Sub-Contractor Agreement?
- Thread starter maestro
- Start date
Thanks Steve. I don't need anything quite so elaborate, this is Canada after-all, but I will use it as a guide.
The problem and probable reason why no one is responding are the very thin lines between what some call subcontracting and what is really employer-employee.
The most expeditious way, in most mobile DJ situations, is to have this other DJ contract directly with that customer and if you're getting a piece of the action, charge that DJ a management/finders fee for that amount.
The most expeditious way, in most mobile DJ situations, is to have this other DJ contract directly with that customer and if you're getting a piece of the action, charge that DJ a management/finders fee for that amount.
If he's only doing one gig or the occasional gig you just need an agreement for that gig. It doesn't necessarily have to be a "subcontractor" agreement. Spell out what the mutual expectations and payment terms are just as you do with the actual client.
If you will take on the role of finding and supplying work to this person for the foreseeable future then you could draft a contract that covers all gigs going forward. You're still required to carry Workman's Compensation Insurance in most state's when using subcontractors. If they are using your gear you'll want to make sure your liability is properly coverd too, including those instances when they are driving their own vehicle to do your gigs. Their own auto insurance will not protect you if they get in an accident while under contract with you. Your subcontractor's should also provide proof of their own liability insurance.
Last edited:
As a business, you are required to carry Workers Comp for your own employee's. You ARE NOT required to provide Workers Comp for an independent organization, company or person sub contracted to you. You can require that they have it, but you do not have to cover them. A sub contractor by definition is an Independent, and unless that Independent Contractor has employees, they are exempt from any Workman's Comp requirement.
Example: Roofers - 'In roofing, installation with subcontractor crews is more the rule than the exception - and many subcontractors don’t carry workers’ compensation insurance. Because the workers’ comp premiums are so high, the subs in turn subcontract out their labor. By the time it gets down to it, everyone on the roof is a sole proprietor with no employees. All of whom are exempt from the workers’ compensation laws, and therefore have no insurance.'
NY Workers Comp Board: 'Accordingly, general contractors routinely require that subcontractors provide proof of their own workers' compensation coverage in order to co-work on the job. This results in many sole proprietors, partnerships, and one or two person owned corporations with no employees who are not otherwise legally required to acquire a workers' compensation policy, being required to purchase a policy (and include themselves in that policy) in order to work for a particular general contractor.'
Example: Roofers - 'In roofing, installation with subcontractor crews is more the rule than the exception - and many subcontractors don’t carry workers’ compensation insurance. Because the workers’ comp premiums are so high, the subs in turn subcontract out their labor. By the time it gets down to it, everyone on the roof is a sole proprietor with no employees. All of whom are exempt from the workers’ compensation laws, and therefore have no insurance.'
NY Workers Comp Board: 'Accordingly, general contractors routinely require that subcontractors provide proof of their own workers' compensation coverage in order to co-work on the job. This results in many sole proprietors, partnerships, and one or two person owned corporations with no employees who are not otherwise legally required to acquire a workers' compensation policy, being required to purchase a policy (and include themselves in that policy) in order to work for a particular general contractor.'
Last edited:
Oh that is easy!
This contract Acknowledges Our Agreement With:
Purchaser:
Address
Phone
We agree to furnish Variety Music Entertainment by D.J. XXXXXXX XXXXX as follows:
Date
Time
Location
Type of Engagement
Total Price:
Additional Information:
...Just use all of your regular contractual clauses on your regular agreement, but add in this line somewhere...
"If the Performer have not been chose under the signing of this agreement, then (Maestro Entertainment) shall subcontract, for the purchaser, all Performers as are required to perform any of the terms and conditions."
The person you are sub contracting gets a copy of the signed agreement you have with the client. ...They SHOULD know exactly what the client is paying, and you should write down on the agreement what their pay is so they know and it is in writing.
As for when the sub contractor is to be paid. You simply work that out with them. Either they can pick up a balance at the event where the client pay them in cash or writes them a check (made out to them), and that is part of their payment. Or you can collect it all up front prior to the event, and make separate arrangements on when the sub contractor will be paid by you.
....Many companies are not up front about WHEN they will pay a sub contractor and will also NOT ENTER into any specific date on when they will pay the Subcontractor. They just tell the sub contractor it's on the next "payroll" after the event date...but that can be the following Thursday/Friday, or 3, 4 or even 5 or 6 weeks after the event depending on how disorganized and/or shady the agent/company/DJ is.
I personally pay my Sub Contracted DJ's the very next day after a gig IF they want it. I booked a DJ on Saturday, and I had a check available for him to pick up today at my house. But I'm certainly not the norm, and the DJ I book is a close friend.
The states don't use Wikipedia to set policy. Who is eligible to purchase coverage is a separate issue from who is liable for any given injury claim. Here is what results when you don't cover uninsured contractors:
The sub contracted roofer who is ineligible to insure himself under workman's comp (like your independent DJ) shows up on your job site and gets injured. Health care professionals refer the sub to the state for financial assistance and the labor board learns that you were the general contractor. They will hold you liable under workman's comp because you are responsible for every uninsured person working your project. It really doesn't matter if they are an employee or a sub-contractor, and whether or not they personally are eligible to have purchased coverage. You WILL be held liable for any claim deemed appropriate to the injury because you were required to insure the worker or obtain proof of existing coverage.
