独立承包商规则的动荡是否威胁到旅行顾问?
经过保罗·鲁登/在旅行市场报告发表的最近发表的评论中,我对运输部提议的辅助费用规则的复杂beplay客服性很批评(DOT的辅助费用规则制定 - 一件惊人的复杂性)。
Now that I have read the Department of Labor’s Notice of Proposed Rulemaking on根据《公平劳工标准法》,员工或独立承包商分类,87 FR 62218,DOT的NPRM似乎很驯服。评论是关于2022年12月13日的DOL。
《旅行周刊》中最近的一篇文章指出:“行业专家同意,即使新规则被按照书面形式实施,工党不太可能在旅行等行业中审核雇主,在这种行业中,双方都首选雇主与IC的关系。”我倾向于对劳工部的同样观点,主要是因为它具有更大的目标,其认为这是误解了工人地位的表现。
我从未相信政府是与独立承包商交往的旅行企业的主要威胁。更大的威胁来自另外两个来源:(1)不满意的工人,他们足够满意,但是在结束工作关系后,决定一直声称自己是雇员,因此可以追溯获得FLSA的利益,并且(2)集体诉讼律师希望向企业施加压力,而不是面对分类问题的诉讼手套。在这种情况下,这些规则中规定的法律将对结果产生重大影响。
错误分类可能非常昂贵,因为它剥夺了工人的《公平劳工标准法》的收益,包括向非豁免工人支付联邦最低工资以及加班费(以加班费为1.5倍)。错误分类的后果包括支付返还薪酬以弥补低于最低工资和应付加班费的过去薪酬。这可能是一个足够大的数量来威胁长期以来一直无视规则的企业的生存能力。
So, what is going on at DOL that should interest travel advisors and the businesses with which they are associated? Is the 58-page, obtuse, redundant, and tedious NPRM on worker classification a threat?
首先,一些背景。DOL已竭尽全力分析和解释分类问题的所有细微差别,因为其提议与DOL在特朗普政府期间改变的规则相比是一个根本的变化。一些法官在代理机构必须在多大程度上证明对规则的更改合理的程度。因此,DOL已竭尽全力解释了为什么从先前的规则中进行的每一个变化都是在其专家判断中,必须与FLSA下的有关工人分类的广泛判例法相提并论。
Here then is a distillation of the proposed regulation and some of its implications. Buckle up.
规则的核心思想是,FLSA比“独立承包商”身份更喜欢“员工”身份。评估哪个类别适用于特定情况的核心测试是,“经济现实”的工人是“经济上依赖”工作的工作或“为自己开展业务”。
您可能会立即感觉到这两个概念之间的语言脱节。对于DOL而言,“经济依赖”是“在自己的业务中”而不是“不经济依赖”的对立面。断开连接将渗透到新规则。要理解它们,我们必须搁置我们语言的这样的精神,并专注于DOL使用它们的概念。我们还必须接受对持怀疑态度的措施,即“拟议的规则制定并不是要破坏经济现实的独立承包商的业务,这些规则制定并不旨在破坏自己的经济现实。”无论出于何种意图,都存在中断的风险,并且考虑到DOL方法,可能是不可避免的。所提出的规则很复杂,并且在应用方面存在很大差异,因为它们包含许多主观元素。审慎肯定需要对旅行顾问领域中所有IC关系的全面评估,以避免成为法律行动的目标。
DOL完全意识到,它提议的制度与内部税收服务所使用的测试截然不同,以确定工人的正确分类。有两个制度管理相同的行为是效率低下且令人困惑的,但DOL认为,考虑到最高法院和巡回法院对这些问题的待遇,它别无选择:
Because of its focus on control, the common law test is more permissive of independent contracting arrangements than the economic reality test….
