Welcome Guest! To enable all features please Login or Register.

Notification

Icon
Error

Federal Contractors


Are you one of the millions who work for Uncle Sam but is not employeed by him? If so, then you are part of the federal contrators' world. This forum is created to allow contrators to share experiences and give insight to others.

FederalSoup is a FREE forum site dedicated to serving the needs of federal contractors, so please keep this forum on topic and focused. This will help make this community valuable. Thanks for your cooperation.

To read today's top news stories on federal employee pay, benefits, retirement, job rights and other workplace issues visit FederalDaily.com.
Options
Go to last post Go to first unread
JennyQ  
#1 Posted : Monday, March 1, 2021 10:42:11 AM(UTC)
JennyQ

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/23/2021(UTC)
Posts: 2

I've heard many things over the years about the do's and don't's in a contractor/government work relationship, but I have never found anything in writing. Different sites seem to treat this different and even different codes within the site.
Are either allowed to teach a new job to the other? Are they allowed to be in the same meetings? Can they both be addressed in the same emails from management? etc etc
frankgonzalez  
#2 Posted : Monday, March 1, 2021 10:56:02 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,672

Thanks: 103 times
Was thanked: 1121 time(s) in 891 post(s)
Are either allowed to teach a new job to the other? - Depends on what the contract says.

Are they allowed to be in the same meetings? - Yes.

Can they both be addressed in the same emails from management?- Yes

The contract drives the requirements. Main thing is that contractors are not federal employees, and the more they are treated as such, the more likely they will be able to use things that are typically only available to civil servants (such as EEO, MSPB, etc).


You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
JennyQ  
#3 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2021 12:23:55 PM(UTC)
JennyQ

Rank: Newbie

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/23/2021(UTC)
Posts: 2

Can I ask how you know this for sure? Is it written somewhere?
frankgonzalez  
#4 Posted : Tuesday, March 2, 2021 1:27:38 PM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,672

Thanks: 103 times
Was thanked: 1121 time(s) in 891 post(s)
Originally Posted by: JennyQ Go to Quoted Post
Can I ask how you know this for sure? Is it written somewhere?
You'd have to dig into the FAR for the details (and only for the strong of heart and brave of soul!).

I've worked with contractors in every agency I have been in and been the COR plenty of times.

The contract dictates what the contractor can or cannot do. Contractors are NOT civil servants and so cannot do certain things (for example, they cannot commit government resources/funds or approve such a commitment and cannot supervise civil servants). They can attend meetings with civil servants (and with military in DOD world). Can be on the same emails as each other and so on.

Your questions appear to be related to a specific issue which you haven't said. That may be easier to put here where the brain trust can help advise on that.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
idealist2cynicist  
#5 Posted : Thursday, March 4, 2021 10:30:22 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
SOME FURTHER NOTES REGARDING TRUE CONTRACTOR STATUS VERSUS MISCLASSIFIED "CONTRACTOR" STATUS



If you’re TRULY a contractor—rather than a misclassified contractor and effectively an employee in practice, even if not a “civil service” employee—then basically you work for yourself, you’re effectively in business for yourself (and not dependent primarily on a specific government “contractor” position for your livelihood), you work at a given agency for a brief duration only, your work and performance aren't controlled/supervised by federal agency staff, you supply the tools you utilize to complete your work, and the nature of the work you perform is distinct from that of the agency’s work (e.g., work at the FBI briefly to, say, fix an electrical system, to perform building renovations, etc). Regrettably, this isn’t based (at least not yet) on federal legislation/laws passed by Congress, but based on case law established by the courts—and the EEOC through guidance and EEOC appellate decisions on federal sector EEO cases. So these criteria determining who's an "employee" versus who's a "contractor" are still set forth by actual law, but don't have the clarity or quite the same force that legislation passed by Congress does..


Read on…


By contrast, if you work at, say for example, the NIH and you’re called a “contractor” but you perform substantively the same lab research on vaccines or the like as a civil service employee staff scientist alongside them, you report in part or entirely to a federal employee supervisor who controls in full or in part the manner of your work, you work there for a while (i.e., longer than six months), then you’re MISCLASSIFIED as a contractor and an employee in practice (even if not a tenured civil service employee). Read the NYTimes article in reference 1 below—as well as the linked letter Senators sent to Google in 2019 demanding that Google convert “temps” and “contractors” to permanent employees based on the nature of those contractors’ relationships with Google. If you work for a third-party staffing company but are based at an agency on a long-term basis and controlled even partially by federal agency staff, then you’re a “joint employee” of the staffing firm AND the federal agency and still misclassified, according to the criteria set forth by lawmakers per the letter sent to Google. Also see reference 2 below—TODAY’s Hill article on the State of Virginia cracking down on misclassification in the State—which ought to include all the federal agencies engaging in the same practices within the state.


Indeed, what the Senators accused Google of doing is EXACTLY what federal agencies do with misclassifying contractors on a FAR BIGGER scale. Because the federal government is, at least on paper—and is supposed to be in practice—the Nation’s “model employer,” Congress cannot legitimately demand that private employers crack down on contractor misclassification when the largest and “model” employer engages in far, far more misclassification (and in turn mistreatment) of workers.