Proceed at your own risk. I know people who have already spent ten years paying off liabilities you claim don't exist.
Who's talking about Wikipedia (other than you)? I provided information directly from a State site (not sure what part of the New York Workers Comp Board belongs to Wikipedia) - but if you have a beef, take it up with them. Maybe it is you that is using Wikipedia to try to look up policy. Again, as shown, I have State references - and as stated on that State site (the Workers Comp Board - I think they know more about their policies and requirements than you do), organizations with no employees are not required to have Workmans Comp. Contrary to your belief, you cannot invent federal, state or local requirements. I have also shown information from a professional home improvement site, which happens to coincide with what the states have shown. Considering it's similar information, then it appears that you are not in the know and again, I also believe they know the requirements and occurrences that pertain to their job better than you do.
I'm not a lawyer and neither are you. Please stop pretending to know more than you do, especially when confronted with proof that you don't - and especially when you can't, don't or won't demonstrate proof of otherwise. There are cases where the General Contractor was held to pay. There are also cases where a homeowner was left to pay. There are also cases where the sub was left to pay. There are also cases where the sub was considered an employee and not a sub (by Workers Comp laws) - and therefore was covered. There is no legal precedent one way or the other.
Again, subcontractors are Independent - and because of that, they are outside of your organization. You can require that they have Workers Comp in order to work for you - but there is no requirement that they have to have it - nor that you have to cover them. In such an instance where this does become a requirement, you will see a very large rise in prices - to pay for all this coverage.
VA Workers Comp Requirements (I guess they're part of Wikipedia too):
Q: Am I required to obtain workers’ compensation insurance?
A: Virginia law requires that an employer who regularly employs more than two part-time or full-time employees carry workers' compensation. If a business hires subcontractors to perform the same trade, business or occupation, or to fulfill a contract, the subcontractor’s employees are included when determining the total number of employees for coverage requirements. Executive officers also count as employees. If the total number of all employees is more than two, workers’ compensation is required. Workers’ compensation is mandatory for those employers who meet the requirements under the law.
Q: Does a sole proprietor with no employees need to carry workers’ compensation insurance?
A: No. A sole proprietor that has no employees and that does not hire subcontractors is not required by law to carry workers’ compensation coverage. An individual that is not required by law to carry coverage can obtain it voluntarily.
Last edited:
You went to a website that confirms what I just told you and you're so wrapped up in your pious beliefs you can't even see it.
Thankfully no, you are not an employment lawyer. You could however, work a little harder at to actually learn and understand how a law works rather than searching websites for foregone personal conclusions.
Last edited:
Actually it does NOT confirm anything you said. You are not an employment lawyer (nor a lawyer of any kind) and considering you've offered nothing to defend what you say, then you have nothing of legal value to add. You interpret things the way you see them benefit you (and some of them are illegal) - and you've demonstrated that many times. Again, my research was using Government resources (among others) - which as pertains to the law - are not 'foregone personal conclusions'. Is that what you tell the IRS at tax time that your bill is their 'forgone personal conclusion'? How's that work out for ya? 
I know how laws work and how they apply. I've demonstrated that what you say is false and shown you evidence (and have shown you what some States themselves say, of which you called Wikipedia. As far as the State is concerned, this is the law. Bob's law does not prevail over State's law. You've shown nothing because you have nothing. All you're doing is grabbing at straws. In the scenario of a person subcontracting an event (birthday party, wedding, etc) to some other person, in most cases, you're still at TWO people. What's that mean in VA you ask? No Workers Comp. What's that mean in NY you ask? No Workers Comp.
You might want to pay attention to the entire paragraph: who regularly employs more than two part-time or full-time employees
I guarantee you that roofers get around this by not 'regularly employing' subcontractors. If this issue was as cut and dried as you think it is, then there would be legal precedence - and there is none. Bottom line, stop providing legal advice and direction when you don't know the law.
This 'requirement' that you brought up appears to be a Massachusetts only requirement, in which any business with more than 1 employee requires Workers Comp. A potential caveat - a whole bunch of single owner / operator businesses working together.
Also something you spoke of - which also applies specifically to Massachusetts law - Under Section 18 of the Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, when an employee of an uninsured subcontractor is injured, the general contractor’s insurer must pay the workers’ compensation.
It's fine if you want to speak about MA requirements - but show it that way. You present things like it's a national requirement - and it's not. MA laws do not prevail over other States laws.
I think the reason MA has done this is because of employer's wanting to pay less overall by classifying people that work for them as Contractors. It appears that businesses in MA have a big, big problem with not wanting to pay people's benefits - so the State made it difficult to be classified as a Contractor. Contractors still do not need Workers Comp (business of less than 2 people).
