M.
-
Shit,
And I promised myself I'd never post on another of your threads. I am a stupid.
M.
-
It's no wonder the USA have issues if the government and their departments are worried about strippers and caddies.
Withdrawn, never post après cocktails.
-
The IRS looks at some Common Law Rules to determine if a individual is an employee or independent contractor. Either party can file a form, the number slips my mind, to get a ruling on the status , takes about 6 months.
Facts that provide evidence of the degree of control and independence fall into three categories:
Behavioral: Does the company control or have the right to control what the worker does and how the worker does his or her job?
Financial: How is the individual paid? Who provides tools or uniforms etc?
Type of Relationship: Are there written contracts or employee type benefits (i.e. pension plan, insurance, vacation pay, etc.)? is there a set time frame for the work, is it ongoing? Is the work integral to the business as a whole?
Businesses must weigh all these factors when determining whether a worker is an employee or independent contractor. Some factors may indicate that the worker is an employee, while other factors indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. There is no “magic” or set number of factors that “makes” the worker an employee or an independent contractor, and no one factor stands alone in making this determination. Also, factors which are relevant in one situation may not be relevant in another.
The keys are to look at the entire relationship, consider the degree or extent of the right to direct and control, and finally, to document each of the factors used in coming up with the determination or submit findings to the IRS for a ruling ... SS-8 ( it came to me )
-
It's no wonder the USA have issues if the government and their departments are worried about strippers and caddies. Surely you must have somowhere to bomb the lights out of?
Really? ::)
-
Please explain to me in lovely green italics the architectural relevance of this thread.
Please don't give him a chance to post about artificial mounding, short grass as a hazard, strippers that reveal more of themselves after multiple plays, multiple pin positions etc etc etc.
-
marty
the quote is, what a stupid i am
-
Cheers Mark ;) ;D
although I frankly think we should focus more on the strippers ;D
-
I'll try and give it an architectural context.
All those guys who worked under and learned from Pete Dye were independent contractors.
The "boys" from C & C are independent contractors.
The only architect I know who actually employs his talented shapers is Tom Doak.
As far as I know, most architects who like to say they use "their" guys, actually hire independent contractors.
Now, does that change anything, I have no idea.
-
Pat,
How many caddies work 30 hours/ week?
With double loops and 6 days a week, plenty.
How many of them do so for more than 4 months per year?
Doesn't matter, once you hit a 30 hour threshold, you're a full time employee
How many of them are willing to have their pay taxed fully in exchange for health insurance when they can simply buy it through the state or federal government?
You don't understand, once they're classified as employees, they won't have a choice
-
Go on then, Paddy-lad,
Please explain to me in lovely green italics the architectural relevance of this thread.
Yours expectantly
M.
Look up the words, "related matters"
In the meantime, why have you failed to answer the question I asked you about identifying the "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features at NGLA ?
You've had plenty of time to respond.
Please identify what you saw and categorized as "clunky", "artificial and even jarring" features.
-
It's no wonder the USA have issues if the government and their departments are worried about strippers and caddies.
Surely you must have somowhere to bomb the lights out of?
Mark,
That's really in poor taste.
And you sure didn't seem to mind calling in the Calvary when you needed help in combating an enemy.
-
Pat,
How many caddies work 30 hours/ week?
With double loops and 6 days a week, plenty.
How many of them do so for more than 4 months per year?
Doesn't matter, once you hit a 30 hour threshold, you're a full time employee
How many of them are willing to have their pay taxed fully in exchange for health insurance when they can simply buy it through the state or federal government?
You don't understand, once they're classified as employees, they won't have a choice
Pat,
You should get to know the healthcare law a little better...I believe it's the business you're in.
Regarding the ruling initially cited...yes, if an entity is not able to classify certain providers as independent contractors it will effect both parties significantly...Healthcare and it's costs will not be one of them with respect to caddies unless they misunderstand Obamacare as bad as you.
-
Employee status will disappear in the next 30 to 50 years. Everybody will become a contractor. They will get 1099's and withhold their own taxes and have their own health care insurance.
Well, we can dream can't we?
-
Pat,
How many caddies work 30 hours/ week?
With double loops and 6 days a week, plenty.
How many of them do so for more than 4 months per year?