Like with private employers lawmakers have expressed desire to crack down on, federal agencies likewise also deny a wide range of rights and protections to workers who are misclassified as "contractors"--even when those federal agencies control those "contractor" workers and their terms of "employment" in part or in whole.


IT'S *WAY* PAST TIME THAT MISCLASSIFIED "CONTRACTORS" WHO WORK AT FEDERAL AGENCIES GET TOGETHER AND COLLECTIVELY DEMAND THAT CONGRESS (AND EVEN STATE OF VIRGINIA) PUT THE BREAKS ON THE LARGEST US EMPLOYER (THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!) MISCLASSIFYING-- AND IN TURN MISTREATING-- "CONTRACTORS". It's past time ALL those who work at (supposed) "model employer" federal agencies compel those agencies and federal managers to actually start acting like a true "model employer".


IF YOU AND/OR OTHERS YOU KNOW ARE "CONTRACTORS" AT FEDERAL AGENCIES, YOU NEED TO START SPEAKING OUT ON TWITTER, CONTACTING JOURNALISTS (e.g. at GovExec, Washington Post), AND ALSO CONTACTING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DIRECTLY—ESPECIALLY but not only: 1) SHERROD BROWN, 2) BERNIE SANDERS, 3) RICHARD DURBIN AND 4) CAROLYN MALONEY (those MOCs have been most active in authoring legislation and/or otherwise addressing the issue of contractor misclassification, and Maloney chairs House Oversight Committee) to demand that Congress start curtailing misclassification among employers by FIRST cutting down on the widespread and egregious misclassification and mistreatment of contractors in the Nation’s “model employer”.


And if you know folks (as I do) who’ve been mistreated by federal agency managers at agencies (e.g., harassment and/or retaliation) and then the agency tried to deny them access to the EEO process and/or remedies therefrom specifically on the basis of their "contractor" (misclassification) status, then those folks MUST share their stories with members of Congress—just like Google workers have per below.


See:
1. https://www.nytimes.com/...google-temp-workers.html
2. https://thehill.com/home...nvestigating-worker?rl=1

Edited by user Thursday, March 4, 2021 11:23:56 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Exit7A  
#6 Posted : Saturday, March 6, 2021 9:23:48 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 722
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 10 times
Was thanked: 154 time(s) in 136 post(s)
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
SOME FURTHER NOTES REGARDING TRUE CONTRACTOR STATUS VERSUS MISCLASSIFIED "CONTRACTOR" STATUS



If you’re TRULY a contractor—rather than a misclassified contractor and effectively an employee in practice, even if not a “civil service” employee—then basically you work for yourself, you’re effectively in business for yourself (and not dependent primarily on a specific government “contractor” position for your livelihood), you work at a given agency for a brief duration only, your work and performance aren't controlled/supervised by federal agency staff, you supply the tools you utilize to complete your work, and the nature of the work you perform is distinct from that of the agency’s work (e.g., work at the FBI briefly to, say, fix an electrical system, to perform building renovations, etc). Regrettably, this isn’t based (at least not yet) on federal legislation/laws passed by Congress, but based on case law established by the courts—and the EEOC through guidance and EEOC appellate decisions on federal sector EEO cases. So these criteria determining who's an "employee" versus who's a "contractor" are still set forth by actual law, but don't have the clarity or quite the same force that legislation passed by Congress does..


Read on…


By contrast, if you work at, say for example, the NIH and you’re called a “contractor” but you perform substantively the same lab research on vaccines or the like as a civil service employee staff scientist alongside them, you report in part or entirely to a federal employee supervisor who controls in full or in part the manner of your work, you work there for a while (i.e., longer than six months), then you’re MISCLASSIFIED as a contractor and an employee in practice (even if not a tenured civil service employee). Read the NYTimes article in reference 1 below—as well as the linked letter Senators sent to Google in 2019 demanding that Google convert “temps” and “contractors” to permanent employees based on the nature of those contractors’ relationships with Google. If you work for a third-party staffing company but are based at an agency on a long-term basis and controlled even partially by federal agency staff, then you’re a “joint employee” of the staffing firm AND the federal agency and still misclassified, according to the criteria set forth by lawmakers per the letter sent to Google. Also see reference 2 below—TODAY’s Hill article on the State of Virginia cracking down on misclassification in the State—which ought to include all the federal agencies engaging in the same practices within the state.


Indeed, what the Senators accused Google of doing is EXACTLY what federal agencies do with misclassifying contractors on a FAR BIGGER scale. Because the federal government is, at least on paper—and is supposed to be in practice—the Nation’s “model employer,” Congress cannot legitimately demand that private employers crack down on contractor misclassification when the largest and “model” employer engages in far, far more misclassification (and in turn mistreatment) of workers.


Like with private employers lawmakers have expressed desire to crack down on, federal agencies likewise also deny a wide range of rights and protections to workers who are misclassified as "contractors"--even when those federal agencies control those "contractor" workers and their terms of "employment" in part or in whole.


