[...]
The narrative of 'the Employment Act is a good law, and therefore everyone should follow the Employment Act' is somewhat naive. You'll find upon examination of the Employee Act is that it draws great distinction between non-employee workers (covered by the act) and everyone else. This is of course, counterproductive.
Unless this is coupled with a ban on non-employee contracts for services... it is rather vacuous, and instead incentivises all parties to use non-employees contracts whenever the option is available.
It's an extremely common conversation for me to have with potential hires:
'If you sign a contract OF services, governed by the Employment Act', you are signing as an Employee and responsible for filing your income taxes under form BE... and I can pay you X in cash + Y statutory benefits, and I will incur Z costs of administration.'
'If you sign a contract FOR services, not governed by the Employment Act', you are signing as an independent business entity and responsible for filing your income taxes under form B... and I can pay you (X+Y+Z) in cash''
Almost everyone opts for the second option. The business manager doesn't care which is taken as long as the total payout is X+Y+Z.
In responses to a growing number of freelances taking the second option, the competitive structure of businesses also becomes more complicated - freelances find that they have fewer rights, and employees find that their opportunities for growth are very limited because their companies are competing against other companies who use freelances instead of employees.
What I find hilarious is that the political rhetorical surrounding labour economics... almost always talks about modifying the Employment Act in ways that encumber the business manager (given the false narrative that it is a zero sum game between businesses and employees), whereas the bigger distinction is between (businesses operating under the Employment Act) and (businesses operating legally outside of the Employment Act).
No comments :
Post a Comment