Doesn't matter, once you hit a 30 hour threshold, you're a full time employee
False. See below for an explanation.
Clubs with year-round caddie programs could be affected if the independent contractor status of caddies is challenged and if their caddies average over 30 hours per week year round. But for clubs with Evans Scholar programs or similar that are seasonal, they will not hit the 30 hour average per week threshold for a full 12 month lookback period, as outlined below:
Recognizing the administrative burden of monthly determinations of full-time status, and the possibility of employees moving in and out of employer (or exchange) coverage as frequently as monthly, the IRS allows employers to make the full-time determination based upon a measurement period of no less than 3 months and no more than 12 months (also known as a “look-back measurement period”), although during the “transition period” (calendar year 2014, based on time worked in 2013) the look-back measurement period is slightly different. In the transition period, employers may use a look-back measurement period that is shorter than 12 months but no less than 6 months (rather than 3 months), so long as the look-back measurement period begins no later than July 1, 2013, and ends no earlier than 90 days before the first day of the plan year beginning on or after January 1, 2014. The look-back measurement period in the transition period may begin after July 1, 2013, if the employer is using a measurement period of 12 months.
Generally, any employee who qualifies as full-time during the look-back measurement period (not including the part-time employees who make up the calculation for full-time equivalent employees) will be considered full-time for the subsequent period of the same duration (the “stability period”), regardless of how many hours that employee works in the stability period, so long as the employee remains employed in the stability period.
-
Jason,
I think caddies are more likely to fall into the seasonal employee camp if they are determined to be employees and not contractors.
130 hours of caddying in a month is a tough number to meet especially if the club decides they'll no longer walk twice in a day...
-
Agreed Jim. There are a handful of year-round clubs that could be affected, but this just isn't a big deal for the huge majority of clubs. Most don't have caddies, and most of the ones that do use a scholarship program with a limited season. My club doesn't have a single caddy that averages anywhere near 30 hours a week during the three months that we have them, and we have the second largest Evans Scholar contribution in the state of Ohio after Inverness. There will be a few clubs in major metro areas with year-round golf seasons and professional caddies that would sweat a bit if the independent contractor status of caddies is challenged, but that's a very small number of clubs overall and a lot of "if" before there's anything to worry about.
-
Pat,
You should get to know the healthcare law a little better...I believe it's the business you're in.
Jim,
Yeah, you're right, but, while you're at it, why don't you look at "Titile 26 of the Internal Revenue Code" which is referenced under PPACA in terms of what constitutes a full-time employee.
Let me do it for you and Jason.
Title 26: Section 4980 H; (c) (4) (A)
(c) Definition and Special Rules
(4) Full-Time Employee
(A) In General: The term "full-time employee" means with respect to ANY month, an employee who is employed on AVERAGE at least 30 hours of service PER WEEK
Let me know if you have any further questions on what constitutes a full time employee
Regarding the ruling initially cited...yes, if an entity is not able to classify certain providers as independent contractors it will effect both parties significantly...
Healthcare and it's costs will not be one of them with respect to caddies unless they misunderstand Obamacare as bad as you.
I suggest that you and Jason stick to whatever you do during the day as you clearly don't understand PPACA. ;D
-
Neither group seems to have change for a c-note :-\
-
Pat,
You should get to know the healthcare law a little better...I believe it's the business you're in.
Jim,
Yeah, you're right, but, while you're at it, why don't you look at "Titile 26 of the Internal Revenue Code" which is referenced under PPACA in terms of what constitutes a full-time employee.
Let me do it for you and Jason.
Title 26: Section 4980 H; (c) (4) (A)
(c) Definition and Special Rules
(4) Full-Time Employee
(A) In General: The term "full-time employee" means with respect to ANY month, an employee who is employed on AVERAGE at least 30 hours of service PER WEEK
Let me know if you have any further questions on what constitutes a full time employee
Regarding the ruling initially cited...yes, if an entity is not able to classify certain providers as independent contractors it will effect both parties significantly...
Healthcare and it's costs will not be one of them with respect to caddies unless they misunderstand Obamacare as bad as you.