IT'S *WAY* PAST TIME THAT MISCLASSIFIED "CONTRACTORS" WHO WORK AT FEDERAL AGENCIES GET TOGETHER AND COLLECTIVELY DEMAND THAT CONGRESS (AND EVEN STATE OF VIRGINIA) PUT THE BREAKS ON THE LARGEST US EMPLOYER (THE FEDERAL GOVERNMENT!) MISCLASSIFYING-- AND IN TURN MISTREATING-- "CONTRACTORS". It's past time ALL those who work at (supposed) "model employer" federal agencies compel those agencies and federal managers to actually start acting like a true "model employer".


IF YOU AND/OR OTHERS YOU KNOW ARE "CONTRACTORS" AT FEDERAL AGENCIES, YOU NEED TO START SPEAKING OUT ON TWITTER, CONTACTING JOURNALISTS (e.g. at GovExec, Washington Post), AND ALSO CONTACTING MEMBERS OF CONGRESS DIRECTLY—ESPECIALLY but not only: 1) SHERROD BROWN, 2) BERNIE SANDERS, 3) RICHARD DURBIN AND 4) CAROLYN MALONEY (those MOCs have been most active in authoring legislation and/or otherwise addressing the issue of contractor misclassification, and Maloney chairs House Oversight Committee) to demand that Congress start curtailing misclassification among employers by FIRST cutting down on the widespread and egregious misclassification and mistreatment of contractors in the Nation’s “model employer”.


And if you know folks (as I do) who’ve been mistreated by federal agency managers at agencies (e.g., harassment and/or retaliation) and then the agency tried to deny them access to the EEO process and/or remedies therefrom specifically on the basis of their "contractor" (misclassification) status, then those folks MUST share their stories with members of Congress—just like Google workers have per below.


See:
1. https://www.nytimes.com/...google-temp-workers.html
2. https://thehill.com/home...nvestigating-worker?rl=1


You sure about that... https://webapps.dol.gov/...ofccp/fcca/determine.asp

Edited by user Saturday, March 6, 2021 9:24:23 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

That's all I got to say about that.
idealist2cynicist  
#7 Posted : Saturday, March 6, 2021 10:26:04 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
I'm fairly confident that the criteria I described above distinguishing misclassified "contractor" employees from true contractors is accurate if very general (feel free to have an employment attorney review if you wish to double check). The DOL page you referenced above refers to actual contractor entities/ businesses-- not the individuals also labeled "contractors" who are physically placed at federal agencies, often under the supervision of federal agency managers, and who are often "common law" employees based on the manner in which federal agency managers effectively control their employment, and livelihood.



For further guidance on whether an individual (not a business) is a true "contractor" versus someone who's misclassified as a contractor but is in effect an employee, you can also dig up the federal sector EEO case Ma vs. HHS (EEOC Appeal No. 019623290, June 1,1998) and read more about the criteria that render an individual "contractor" worker effectively an employee of the employer that controls them in practice. Indeed, the biggest factor that makes someone an "employee" in practice is the degree and manner to which they are "controlled" (e.g., supervised) by an employer (e.g., a federal agency manager).



Indeed, based on the criteria set forth in the Ma v. HHS EEOC case, the corresponding DC Circuit case (still good/controlling law) of Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir., 1979)-- and the letter Senators sent in 2019 to Google cited above-- a very high percent of "contractor" individuals placed at federal agencies (even if not all) are MISCLASSIFIED as contractors and are in effect employees of federal agencies who've been denied the rights of such status. It's PAST TIME that Congress basically codify in legislation the rulings in the aforementioned cases (among many, many other such rulings in court cases nationwide) before the 6-3 hard-right SCOTUS tries to reverse those appellate legal rulings and change the status of "contractors"...



To repeat what I stated earlier, ALL those who've been misclassified as a "contractor" and in turn mistreated at federal agencies should write to members of Congress, journalists, and go on Twitter (even if anonymously to prevent retaliation) to demand that the "Model Employer" federal government, the largest employer in the Country, start acting as a true model-- for the sake of federal workers and in turn ALL workers.


Exit7A  
#8 Posted : Monday, March 8, 2021 8:20:27 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 722
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 10 times
Was thanked: 154 time(s) in 136 post(s)
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
I'm fairly confident that the criteria I described above distinguishing misclassified "contractor" employees from true contractors is accurate if very general (feel free to have an employment attorney review if you wish to double check). The DOL page you referenced above refers to actual contractor entities/ businesses-- not the individuals also labeled "contractors" who are physically placed at federal agencies, often under the supervision of federal agency managers, and who are often "common law" employees based on the manner in which federal agency managers effectively control their employment, and livelihood.



For further guidance on whether an individual (not a business) is a true "contractor" versus someone who's misclassified as a contractor but is in effect an employee, you can also dig up the federal sector EEO case Ma vs. HHS (EEOC Appeal No. 019623290, June 1,1998) and read more about the criteria that render an individual "contractor" worker effectively an employee of the employer that controls them in practice. Indeed, the biggest factor that makes someone an "employee" in practice is the degree and manner to which they are "controlled" (e.g., supervised) by an employer (e.g., a federal agency manager).



