Re: IC v. Employee question
From: CLJ1219 (clj1219_at_aol.com78946321)
Date: 11/18/04
- Next message: Kathi: "Re: MQ-are cheating employees on lines?"
- Previous message: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- In reply to: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Next in thread: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: RaeMorrill: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Date: 18 Nov 2004 18:30:47 GMT
> you will see that
>they have specifically ruled that work-at-home transcriptionists/typists do
>not meet the "substantial investment", etc., criteria to be considered ICs
I would guess that some MTs who have several thousands of dollars tied up in
computers, printers, call in systems and such would disagree with this
"substantial investment" criteria.
Carol
My mind not only wanders, sometimes it leaves completely.
- Next message: Kathi: "Re: MQ-are cheating employees on lines?"
- Previous message: CLJ1219: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- In reply to: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Next in thread: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: 14tonks: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Reply: RaeMorrill: "Re: IC v. Employee question"
- Messages sorted by: [ date ] [ thread ]
Relevant Pages
|