I suggest that you and Jason stick to whatever you do during the day as you clearly don't understand PPACA. ;D
Pat, they can't be employed 30 hours unless they start that week in an employer-employee relationship. I employ subcontractors all the time who work over 30 hours on one of my construction jobs. They qualify as 1099 independent contractors because I don't tell them how to do their jobs, I don't put them in my uniforms, I am not their exclusive "employer" (client in our case). The IRS salivates over the prospect of claiming these guys are 1099 guys. If they can prove they are really employees, I suddenly have a serious liability for payroll taxes, not a happy prospect.
-
Pat,
PPACA provides a means for identifying seasonal employees using the lookback period. Your information is either old or incomplete. Take a look at IRS notice 2012-58.
Seasonal employees can affect employers in two ways. First, if they work enough days and you have enough of them, they might make an otherwise small employer a "large" employer by raising them above the 50 FTE threshold. However, at clubs, this unlikely. To go over the threshold, you must employ 50+ employees on at least 120 days per year. Since most clubs in most parts of the country that use caddie programs use them seasonably, there's a low chance of them reaching 50+ employees on more than 120 days of the year.
How to determine if your seasonal employees make you large: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/223950/Contract+of+Employment/More+on+HUDs+Proposed+Rules+On+Disparate+Impact+and+the+Fair+Housing+Act
Let's imagine that, as a club, you find out that you're a "large" employer. The next step is to figure out which employees qualify as full-time. That's where the 3-12 month lookback period comes into play (figure most clubs with seasonal caddies would use a 12 month period). A caddie would need to average 30 hours per week for the entire lookback period (12 months) to qualify as a full-time employee, which is very unlikely though not unfeasible.
If your seasonal employees make you large, here's how you determine which ones are full-time: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-58.pdf
I know you always assume the world is trying to punk you, but I'm really not. It's a complicated piece of legislation, so I won't even try to make you look stupid for not being aware of the safe-harbor provision for temporary and seasonal employees. It's easy information to miss. But if you understand how seasonal employees are evaluated, you'll see very clearly why this isn't a big deal for most clubs even if caddies' status as independent contractors were challenged.
As for my day job, I'm a consultant who guides hospitals and clinicians transforming to shared-savings models as they prepare for the effects of PPACA. I don't do a ton of work on the employer side, but I know where to look to find information like the above since I need to at least be able to conceptually discuss it on a weekly basis.
-
Seasonal employees can affect employers in two ways. First, if they work enough days and you have enough of them, they might make an otherwise small employer a "large" employer by raising them above the 50 FTE threshold. However, at clubs, this unlikely. To go over the threshold, you must employ 50+ employees on at least 120 days per year. Since most clubs in most parts of the country that use caddie programs use them seasonably, there's a low chance of them reaching 50+ employees on more than 120 days of the year.
Great post - very informative. However, I think the chances of a club reaching the 50+ threshold even in non-year round golfing locales may be a little more likely than what seems to be the prevailing opinion in this thread when you consider the various departments many clubs have. Along with caddies, you have to consider F&B, tennis, pool, and greens staff. Greens staff alone at many mid to high end clubs can easily exceed 15-20 for greater than 120 days and they definitely average more than 30 hours/week for that period and at some clubs might even work enough during the season to be pushing the 30 hour average for the entire lookback period. I'm still trying to completely understand PPACA so I may be incorrect or overlooking something so please feel free to set me straight.
-
Do caddies pay their fair share of tax?
-
Do caddies pay their fair share of tax?
I guess from a Libertarian standpoint,.....yes,...... and they're all 1 handicappers too ;)
-
Do caddies pay their fair share of tax?
yes, and they're all 1 handicappers too ;)
And nary a one has ever given a bad read. :P
-
Pat,
You should get to know the healthcare law a little better...I believe it's the business you're in.
Jim,
Yeah, you're right, but, while you're at it, why don't you look at "Titile 26 of the Internal Revenue Code" which is referenced under PPACA in terms of what constitutes a full-time employee.
Let me do it for you and Jason.
Title 26: Section 4980 H; (c) (4) (A)
(c) Definition and Special Rules
(4) Full-Time Employee
(A) In General: The term "full-time employee" means with respect to ANY month, an employee who is employed on AVERAGE at least 30 hours of service PER WEEK
Let me know if you have any further questions on what constitutes a full time employee
Regarding the ruling initially cited...yes, if an entity is not able to classify certain providers as independent contractors it will effect both parties significantly...
