August 28th, 2008 → 10:34 am @ terry
Just received a fax from a client. If you read through all the bullets and get down to the meat of the content, it says – more or less:
By the way, all of the requirements are required and we will be watching you. Failure to comply will result in us stealing from you – but we call it a chargeback. We will cut your territory or terminate you.
Terminate! Literally? Or figuratively?
I guess the fax really does not apply to us though. We’re independent contractors and we work for ourselves. We don’t work for them any more. That was effective as soon as the fax spit out the garbage.
August 18th, 2008 → 8:52 pm @ terry
I’ve been trying to recall all the independent contractors that I’ve had business dealings with this year. I can remember a plumber, auto mechanic, lawn guy, appliance repair man, small engine mechanic, air condition and heating mechanic and a general contractor. There’s probably a few I couldn’t think of but that’s enough for this discussion.
I did not require any of these people to sign an independent contractor agreement. Maybe I should have. Who knows? The lawn guy may one day claim to be an employee but I’m sure the plumbers won’t – $1600 for about 8 hours of work!
I did not ask any of these contractors:
I suspect that if I had asked these contractors to supply me with all of that stuff, I would still be looking for people to get the work done! Not only that, I’m pretty sure too that they would have labeled be as a real fruit cake. One curious thing I would like to point out; I didn’t even ask any of them if they actually knew how to do the job I called them for.
However, when you and I go into the mortgage field services business, some companies have absolutely no problem asking us to supply them with all of this information.
I have to ask: “Why?” I suspect it’s because too many of us have been letting them get away with it for too long. Pulling a few phrases out of some other federal requirements, maybe we, as independent contractors, should inquire about the asking company’s “security plan to protect the confidentiality and integrity of personal information”.
A sensible return to reality would be a good thing in this business. Independent contractors certainly have the right to question the motives behind and the intended use for this type of information. I think we deserve an explanation. Do you?
August 18th, 2008 → 9:09 am @ terry
Field Services and the Evening News
On rare occasions you may find a TV news camera or newspaper reporter anxious to get a story.  If you allow this to proceed, it will be at your expense. One way to handle this situation is to explain “off camera†or “off the recordâ€, that you are bound to non-disclosure agreements and furthermore, you and the (reporters, cameraman, etc.) are subject to some federal laws and regulations that he/she may not be aware of.
It’s best to discourage any type of publicity on a job site. You will acquire work from some companies that instruct you to call them if and when publicity opportunities come up. They will tell you what they want you to say, if anything. What you will hear in most cases is what you should say to promote them; hardly worth your time is it?
When you are back at your home office and not in the field representing another company, publicity is an entirely different story. You may want the publicity or not, depending on whether or not you feel the publicity will help you. If most of your work is for companies other than local companies, there is not much chance for a local news story to help.
Publicity is a subject you should have talked with your legal adviser about before you’re put in a awkward position and a camera in your face.