why the complaint has to be an employee?

[twst...@gmail.com]

For employment relations act (NZ), in order to file a personal grievance, the compliant has to be an employee, why the subcontractor can't file a claim against the contractor?

Can 103A(3) be extended to protect a subcontractor being unjustifiably dismissed?

[Greegor]

On Jun 17, 10:11 pm, twstud...@gmail.com wrote:
> For employment relations act (NZ), in order to file a personal grievance, the compliant has to be an employee, why the subcontractor can't file a claim against the contractor?
>
> Can 103A(3) be extended to protect a subcontractor being unjustifiably dismissed?

I don't know Kiwi law (US) but isn't the
reason subcontracting has blossomed
recently been as a way to avoid having
to be subject to any "social responsibility"
laws?

Typically, hiring somebody costs about
triple what their hourly rate says because
of the "social responsibility" stuff.
(Maybe 4 times thanks to Obama.)

It's not unusual for a direct subcontractor to
get paid about THREE times the rate
a company would hire at, because the
subcontractor pays all of the social
responsibility fees and insurance themself.

I had a buddy who worked 6 and 8 month
stints doing project based technical work.

He covered his own "social responsibility"
costs by tripling his high hourly rate.

It was a great situation, except his wife
agonized about any gaps between his
"mercenary" contracts.

She pressured him to get a stable steady
regular job so he spent more time earning
far less money but the employer paid
all of the social responsibility costs.

Risk of employee law suits is just
another "social responsibilty" thing that
might motivate an employer to hire
a subcontractor in the first place.

Temps and mercenary "contractors"
can be walked on pretty bad without
any legal recourse.