Healthcare and it's costs will not be one of them with respect to caddies unless they misunderstand Obamacare as bad as you.
I suggest that you and Jason stick to whatever you do during the day as you clearly don't understand PPACA. ;D
Pat, they can't be employed 30 hours unless they start that week in an employer-employee relationship.
Not true, you're confusing issues, unless you're telling me that you're rewriting and reinterpreting the IRS Code as it relates to PPACA. ;D
When you have subcontractors, they usually bid for your jobs and are legitimately independent contractors/vendors rather than employees.
I employ subcontractors all the time who work over 30 hours on one of my construction jobs.
They qualify as 1099 independent contractors because I don't tell them how to do their jobs, I don't put them in my uniforms, I am not their exclusive "employer" (client in our case).
But that's not the case with caddies and strippers.
Caddies have to wear a uniform, albeit not 6 inch high heels.
Caddies must show up at regulated times.
Caddies are instructed on how to do their jobs.
Caddies are under the supervision of the club.
Caddies usually work at a given club, they don't skip from one club to the next every day
The IRS salivates over the prospect of claiming these guys are 1099 guys.
It's a battle the IRS has been waging for years
If they can prove they are really employees, I suddenly have a serious liability for payroll taxes, not a happy prospect.
When you have independent specialists, sub-contractors, who bid jobs, complete them and move on to other jobs, I don't think you have the same set of circumstances that the clubs have, where clubs require a uniform,, which they supply, determined hours and management control..
I think the model which some clubs may use is the "leased" employee model where the caddies work for another entity, but, it would appear, unless the case is reversed, that they won't be deemed independent contractors much longer.
-
This idea that very few caddies work over 30 hours is just not true, the time before the rounds waiting for a loop could easily be considered part of the work day, plus cleaning up after the round, plus rain delays.
Some people would tell you when an assistant golf professional is on the grounds (playing, practicing, dining, giving instruction) he/she is entitled to pay and overtime.
-
Pat,
PPACA provides a means for identifying seasonal employees using the lookback period.
Your information is either old or incomplete.
Take a look at IRS notice 2012-58.
I've read the notice.
I had to read it several times to understand it, as I've had to do with most of PPACA.
The lookback situation is part of the "transitional" 2013-2014 implementation process.
IRS notice clearly states that it's only valid through 12-31-14.
I previously provided the definition of an employee.
The definition of a "large" employer is:
(2) Applicable Large Employer
(A) In General"The term "applicable large employer" means wither respect to the calendar year, an employer who employed an average of at least 50 full-time employees on business days during the proceeding calendar year"
(B) Exemption for certain employers
(i) In general An employer shall not be considered to employ more than 50 full-time employees
if---
(I) The employer's workforce exceeds 50 full-time employees for 120 days or fewer during the calendar year, and
(II) The employees in excess of 50 employed during such 120 period were seasonal workers
(ii) Definition of seasonal workers. The term "seasonal worker" means a worker who performs labor or services on a seasonal basis as defined by
the Secretary of Labor, including workers covered by section 500.20(s)(1) of Title 29, Code of Federal Regulations and retail workers employed
exclusively during holiday seasons
Section 500.20(s)(1) states the following:
(s) On a seasonal or other temporary basis means:
(1) Labor is performed on a seasonal basis where, ordinarily, the employment pertains to or is of the kind exclusively performed at certain seasons or periods of the year and which, from its nature, may not be continuous or carried on throughout the year. A worker who moves from one seasonal activity to another, while employed in agriculture or performing agricultural labor, is employed on a seasonal basis even though he may continue to be employed during a major portion of the year.
Hence, I think you'll see evolving regulations from the DOL, in an effort to cover more citizens, that redefine part-time and/or seasonal workers
When a club is open for the entire year, say Pinehurst for example, they'll be hard pressed not to consider caddies working at the club, full-time employees..
Seasonal employees can affect employers in two ways. First, if they work enough days and you have enough of them, they might make an otherwise small employer a "large" employer by raising them above the 50 FTE threshold. However, at clubs, this unlikely. To go over the threshold, you must employ 50+ employees on at least 120 days per year. Since most clubs in most parts of the country that use caddie programs use them seasonably, there's a low chance of them reaching 50+ employees on more than 120 days of the year.