Indeed, based on the criteria set forth in the Ma v. HHS EEOC case, the corresponding DC Circuit case (still good/controlling law) of Spirides v. Reinhardt, 613 F.2d 826 (D.C. Cir., 1979)-- and the letter Senators sent in 2019 to Google cited above-- a very high percent of "contractor" individuals placed at federal agencies (even if not all) are MISCLASSIFIED as contractors and are in effect employees of federal agencies who've been denied the rights of such status. It's PAST TIME that Congress basically codify in legislation the rulings in the aforementioned cases (among many, many other such rulings in court cases nationwide) before the 6-3 hard-right SCOTUS tries to reverse those appellate legal rulings and change the status of "contractors"...



To repeat what I stated earlier, ALL those who've been misclassified as a "contractor" and in turn mistreated at federal agencies should write to members of Congress, journalists, and go on Twitter (even if anonymously to prevent retaliation) to demand that the "Model Employer" federal government, the largest employer in the Country, start acting as a true model-- for the sake of federal workers and in turn ALL workers.




Still classified a federal contractor...the case you site is in reference to using services deemed to be only for government employees. This still doesn't change the fact that the classification of the employee is a contractor.
That's all I got to say about that.
idealist2cynicist  
#9 Posted : Monday, March 8, 2021 9:09:42 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
@Exit7A, I'm afraid you're not correct, and you haven't fully read those two cases I cited based on what you just wrote about "services deemed to be only for government employees". But since you don't personally seem to be affected by the issue of contractor misclassification, I guess you yourself need not worry :). One of the main "holdings" of those cases is that the very label "contractor" and even any written contract at issue is not dispositive as to whether an individual worker is actually a true contractor versus a "common law" employee (i.e., a misclassified contractor).


But for ANYONE *ELSE* who is labeled a "contractor" but works at a federal agency on an ongoing basis under the direct supervision and control of a federal agency manager, and does the same general work as, and alongside, federal civil service employees-- and ESPECIALLY if you/they are mistreated compared to civil service "federal employees"-- then you should look into, and contact members of Congress about, contractor misclassification in federal agencies. (And speak to an attorney if there's a potential EEO issue involved-- because if you're a "contractor" who's controlled by federal agency managers, you most likely *DO* have access to the EEO process, though not the MSPB process the latter which is specifically for "civil service" employees).


There have been quite a few EEOC/OFO appeals involving individual complainants who were labeled as "contractors" but who were in effect (common law) employees of the agencies where they worked, who have successfully prevailed in EEO complaints where discrimination/retaliation against them occurred notwithstanding their "contractor" label. And although those EEO cases have (unfortunately!) not used the term "contractor misclassification", nevertheless by definition if you're a "common law" employee with standing to bring an EEO complaint despite being called a "contractor," then by definition you're a misclassified contractor according to lawmakers such as Sherrod Brown, Richard Durbin, and Bernie Sanders (the lawmakers most outspoken about contractor misclassification).

Edited by user Monday, March 8, 2021 9:55:07 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

King_Fed  
#10 Posted : Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:02:53 PM(UTC)
King_Fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 600

Thanks: 38 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
@Exit7A, I'm afraid you're not correct, and you haven't fully read those two cases I cited based on what you just wrote about "services deemed to be only for government employees". But since you don't personally seem to be affected by the issue of contractor misclassification, I guess you yourself need not worry :). One of the main "holdings" of those cases is that the very label "contractor" and even any written contract at issue is not dispositive as to whether an individual worker is actually a true contractor versus a "common law" employee (i.e., a misclassified contractor).


But for ANYONE *ELSE* who is labeled a "contractor" but works at a federal agency on an ongoing basis under the direct supervision and control of a federal agency manager, and does the same general work as, and alongside, federal civil service employees-- and ESPECIALLY if you/they are mistreated compared to civil service "federal employees"-- then you should look into, and contact members of Congress about, contractor misclassification in federal agencies. (And speak to an attorney if there's a potential EEO issue involved-- because if you're a "contractor" who's controlled by federal agency managers, you most likely *DO* have access to the EEO process, though not the MSPB process the latter which is specifically for "civil service" employees).


There have been quite a few EEOC/OFO appeals involving individual complainants who were labeled as "contractors" but who were in effect (common law) employees of the agencies where they worked, who have successfully prevailed in EEO complaints where discrimination/retaliation against them occurred notwithstanding their "contractor" label. And although those EEO cases have (unfortunately!) not used the term "contractor misclassification", nevertheless by definition if you're a "common law" employee with standing to bring an EEO complaint despite being called a "contractor," then by definition you're a misclassified contractor according to lawmakers such as Sherrod Brown, Richard Durbin, and Bernie Sanders (the lawmakers most outspoken about contractor misclassification).



You don't know what you are talking about... please stop. Not sure what ax you are trying to grind. Guess you will be the type of person to return back with "proof". Goodness.


Anyway, none of the contractors I know want to touch gov't due to the pay and benefits they receive at their company. Course I only know this for a fact with a handful of them since I don't go around talking pay liberally.