DOL总结说,统一标准的好处必须是已否定的,因为使用普通法不会简化分析:
与经济现实测试中通常考虑的六个左右因素相比,采用独立承包商普通法测试的法院和执法机构认为,因素的数量和不同的因素的变化更大。
同样,在加利福尼亚采用的ABC测试之后,有很大的兴趣,最终从该测试中获得了豁免,DOL说,“在法律上受到了ABC测试的限制。“美国最高法院裁定,经济现实测试是确定FLSA下的工人分类的适用标准。”如果这一切都有好消息,那就是这样。
Turning back to the central idea of the rules, the courts and DOL have used a “总体上的整体”分析将多个因素应用于每种情况的经济学,以确定工人是雇员还是独立承包商。没有任何因素比其他因素更重要,尽管实际上其体重实际上会根据“整体情况”而变化。
DOL还警告说:“这些因素并不详尽,没有一个因素是既定因素”,这些因素仅仅是“指南”和“将测试应用于特定情况时可能是相关的。例如,同一职业的工人的结果可能会有所不同,因为该测试需要特定于事实的分析,而诸如工作头衔之类的事实可能无法证明这种关系的经济现实。”一切都取决于一切。
这六个主要管理原则在NPRM中是:
- 损益的机会,具体取决于管理技能
- 工人和雇主的投资
- 工作关系的永久程度
- 性质和控制程度
- 调度
- 监督
- 设定商品或服务的价格或费率
- Ability To Work for Others
- Extent to Which the Work Performed is an Integral Part of the Employer’s Business
- Skill and Initiative
DOL added a seventh category: Additional Factors & Primacy of Actual Practice
我将尝试总结DOL对每个类别的看法背后的一些主要思想。
损益的机会,具体取决于管理技能
这个因素是关于“是否worker exercises管理技能这会影响工人在执行工作中的经济成功或失败。”Merely taking more jobs or working more hours is irrelevant.
Factors involved in this analysis include whether the worker:
(a)确定所提供的工作的费用或薪酬(或至少可以有意义地谈判它);
(b)接受或拒绝工作或选择或可以有意义地协商执行工作的顺序和/或时间;
(c) engages in marketing, advertising, or other efforts to expand their business or secure more work;
(d) makes decisions to hire others, purchase materials and equipment, and/or rent space (as opposed to the amount and nature of the worker’s investment), and
(e)有一个真正的损失机会。
工人和雇主的投资
为了表明独立承包商的身份,工人投资必须是本质上的资本或企业家。这种投资提高了工人从事不同类型或更多工作,降低成本或扩大市场范围的能力。执行工作和工人的劳动的工具成本无关紧要。[这将如何适用于向计算机和其他技术服务付费的旅行顾问IC,而不是由其代理机构提供这些工具的雇用代理商?]
Note that “the worker’s investments should be evaluated on a雇主投资的相对基础” and that “investments that establish status as an IC should ‘‘be large expenditures, such as risk capital, capital investments, and not negligible items or labor itself.” The worker’s investment “need not be on par with the employer’s investment” but “it shouldsupport an independent business。”相关公司对比较的投资是total investment,包括办公室出租空间,广告,软件,电话系统和保险。[这对房东机构及其IC顾问有什么影响?]
工作关系的永久程度
这是DOL框架中特别有问题的元素。
一些关键因素包括:
(1)“工人缺乏与雇主的永久性或无限关系的关系,如果不源于工人自己的身份,则不一定指示独立承包商的身份独立业务倡议;”
(2)从事自己的工作时间不止一项或不规则工作的工作不符合性;“雇员”可能有多个雇主;”
(3) providing services under a contract that is routinely or automatically renewed suggests permanence and an indefinite working arrangement associated with employee status; and
(4)IC必须为自己开展业务,并“向多个实体推销其独立服务或劳动力”。[这些原则将如何适用于向个人推销其服务的IC顾问?]
“永久性”问题与工人是否可以自由地工作,实际上确实为“他人”工作密切相关。当恋爱关系的法律或实际情况有效地否定了为他人工作的可能性时,拟议的规则几乎可以肯定会决定这种关系是“雇员”,而不是IC。DOL预见到为多家企业工作的情况只会使工人成为所有人的雇员。
DOL posits a distinction between “work relationships where a worker has multiple jobs in which they are dependent on each employer and do not exercise the control associated with being in business for oneself, and relationships where the worker has sought out multiple clients in furtherance of their business.” An example cited is the case where “one worker holds multiple lower-paying jobs for which they are dependent on each employer for work in order to earn a living, and a different worker services multiple clients due to their business acumen and entrepreneurial skills.” DOL states, “there are qualitative and legally significant differences in how these two scenarios should be evaluated under the economic reality test. Thus,仅仅雇主允许工人为他人工作的事实不会将雇员转变为独立承包商。”[如果IC与代理X的关系允许其为其他机构工作,但是,执行其独立的业务判断,它选择不这样做,它会根据规则失去其IC状态吗?]
