Forums
Temporary Workers
Legal Forum
Temporary Workers
Discuss employment-law issues such as family leave, overtime, disabilities law, harassment, immigration and termination.
Through out the year we have a pool of about 50 temporary employees. Because of Microsoft we rotate them every 90 days. This has caused a temendous uproar since every 90 days we need to start from scr
0
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54
Cat:Topic ForumsForum:ForumId54Discussion:DiscussionId17464
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Temporary Workers
|
Temporary Workers
posted at 7/27/1999 1:26 AM EDT
|
Posts: 1
First: 7/27/1999 Last: 7/27/1999 |
Through out the year we have a pool of about 50 temporary employees. Because of Microsoft we rotate them every 90 days. This has caused a temendous uproar since every 90 days we need to start from scratch. Any suggestions? |
|
|
Temporary Workers
posted at 7/27/1999 8:15 PM EDT
|
|
Posts: 2217
First: 6/16/1999 Last: 12/13/2001 |
There are many potential issues in your posting-- more detail would be helpful, particularly concerning what the "uproar" is about. For now, assuming that your reference to "Microsoft" is to the Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corporation ("Vizcaino") litigation, I will offer a brief summary.
The case was a class action brought by 8 named plaintiffs, on behalf of workers who signed Agreements that purported to classify them as independent contractors, and made them responsible for their own taxes, social security, insurance and other benefits. Notwithstanding the Agreements, following an IRS review in 1989 and 1990, the workers were classified as employees. (I note that you have referred to your 50 workers as temporary "employees"; that may already be a significant statement regarding workers who are only with you for 90 days.) Given that the Microsoft workers were employees, the issue was whether they were eligible for various company benefits (a 401(k) plan and a stock purchase plan). In Vizcaino I, a panel of the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals held that they were. In Vizcaino II, the en banc Court agreed that the reasons given by the 401(k) administrator for denying benefits were wrong, but remanded the issue back to the plan administrator. With regard to the stock purchase plan, the Court found that it was offered to the employees, and remanded to the district court the issue of an appropriate remedy. |
Forums » Topic Forums » Legal Forum » Temporary Workers