Far as the question of the thread, before this hijack, Frank knows... his post makes the most sense. Me: over 20 years...cor, technical monitor, etc..

Edited by user Tuesday, March 9, 2021 6:04:01 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

idealist2cynicist  
#11 Posted : Tuesday, March 9, 2021 7:17:25 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: King_Fed Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
@Exit7A, I'm afraid you're not correct, and you haven't fully read those two cases I cited based on what you just wrote about "services deemed to be only for government employees". But since you don't personally seem to be affected by the issue of contractor misclassification, I guess you yourself need not worry :). One of the main "holdings" of those cases is that the very label "contractor" and even any written contract at issue is not dispositive as to whether an individual worker is actually a true contractor versus a "common law" employee (i.e., a misclassified contractor).


But for ANYONE *ELSE* who is labeled a "contractor" but works at a federal agency on an ongoing basis under the direct supervision and control of a federal agency manager, and does the same general work as, and alongside, federal civil service employees-- and ESPECIALLY if you/they are mistreated compared to civil service "federal employees"-- then you should look into, and contact members of Congress about, contractor misclassification in federal agencies. (And speak to an attorney if there's a potential EEO issue involved-- because if you're a "contractor" who's controlled by federal agency managers, you most likely *DO* have access to the EEO process, though not the MSPB process the latter which is specifically for "civil service" employees).


There have been quite a few EEOC/OFO appeals involving individual complainants who were labeled as "contractors" but who were in effect (common law) employees of the agencies where they worked, who have successfully prevailed in EEO complaints where discrimination/retaliation against them occurred notwithstanding their "contractor" label. And although those EEO cases have (unfortunately!) not used the term "contractor misclassification", nevertheless by definition if you're a "common law" employee with standing to bring an EEO complaint despite being called a "contractor," then by definition you're a misclassified contractor according to lawmakers such as Sherrod Brown, Richard Durbin, and Bernie Sanders (the lawmakers most outspoken about contractor misclassification).



You don't know what you are talking about... please stop. Not sure what ax you are trying to grind. Guess you will be the type of person to return back with "proof". Goodness.


Anyway, none of the contractors I know want to touch gov't due to the pay and benefits they receive at their company. Course I only know this for a fact with a handful of them since I don't go around talking pay liberally.

Far as the question of the thread, before this hijack, Frank knows... his post makes the most sense. Me: over 20 years...cor, technical monitor, etc..



Not liking something another person says doesn’t make the person “not know what you’re talking about”...


@King_fed, if the handful of “contractors” you know are happy with that status, good for them. There are also a minority of Uber drivers, even Google temps/contractors, who say they prefer to be “contractors” rather than “employees” under the law. But that’s not the case with the majority of contractors (if you cared to read the sources I posted several days ago above). The range of benefits—and experiences and treatment—that contractors get within one government agency can vary substantially from one person to the next, much less literally millions of contractors across many federal agencies.


And yes, as for the “proof”, or sources… The list of cases below are just a tiny handful of the many cases where the EEOC has held, from the 1990s through their most recent batch of cases to be publicly published in late 2020, “contractors” to in effect be common law and/or joint employees of the agencies where they’ve worked. So since I “don’t know what I’m talking about,” I guess the EEOC doesn’t either as I'm getting my information from them… But if you'd care to understand what the law actually is on contractors, joint employers, and “common law” employees, and their “employment” relationship with the government, then pull up and read the following cases. Even if you don't care about this, that doesn't mean other readers won't...


Rigborto A v. Dept. of Army, Appeal No. 2020002849 (November 16, 2020)

Ma v. Dept of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01962390, 01962389 (May 29, 1998)

King v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.0120111958 (October 3, 2012)

Feder v. DOJ, Appeal No. 0720110014 (May 14, 2013)

Edited by user Tuesday, March 9, 2021 8:34:25 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Exit7A  
#12 Posted : Tuesday, March 9, 2021 9:14:51 PM(UTC)
Exit7A

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 12/27/2015(UTC)
Posts: 722
United States
Location: Area 51

Thanks: 10 times
Was thanked: 154 time(s) in 136 post(s)
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: King_Fed Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post
@Exit7A, I'm afraid you're not correct, and you haven't fully read those two cases I cited based on what you just wrote about "services deemed to be only for government employees". But since you don't personally seem to be affected by the issue of contractor misclassification, I guess you yourself need not worry :). One of the main "holdings" of those cases is that the very label "contractor" and even any written contract at issue is not dispositive as to whether an individual worker is actually a true contractor versus a "common law" employee (i.e., a misclassified contractor).


But for ANYONE *ELSE* who is labeled a "contractor" but works at a federal agency on an ongoing basis under the direct supervision and control of a federal agency manager, and does the same general work as, and alongside, federal civil service employees-- and ESPECIALLY if you/they are mistreated compared to civil service "federal employees"-- then you should look into, and contact members of Congress about, contractor misclassification in federal agencies. (And speak to an attorney if there's a potential EEO issue involved-- because if you're a "contractor" who's controlled by federal agency managers, you most likely *DO* have access to the EEO process, though not the MSPB process the latter which is specifically for "civil service" employees).