Dol无助地添加:
法院必须解决的问题是,[工人]在她想要的时候的工作自由以及她想要反映经济独立的人,或者这些自由是否仅仅掩盖了依赖的经济现实。’’’’
性质和控制程度
该因素让人联想到IRS使用的“控制”标准,并在NPRM中进行了扩展讨论。解决了多个方面:(1)调度,(2)监督,
(3) Setting a Price or Rate for Goods or Services, and (4) Ability To Work for Others [note that some criteria apply in multiple categories under the proposed rules]
在这种情况下,就像其他人一样对术语的常识理解可能不适用。DOL states that “an employer’s compliance with legal obligations, safety or health standards, or requirements to meet contractual or quality control obligations, for example, may in some cases indicate that the employer is exerting control, suggesting that the worker is economically dependent on the employer.”
这focus is on “whether the employer still retains control over meaningful economic aspects of the work relationship such that the control indicates that the worker does notstand apartas their own business, not simply whether the employer lacks control over discrete working conditions (e.g., scheduling) or whether the employer failed to exercise physical control over the workplace.” Further, “certain instances of control should not be excluded as irrelevant to the economic reality analysis only because they are required by business needs, contractual requirements, quality control standards, or legal obligations.”
雇主主张控制工人的原因是无关紧要的:“如果企业的性质要求公司对工人施加控制权。。。然后,该公司必须雇用员工,而不是独立承包商。”
It is not unusual for sophisticated IC contracts in the travel advisor field to include standards of performance and other requirements, but under DOL’s regime, “When an employer, rather than a worker, controls compliance with legal, safety, or other obligations, it may be evidence that the worker is not in fact in business for themself because they are not doing theentrepreneurial tasksthat suggest that they are responsible for understanding and adhering to the legal and other requirements that apply to the work or services they are performing such that they are assuming the risk of noncompliance.”
因此,要求州法律规定的保险证明并不完全表明雇主控制,而是要求IC使用特定保险公司的要求是有问题的。要求遵守安全或相关要求may如果经济现实分析中的其他因素不另行决定,请接受。
安排灵活性的程度在经济独立问题上却有很大的影响,但并不孤单地确定它。在很大程度上取决于如何使用灵活性来进一步发展“独立业务”。如果您在这种推理中感觉到某些循环性,那么您是正确的。正如我之前说的那样,实际上,根据DOL法规,一切都取决于一切。
For example,
“灵活的工作安排,使工人能够为他人工作,并不是独立承包商的独有性,并且不排除雇主以其他方式对工人的足够控制的发现,以使该因素对雇员有利地位。”
相似地,
Lack of supervision is not alone indicative of independent contractor status. For instance, the nature of an employer’s business or the nature of the work may make direct supervision unnecessary. A lack of supervision in those circumstances, without further inquiry, does not compel a finding that the control factor weighs in favor of independent contractor status.
“即使雇主很少施加监督,雇主有权酌情监督的权利也是控制的证据。”
从积极的一面来看,DOL认识到“从事商业工人通常能够为自己提供的服务设定(或至少谈判)自己的价格。”在旅行顾问世界中,此因素将与交易,咨询和类似服务费的设置有关。另一方面,“当工人以外的其他实体设定价格或税率时,这是雇员身份的证据谈判它。”
Extent to Which the Work Performed is an Integral Part of the Employer’s Business
您可能会认为这是ABC测试回到房间的地方。在DOL对此因素的框架下,工人的工作是否是雇主业务的“整体部分”的问题是指工作是否是关键,必要或中心致雇主的业务。它认为这种方法“更好地反映了经济现实案例法,并且与总体情况分类方法更加一致。即使那样,DOL也承认:“工作是不可或缺的工人并不总是如此。”同样,一切似乎都取决于一切。
提供的一个有点有用的例子是,如果没有工人执行的服务,雇主是否可以运作。如果没有,那么他们提供的服务是不可或缺的。“这样的工人更有可能在经济上依赖雇主,因为他们的工作取决于雇主的主要业务的存在,而不是他们拥有或没有雇主的独立业务。”[该原则如何适用于提供大多数工具用于营销其服务和预订旅行的机构?]
如果雇主的主要业务是专业duct or provide a service, then the workers who are involved in making the product or providing the service are integral.