I disagree about the low chance, especially at clubs with 36 holes or resort courses.
Pebble Beach for instance.
Some lesser clubs have well in excess of 20 employees on the maintenance crew and well in excess of 20 employees in the clubhouse and pro-shop staff.
Most clubs have far more than 10 caddies, hence, I think you'll see alot of clubs qualifying as large employers, subject to PPACA.
That situation will cause clubs to review their employment practices and shift some full-time employees to part time employees.
They'll employ part time workers who put in less than 30 hours a week (ie 25 hours a week)
Large employers are already embarking on that strategy.
How to determine if your seasonal employees make you large: http://www.mondaq.com/unitedstates/x/223950/Contract+of+Employment/More+on+HUDs+Proposed+Rules+On+Disparate+Impact+and+the+Fair+Housing+Act
Let's imagine that, as a club, you find out that you're a "large" employer. The next step is to figure out which employees qualify as full-time. That's where the 3-12 month lookback period comes into play (figure most clubs with seasonal caddies would use a 12 month period). A caddie would need to average 30 hours per week for the entire lookback period (12 months) to qualify as a full-time employee, which is very unlikely though not unfeasible.
Remember, this is valid only through 12-31-14.
And, I think you'll see the IRS eventually questioning clubs regarding their periods of activity.
If a club is closed for 5 months, I don't think incorporating those 5 months in the clubs test is going to go unchallenged.
If your seasonal employees make you large, here's how you determine which ones are full-time: http://www.irs.gov/pub/irs-drop/n-12-58.pdf
I know you always assume the world is trying to punk you, but I'm really not. It's a complicated piece of legislation, so I won't even try to make you look stupid for not being aware of the safe-harbor provision for temporary and seasonal employees.
I'm aware of the "Safe Harbor" provisions, but, they're only transitional
Presently, the "Safe Harbor" provisions are only applicable through 2014.
It's easy information to miss. But if you understand how seasonal employees are evaluated, you'll see very clearly why this isn't a big deal for most clubs even if caddies' status as independent contractors were challenged.
That's where we disagree.
Many clubs have a significant numbers of employees, especially those clubs with 36 holes or resort clubs.
Pebble Beach, Bandon Dunes, Streamsong, Kohler, etc., etc..
And then, think of "The Donald" and the controlled group provisions.
I think more clubs than you realize will become subject to the "large employer" classification because of caddies
As for my day job, I'm a consultant who guides hospitals and clinicians transforming to shared-savings models as they prepare for the effects of PPACA. I don't do a ton of work on the employer side, but I know where to look to find information like the above since I need to at least be able to conceptually discuss it on a weekly basis.
So do I, I've got HR 3590 sitting on my desk ;D
-
I've got input, for sure.
REALITY: Whether the legislative/policy motive is to attack enclaves of wealth or not, AND whether THE MOST SPARTAN LAW in regards to what employee classification is made of caddies, tips, hours worked is in place, now or in the future...or not...
NO EFFECT, especially an adverse one to a club, is ever going to happen. No club is going to need to cease their caddie program because of it...another solution, another method of reporting what exists will always be available.
BECAUSE the nature of the thing is inscrutable. What taxing or governing agency is going to devise a test, and implement a test in the field, that cannot be altered in a day, once the criteria is published and notice given?
The moment that criteria is known and quickly sized up by the professional people on the Board, Legal, or Managerial committee, what club is NOT going to alter their visible policy with regards to their caddies, while all the while maintaining their invisible structure?
I assure you, the reaction, though particular to any one individual club and their mores is going to be unanimous in that -- curiosity of curiosities! Wouldn't ya know it, Club Xs policy now has its caddie policy right at the envelope of the new law/tax/non-employee relationship. Go figure!
All the things that MIGHT be perceived as gaining legal traction make the caddie-independent contractor relationship into a employee relationship (uniforms and bibs, direction of assignments, caddie yards and sanitary facilities, pay system, OSHA, lightning policies, etc) can so very easily be retailed as something that DOESN"T violate the new edict.
And if, even if, a club was willing to honor both the letter (easy) and spirit (not as easy) of rigorous, bureaucratic system, there is no way for it to be monitored and for strident policies in May become flaccid policies by September.