There have been quite a few EEOC/OFO appeals involving individual complainants who were labeled as "contractors" but who were in effect (common law) employees of the agencies where they worked, who have successfully prevailed in EEO complaints where discrimination/retaliation against them occurred notwithstanding their "contractor" label. And although those EEO cases have (unfortunately!) not used the term "contractor misclassification", nevertheless by definition if you're a "common law" employee with standing to bring an EEO complaint despite being called a "contractor," then by definition you're a misclassified contractor according to lawmakers such as Sherrod Brown, Richard Durbin, and Bernie Sanders (the lawmakers most outspoken about contractor misclassification).



You don't know what you are talking about... please stop. Not sure what ax you are trying to grind. Guess you will be the type of person to return back with "proof". Goodness.


Anyway, none of the contractors I know want to touch gov't due to the pay and benefits they receive at their company. Course I only know this for a fact with a handful of them since I don't go around talking pay liberally.

Far as the question of the thread, before this hijack, Frank knows... his post makes the most sense. Me: over 20 years...cor, technical monitor, etc..



Not liking something another person says doesn’t make the person “not know what you’re talking about”...


@King_fed, if the handful of “contractors” you know are happy with that status, good for them. There are also a minority of Uber drivers, even Google temps/contractors, who say they prefer to be “contractors” rather than “employees” under the law. But that’s not the case with the majority of contractors (if you cared to read the sources I posted several days ago above). The range of benefits—and experiences and treatment—that contractors get within one government agency can vary substantially from one person to the next, much less literally millions of contractors across many federal agencies.


And yes, as for the “proof”, or sources… The list of cases below are just a tiny handful of the many cases where the EEOC has held, from the 1990s through their most recent batch of cases to be publicly published in late 2020, “contractors” to in effect be common law and/or joint employees of the agencies where they’ve worked. So since I “don’t know what I’m talking about,” I guess the EEOC doesn’t either as I'm getting my information from them… But if you'd care to understand what the law actually is on contractors, joint employers, and “common law” employees, and their “employment” relationship with the government, then pull up and read the following cases. Even if you don't care about this, that doesn't mean other readers won't...


Rigborto A v. Dept. of Army, Appeal No. 2020002849 (November 16, 2020)

Ma v. Dept of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01962390, 01962389 (May 29, 1998)

King v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.0120111958 (October 3, 2012)

Feder v. DOJ, Appeal No. 0720110014 (May 14, 2013)


https://berniesanders.co...ues/workplace-democracy/
https://www.brown.senate...worker-misclassification
https://www.murray.senat...4-4D5F-86AB-5D80A8C14C83

I think you are confused. The lawmakers you reference do have a position about misclassification but it's about INDEPENDENT contractors not FEDERAL contractors.
That's all I got to say about that.
idealist2cynicist  
#13 Posted : Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:32:38 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Who's confused??


Obviously, my very gripe in my first post is that what Brown and Sanders have focused on in the private sector is even more ubiquitous in the federal sector, but that the Senators (erroneously!) have not focused on the government doing the same thing. So you're right, the Senators have (regrettably and counterproductively) not focused on any "federal contractors" (i.e., contractors-- whether true contractors or misclassified "contractors") in the federal government. When I refer to "federal contractors," I am not referring to businesses or entities. I'm referring to individual people, "contractors" who work at federal agencies, and on the latter basis are called "federal contractors." As the EEOC cases have made very clear, the common law of agency and employee status is wholly independent of whether the controlling master/supervisor/entity is the federal government, any government level/form, or a private sector entity.


And a "federal contractor" label certainty doesn't change the EEOC's consistent analyses of the issue of when contractors are "true" contractors, or in practice common law employees (i.e, misclassified contractors), per the cases cited above. Indeed, the EEOC appellate cases concern the federal government specifically, not the private sector. And indeed, the fact patterns in many such EEOC cases get at the inappropriate and ubiquitous use of "contractors" in the federal government is much THE SAME practice as what Brown, Sanders, et al have accused private companies of doing. So if Brown, Sanders et al. are truly against misclassifying and mistreating contractors for employers' expedience, at the exploitation and expense of the rights of individual "contractors," then they'd be against that very same practice whether it's the government or private companies. They cannot legally, legitimately or morally tell private companies not do engage in practice X, but condone the federal government's continuous engagement in the very same practice X.


If you're having trouble understanding the analyses of the cases I cited, of indeed the very points I've been making and repeating, maybe if you have any attorney friends, you can ask them to read the cases and explain the EEOC's and courts' analyses of "common law" (or de facto) employees to you.


On a total side note, you must be a fan of Ronald Reagan... You (sure seem to) like the government's massive use (and often exploitation) of contractors... You can thank Reagan for that. Before Reagan, you didn't have "contractors" working at federal agencies to even a small extent of what you've seen over the past few decades, they were almost all employees-- in actual classification/label and in effect. (And BTW, contracting out the government's work has costed taxpayers like you and I a lot *MORE* not less.)