----------------
According to Massachusetts law, an employee is a person under express or implied contract of hire. Employees are hired by contract to perform services for their employer. The significance of this definition is that when injured workers are deemed employees, they are entitled to benefits and payments provided by state workers’ compensation laws. In comparison, independent contractors are not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. There are other exceptions to the definition of employee under Massachusetts law, including seamen engaged in interstate commerce and other individuals.
----------------
Translation - if everyone is an employee - then everyone is covered and the blame game stops. Oh but wait - what's that line right there say .. ' In comparison, independent contractors are not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.' Hmmmm. So again, let's eliminate Contractors so that everyone is an employee - and the blame game goes away.
Ahh - but it happens in MA anyways.
'The suit alleges that Universal offered workers a choice: earn a lower hourly rate as a worker of $15 to $32.50 an hour or be paid $59 an hour as an independent contractor. Those who chose the latter, however, had to absorb all of the overhead, including workers’ compensation coverage, commercial liability insurance and unemployment insurance payments and pay withholding taxes.'
It appears that this suit popped up because some local union employees were upset that they didn't win a job - claiming unfair advantages.
I know how laws work and how they apply. I've demonstrated that what you say is false and shown you evidence (and have shown you what some States themselves say, of which you called Wikipedia. As far as the State is concerned, this is the law. Bob's law does not prevail over State's law. You've shown nothing because you have nothing. All you're doing is grabbing at straws. In the scenario of a person subcontracting an event (birthday party, wedding, etc) to some other person, in most cases, you're still at TWO people. What's that mean in VA you ask? No Workers Comp. What's that mean in NY you ask? No Workers Comp.
You might want to pay attention to the entire paragraph: who regularly employs more than two part-time or full-time employees
I guarantee you that roofers get around this by not 'regularly employing' subcontractors. If this issue was as cut and dried as you think it is, then there would be legal precedence - and there is none. Bottom line, stop providing legal advice and direction when you don't know the law.
This 'requirement' that you brought up appears to be a Massachusetts only requirement, in which any business with more than 1 employee requires Workers Comp. A potential caveat - a whole bunch of single owner / operator businesses working together.
Also something you spoke of - which also applies specifically to Massachusetts law - Under Section 18 of the Massachusetts workers’ compensation law, when an employee of an uninsured subcontractor is injured, the general contractor’s insurer must pay the workers’ compensation.
It's fine if you want to speak about MA requirements - but show it that way. You present things like it's a national requirement - and it's not. MA laws do not prevail over other States laws.
I think the reason MA has done this is because of employer's wanting to pay less overall by classifying people that work for them as Contractors. It appears that businesses in MA have a big, big problem with not wanting to pay people's benefits - so the State made it difficult to be classified as a Contractor. Contractors still do not need Workers Comp (business of less than 2 people).
----------------
According to Massachusetts law, an employee is a person under express or implied contract of hire. Employees are hired by contract to perform services for their employer. The significance of this definition is that when injured workers are deemed employees, they are entitled to benefits and payments provided by state workers’ compensation laws. In comparison, independent contractors are not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits. There are other exceptions to the definition of employee under Massachusetts law, including seamen engaged in interstate commerce and other individuals.
----------------
Translation - if everyone is an employee - then everyone is covered and the blame game stops. Oh but wait - what's that line right there say .. ' In comparison, independent contractors are not eligible for workers’ compensation benefits.' Hmmmm. So again, let's eliminate Contractors so that everyone is an employee - and the blame game goes away.
Ahh - but it happens in MA anyways.
'The suit alleges that Universal offered workers a choice: earn a lower hourly rate as a worker of $15 to $32.50 an hour or be paid $59 an hour as an independent contractor. Those who chose the latter, however, had to absorb all of the overhead, including workers’ compensation coverage, commercial liability insurance and unemployment insurance payments and pay withholding taxes.'
It appears that this suit popped up because some local union employees were upset that they didn't win a job - claiming unfair advantages.
Last edited:
There are no lawyers offering meaningful, dependable advice in this thread.
Would you seek reliable medical advice from a drove of deeeeejays?
Would you seek reliable medical advice from a drove of deeeeejays?
i called my lawyer on this topic....and he said...and i quote...
"I dont know much about 'Big Cityfolk Law' ....but mmmmmmmmm that pie smells delicious!! "
"I dont know much about 'Big Cityfolk Law' ....but mmmmmmmmm that pie smells delicious!! "
Frankly, your reliance on "appearances" garnered from web surfing is of no value.
If I want to maked informed decisions about commercial insurance I don't count how many uninsured roofers are working today. I look to the past experience following workers who fell off of the roof in a very long string of yesterdays.
Appearances garnered from web surfing? What part of State information do you not comprehend. In order for any person to make an informed decision in the information age, one would have to 'rely on appearances garnered from web surfing' - which include nifty places such as State offices, which can hold valuable and legal information (such as the law). Kinda hard to make an informed decision if you're not informed.
Last edited:
I think the difference between what you and Bob are saying is yours is what the law may say and Bob's is what may happen in court.