On the caddies side of the ledger...
The best of us are going to do and pretend exactly what the club fathers say to do and pretend. We have never wanted an employee relationship with the club and we don't want our good and sustaining thing substantially altered for some as yet unrealized benefit. To the caddie, it smells like a lot of extra trouble just to fix something that isn't broken. In this way, we are in perfect alignment with members and the clubs who would resist such alterations to the caddie-club relationship.
For many, this is the second job, the one you drift in and out of as fortune and events transpire. When things get better in Life #1, you do less with Life #2. At the same time, high schoolers and college kids refresh and replenish and mature and then leave in short cycles of 2 and 3 seasons....it is needed and valued for all parties, but its hardly the environment where Bolsheviks like me are looking for their rights and bennies.
So debate as much as you want about the whys, the whatfors, and the who's the victim and the perpetrator, but as long as the private club golfer wants his/her environment of caddies, they will have them, with no discernible impact on the way they have always satisified that desire. The system is too provincial, too varied, too micro-organic, and the participants too disinterested in change to not pay it visible lip sevice with diffident field policy.
cheers
vk
-
Pat, I agree with your last post on most points.
When I say that "not many clubs are going to hit 50 employees thanks to caddies," I'm speaking in relative terms. You're obviously correct about places like Pebble, Bandon, etc. Those clubs, of course, probably hit 50 employees whether they count caddies or not. They'll certainly need to sweat if caddie status as independent contractors was successfully challenged. But I don't worry too much about them. They can afford it. Hell, Pebble may even speed up rounds and let you play in 2:30 to get a few extra tee times through to cover the cost. Win-win-win.
I also agree that the definitions of part-time and seasonal are likely to evolve, and you're probably correct to anticipate that it'll trend toward covering more people.
When/if that happens, there's a chance that it starts to affect club cultures with caddies. My real concern in this fight would be the disappearance of Evans Scholar programs, which I consider to be the lifeblood of caddie golf. That's certainly feasible if the aforementioned definition of "seasonal" changed, and if caddies were deemed to be employees instead of independent contractors. But that's two substantial changes that need to happen before the concern becomes real.
-
Jason,
I've never understood the almost constant attempts by State and Federal governments to deem caddies, employees versus independent contractors. Doing so has unintended consequences, such as the one you mention, but I don't think they can see beyond the tax issues.
-
Jason,
I've never understood the almost constant attempts by State and Federal governments to deem caddies, employees versus independent contractors. Doing so has unintended consequences, such as the one you mention, but I don't think they can see beyond the tax issues.
I have seen this topic come up before and have lightly looked into this matter a few times. I have found very few instances of any government agency or authority trying to reclassify caddies from independent contractors to employees. For what I have discovered more of these cases have resulted from the instigation of the caddie. There is of course the well-known IRS case with Westchester CC. From what I have found it seems like the occurrence of these cases as instigated initially by the government barely get into double figures per decade. If I have missed many more of these cases I would accept my error on this point.
I personally prefer the current generally accepted practice of caddies as independent contractors. However I must also acknowledge that there are also some drawbacks to the caddies being classified as independent contractors rather than as employees. Also, all of the actions between caddies and golf clubs/resorts gets right on the borderline of the definition between employee and contractor, so I can certainly see that there will always be a debatable issue.
I do believe that for the sake of the caddies, in the long-run it is better to be classified as independent contractors. For those who disagree with this approach, I will acknowledge that there are some good points in their favor (especially dealing with caddies injured on the job). I also understand why some are suspect of the parties in favor of this classification (labor law can get very messy and ugly at times). Nevertheless, I firmly believe that the economics of caddying only work with caddies as independent contractors. And for those who argue that they should be employees, I would counter that perhaps caddying should be left to high school & college kids, and people just looking for supplemental income; but not as a career.
To get back to my original point, I think this issue has been discussed and debated out of proportion to the actual threat of the reclassification. I am not denying the threat, but I do think other than the single IRS case against Westchester CC in the 70s, that there has been very little substantial threat to caddies being reclassified as employees at the instigation of a government agency.
-
I wonder what the legal/tax status of caddies is in the UK. Anyone know?
I believe the DHSS, or whatever they're called these days, have a made a few visits to caddyhuts over the years.