Edited by user Tuesday, March 9, 2021 10:47:33 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

frankgonzalez  
#14 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2021 5:46:25 AM(UTC)
frankgonzalez

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 8/8/2008(UTC)
Posts: 5,672

Thanks: 103 times
Was thanked: 1121 time(s) in 891 post(s)
I've been avoiding this argument here...but here we go.
Yes, a contractor can be considered a concurrent employee of an agency IF the analysis shows they are being treated as an employee. No one aspect of the checklist drives the determination, however, the more supervision the agency does of the contractor, the more likely they will be considered an employee (ie, approves leave, directs day to day duties, etc). If the only things the contractor gets from their employer is their paycheck and benefits, and everything else comes from the agency...then they are an employee for EEO purposes.

This is the reason I ALWAYS tell supervisors that they cannot treat contractors the same as a civil servant. They should focus on the deliverables identified in the contract not the day to day activities of the contractor.

Personally, I understand the extensive use of contractors in the federal government (moves the personnel costs to acquisition costs and hides the true personnel cost of activities), but wish they would simply right size with civil servants and only use contractors when truly appropriate vs to simply replace civil servants you downsized from but still truly need.

You should have voted Cthulu...the greatest of all Evils
GWPDA  
#15 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2021 6:53:36 AM(UTC)
GWPDA

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 2/26/2011(UTC)
Posts: 2,578

Thanks: 269 times
Was thanked: 558 time(s) in 459 post(s)
I actually worked as a contractor to a Fortune 500 company. The rules were very clear, we were NOT in any sense employees of the Fortune 500 company and were not treated as tho we were. We did not attend meetings with employees, we were always arms length - the unit did not even allow us to attend the weekly pizza party because it was paid for by organisation funds which could not be shared with individual contractors. I was very surprised, when I returned to civil service, to see contractors who were intermingled with federal employees - and especially with military. I can understand how things now may be very confused - but the basic rule still applies, surely? Contractors work for companies who sell their services under contract to another organisation. Independent contractors may work for another organisation, under a contract the IC controls. Anything else misunderstands the legalities.

I wish the government would stop trying to conceal costs by outsourcing them. In the end, it does no good to any element.

Edited by user Wednesday, March 10, 2021 6:54:28 AM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

idealist2cynicist  
#16 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:32:40 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: GWPDA Go to Quoted Post
I actually worked as a contractor to a Fortune 500 company. The rules were very clear, we were NOT in any sense employees of the Fortune 500 company and were not treated as tho we were. We did not attend meetings with employees, we were always arms length - the unit did not even allow us to attend the weekly pizza party because it was paid for by organisation funds which could not be shared with individual contractors. I was very surprised, when I returned to civil service, to see contractors who were intermingled with federal employees - and especially with military. I can understand how things now may be very confused - but the basic rule still applies, surely? Contractors work for companies who sell their services under contract to another organisation. Independent contractors may work for another organisation, under a contract the IC controls. Anything else misunderstands the legalities.

I wish the government would stop trying to conceal costs by outsourcing them. In the end, it does no good to any element.



I assume you @GWPDA based on what you said about civil service employees and "contractors" intermingling at federal agencies, you'd agree that the contractor practices at Google that the senators scrutinized are largely the same-- but to a much larger extent-- at many federal agencies than at Google (per NYTimes piece below)? It's pretty straightforward (even if not all contractors are misclassified and/or mistreated like this)...


@GWPDA, indeed, the insane extent to which the government relies on contractors to carry out its duties-- a trend that Reagan started, which was eventually copied by private employers-- does NOT save any money (even the GAO under Reagan concluded this per below). And to the extent the government just gives its work to the private sector, it reduces transparency and muddies a lot of waters, so it's very bad for that reason alone-- irrespective of the issue I raised, about having a two-tier workforce of civil service employees and "contractors" (who are often misclassified) doing much the same work in the same offices under the same management.


As I noted in my first post, it's perfectly appropriate for, say, the FBI to hire contractors to do temporary electrical or plumbing work at their offices, but when the NIH, etc. start hiring most of their long-term scientists who work in their labs on, say vaccine research, as "contractors", that's VERY problematic. We know that the long-term "contractors" who do the same government work at agencies alongside their "higher tier" civil service employees are NOT saving any money or helping with transparency, but achieve the opposite--in addition to diluted worker rights in the "model employer" government and in turn among workers across all employers-- and must stop. Did you know, that as of late 2020, OVER NINETY PERCENT OF GOVERNMENT WORK IS DONE BY CONTRACTORS at this point?!? And again, if lawmakers truly want to reform this explosive trend of employers "outsourcing" the large majority of work to "contractors," they're going to HAVE TO start by addressing that very problem in the federal government. The federal government-- via Reagan-- is the one that started this, and reversing it will have to start with the federal government too. HENCE MY STARTING THIS THREAD ABOVE.



https://www.gao.gov/products/FPCD-82-21
https://www.nytimes.com/...google-temp-workers.html

Edited by user Wednesday, March 10, 2021 3:39:12 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

King_Fed  
#17 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2021 4:15:10 PM(UTC)
King_Fed

Rank: Senior Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 10/26/2013(UTC)
Posts: 600

Thanks: 38 times
Was thanked: 65 time(s) in 55 post(s)
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post



@King_fed, if the handful of “contractors” you know are happy with that status, good for them. There are also a minority of Uber drivers, even Google temps/contractors, who say they prefer to be “contractors” rather than “employees” under the law. But that’s not the case with the majority of contractors (if you cared to read the sources I posted several days ago above). The range of benefits—and experiences and treatment—that contractors get within one government agency can vary substantially from one person to the next, much less literally millions of contractors across many federal agencies.