Here, though, much,也许每个人g, depends uponhow the “primary business” is characterized。这是一个复杂的问题,在NPRM中没有真正关注,但我相信,拟议法规造成的障碍的关键之一。
DOL无礼地指出:“整体因素的重点是所执行的工作,而不是单个工人。这种方法评估工人是否执行对雇主业务核心的工作,而不是工人是否拥有一些独特的品质,使他们成为个人必不可少的。”
更糟糕的是,就合规策略而言,“应该期望并非每个因素都会“对齐”与许多情况下的最终结果。”
Skill and Initiative
This factor considers “whether a workeruses执行工作的专业技能以及这些技能是否有助于类似商业的计划,这与工人为自己开展业务而不是经济上依赖雇主是一致的。”
It is insufficient to merely have specialized skills. The worker must use those skills “in connection withbusiness-like initiative这表明工人是独立承包商,而不是雇员。”
这项工作不需要事先经验,即工人取决于雇主的培训以执行工作,或者工作不需要培训,这表明工人缺乏专业技能。
“原则”business-like initiative” and use of those skills in “任何独立的方式不幸的是,在NPRM中没有很好地发展。DOL emphasizes that we should not ‘‘overlook whether the worker is exercising business skills, judgment, or initiative,’’ a phrase that refers to the “amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market competition with others required for the success of the claimed independent contractor.’’
Further,
When evaluating the skill factor, the focus should be whether the worker uses any specialized skills to exercise business-like initiative. When applying the opportunity for profit or loss factor, for example, the focus is whether the worker uses managerial skill—a type of initiative—to affect the worker’s opportunity for profit or loss. Thus, the focus of each factor is different….
And,
specialized skills possessed by carpenters, construction workers, and electricians are not themselves indicative of independent contractor status; rather, it is whether these workers take initiative to operate as independent businesses, as opposed to being economically dependent, that suggests independent contractor status
再次,在该公式中有一个明确的循环推理元素。这个问题可能会涉及采用新规则所产生的任何诉讼。
On the other hand, the DOL narrative states that, “To indicate possible independent contractor status, the worker’s skills should demonstrate that he or she exercises independent business judgment. Further, the fact that a worker is in open market competition with others would suggest independent contractor status.” That should help any travel advisor embroiled in enforcement or a lawsuit over these rules, but the application of these principles to the services provided by host agencies is troublesome.
其他因素
NPRM明确指出,有六个以上的因素来控制经济依赖。数字7的标题为“其他因素”,并详细介绍了它。
传统上认为在旅行顾问领域相关的一个要素是工人的“独立商业组织和运营程度”。DOL明确驳回了这一因素并补充说,并补充了这一点。
it is important to inquire into whether the worker’s license or incorporation are reflective of the worker being in business for themselves as a matter of economic reality … For example, if an employer requires a worker to obtain a certain license or adopt a certain form of business in order to perform work for it, this may be evidence of the employer’s control, rather than a worker who is independently operating a business.
DOL说,它必须依靠经济“现实”,而不是正式的业务/法律结构。[这些概念将如何应用于符合所有州和地方法律的隶属关系的主机代理要求?]
围绕代理业务拥有适当的法律结构始终是一个好主意,尽管DOL被驳回,但由于普遍的法律原因和作为单独的经济独立业务的证据,可能会有所帮助。
与此问题相关的是DOL对所谓的“实际实践的首要地位”的处理。DOL承认:“在每个因素下,应将合同或其他保留权利视为其他因素,以表明经济依赖性。”
与经济依赖相关的每个事实都应在分析中考虑。Because the entirety of the economic reality must be considered, both the actual practices of the parties and the contractual possibilities must be considered. Within each factor of the test, there may be actual practices that are relevant, and there may also be contractual provisions that are relevant. The significance of each in the overall analysis should be informed by their relevance to the economic realities. This examination will be specific to the facts of each economic relationship and cannot be predetermined.
结论
如果有好消息,它可能在于DOL原理的明确声明将用于确定分类。这些原则将在其他情况下引用,因为它们代表了该机构多年来法院对法院应用的法律原则的专家评估。每位想要作为独立承包商运营的旅行顾问以及与ICS联合的每个机构都应在最终确定后根据这些规则评估其运营。
While it’s beyond the scope of this already long explanation, I do believe that host agencies and associated retail advisors can structure their affairs to comply with DOL’s often highly subjective regulations. The final version of the rules and the explanation of any changes from the NPRM will be highly instructive and should be watched closely.