All the best
-
Couple of thoughts on this issue.
Caddies are part of the underground economy, certainly underreporting their income. My guess is most would like it to stay that way until something happens. Then, like others in the underground economy, they want to go above ground. So what can happen? Well, the obvious is injury. Twist or break an ankle and you are down for a long time with no income. Until now, they wouldn't have to buy insurance, so they would go to the ER and plead poverty. Also, I have observed caddies being asked to perform non-caddy duties such as going out on the course and filling divots etc during slow periods. Although injury doing this is not likely, anything can happen. They have no workers comp, so again, they are out of luck, or should I say we will foot the bill somehow. No easy answers here, but I generally support the idea of high school and college kids working seasonally, but that doesn't work so well for clubs which have year round play. Perhaps the idea of having an agency provide caddies is the best option.
-
Employee status will disappear in the next 30 to 50 years. Everybody will become a contractor. They will get 1099's and withhold their own taxes and have their own health care insurance.
Well, we can dream can't we?
As the transaction costs of employees continue to escalate, so will the trend toward contracting. Attempts by the government to impede the process will most likely result in less employment, by mechanization and/or small businesses giving way to large crony capitalist enterprises. About the only way to stop the beast is to abolish employer tax withholding in favor of a 1099 system where each employee receives his gross wages and makes quarterly tax payments directly. Coupled with a single tax rate on income with very few deductions, then, perhaps, the beneficiary classes might think twice about tax rate increases which heretofore only affected someone else. Zero chance of this happening in my lifetime.
-
You are wise, Obiwanduranobi, particularly when you say that your wisdom is very unlikely to become law when kleptocracy is and seems likely to continue to be the preferred mode of "government."
-
Several points by way of background to the foregoing posts (I have not read every word above, so there may be some duplication):
(1) The employee and independent contractor categories are distinct categories, you're one or the other. Such terms (and their legal consequences) as "temporary," "full-time," "part-time," and "seasonal" are subdivisions of the employee category. I guess they could also be applied to independent contractors, but I have never seen it done and of hand can't think why it might be relevant. It seems to me that some (not all) of the discussion confuses the concepts of (1) when or how much one works with (2) employee vs. independent contractor status.
So, an individual A works for B. Is A an employee of B, or is A doing work for B as an independent contractor? Whether he's an independent contractor or an employee is based on a number of factors. http://www.michigan.gov/documents/wca/wca_irs_revenue_ruling_87-41_390318_7.pdf It's a factual matter. The answer is not always easy. The revenue ruling sets out the IRS position - it is not the law, per se. If A is an independent contractor, end of story. If A is an employee, then it's relevant to determine his employee status - temporary, part-time, full-time or seasonal (or, possibly, combination thereof). These classifications can have lots of significance for the employee's and employer's rights and obligations.
(2) There are also, for tax purposes, statutory employees and statutory nonemployees. A statutory employee is an individual who is an independent contractor (under the factors determination in (1) above), but who Congress by law (statute) says must be treated as an employee for tax purposes. The statutory nonemployee is an individual who is an employee under the common law definition (above) but who Congress has said by law is to be treated as independent contractors for tax purposes.
(3) No one likes to pay taxes. People hiring workers want to avoid paying/collecting taxes and providing benefits for as many workers as possible. So in the real world many employers really stretch (and then pop, break) the limits of the law in "classifying" a worker as an independent contractor. Some are silly enough to think if they can get the worker to sign a work contract agreeing that he (the worker) is an independent contractor, that's all it takes.
(4) The IRS does not make the law. Congress makes the law and the IRS administers it. If the IRS thinks someone is not paying their taxes properly, they'll go after them. That's their job. In the IRS's view, this may stem from an employer's reporting an individual as an independent contractor rather than as an employee (as the IRS thinks he should). Obviously, there are lots of borderline cases. In the case of a disagreement between the IRS and a person hiring a worker as to whether that worker is an employee of or an independent contractor for the person doing the hiring, they can settle it in court. If the court sides with the IRS on the law, then the employer's next step is to go to Congress and get the law changed. I'm not familiar with caddy legislation referred to above, but apparently the effect would have been to change the law so that a caddy, even if an employee under the common law rules, would be treated as a statutory nonemployee for tax purposes.
Yes, I know this is a simplification.