And yes, as for the “proof”, or sources… The list of cases below are just a tiny handful of the many cases where the EEOC has held, from the 1990s through their most recent batch of cases to be publicly published in late 2020, “contractors” to in effect be common law and/or joint employees of the agencies where they’ve worked. So since I “don’t know what I’m talking about,” I guess the EEOC doesn’t either as I'm getting my information from them… But if you'd care to understand what the law actually is on contractors, joint employers, and “common law” employees, and their “employment” relationship with the government, then pull up and read the following cases. Even if you don't care about this, that doesn't mean other readers won't...


Rigborto A v. Dept. of Army, Appeal No. 2020002849 (November 16, 2020)

Ma v. Dept of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01962390, 01962389 (May 29, 1998)

King v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.0120111958 (October 3, 2012)

Feder v. DOJ, Appeal No. 0720110014 (May 14, 2013)


Again... you are so far off... you don't know what you are talking about. You do mix in a bit of fact so you are not totally clueless.

I'll leave you to it... let you grind that ax.
idealist2cynicist  
#18 Posted : Wednesday, March 10, 2021 8:33:58 PM(UTC)
idealist2cynicist

Rank: Member

Groups: Registered
Joined: 5/7/2016(UTC)
Posts: 14

Was thanked: 7 time(s) in 6 post(s)
Originally Posted by: King_Fed Go to Quoted Post
Originally Posted by: idealist2cynicist Go to Quoted Post



@King_fed, if the handful of “contractors” you know are happy with that status, good for them. There are also a minority of Uber drivers, even Google temps/contractors, who say they prefer to be “contractors” rather than “employees” under the law. But that’s not the case with the majority of contractors (if you cared to read the sources I posted several days ago above). The range of benefits—and experiences and treatment—that contractors get within one government agency can vary substantially from one person to the next, much less literally millions of contractors across many federal agencies.


And yes, as for the “proof”, or sources… The list of cases below are just a tiny handful of the many cases where the EEOC has held, from the 1990s through their most recent batch of cases to be publicly published in late 2020, “contractors” to in effect be common law and/or joint employees of the agencies where they’ve worked. So since I “don’t know what I’m talking about,” I guess the EEOC doesn’t either as I'm getting my information from them… But if you'd care to understand what the law actually is on contractors, joint employers, and “common law” employees, and their “employment” relationship with the government, then pull up and read the following cases. Even if you don't care about this, that doesn't mean other readers won't...


Rigborto A v. Dept. of Army, Appeal No. 2020002849 (November 16, 2020)

Ma v. Dept of Health and Human Services, EEOC Appeal Nos. 01962390, 01962389 (May 29, 1998)

King v. Dept. of Justice, EEOC Appeal No.0120111958 (October 3, 2012)

Feder v. DOJ, Appeal No. 0720110014 (May 14, 2013)


Again... you are so far off... you don't know what you are talking about. You do mix in a bit of fact so you are not totally clueless.

I'll leave you to it... let you grind that ax.



@King_Fed, you're the one who's turned this discussion into an argument, and you keep repeating in a completely general and conclusory manner that "I don't know what I'm talking about", but you can't even seem to refute any specific point I've made... Once again, disliking what someone said (maybe because you really like the government's highly excessive use of contractors and/or are a Reagan fan, who knows) does not translate into the person who holds different views from you "not knowing what they're talking about".


And as far as the substance of what I've been talking about, to quote verbatim what @FrankGonalez said earlier today:


"Yes, a contractor can be considered a concurrent employee of an agency IF the analysis shows they are being treated as an employee. No one aspect of the checklist drives the determination, however, the more supervision the agency does of the contractor, the more likely they will be considered an employee (ie, approves leave, directs day to day duties, etc). If the only things the contractor gets from their employer is their paycheck and benefits, and everything else comes from the agency...then they are an employee for EEO purposes."


What Frank said is entirely consistent with what I've said in listing for everyone's easier reference some of those EEOC and federal cases that set forth the criteria for determining IF individuals are actually common-law or de-facto agency "employees" (what I've been referring to as "misclassified contractors")...


Clearly, you're the one who has the issue here, though you still haven't articulated *specifically* what it is I've said that you have issues with... Once again, I'm not the one who's made things personal here.

Edited by user Wednesday, March 10, 2021 10:21:54 PM(UTC)  | Reason: Not specified

Rss Feed  Atom Feed
Users browsing this topic
Guest (2)
Forum Jump  
You cannot post new topics in this forum.
You cannot reply to topics in this forum.
You cannot delete your posts in this forum.
You cannot edit your posts in this forum.
You cannot create polls in this forum.
You cannot vote in polls in this forum.


This page was generated in 0.650 seconds.