May I volunteer for an individual? In the United States, specifically in Norwalk, Connecticut, where I live, may I volunteer for an individual, and may an individual use volunteers? For example, may I volunteer as a personal chef for a celebrity, ie, cook them meals for free, and may they accept my services without compensating me? My thoughts I think the answer depends on whether I'm an independent contractor or an employee. According to Nolo's Employee's Guide to Minimum Wage Rights and Laws, &quot;independent contractors are not entitled to the minimum wage&quot;, but what if I'm an employee? According to the US Department of Labor: elaws - Fair Labor Standards Act Advisor, &quot;employees may not volunteer services to for-profit private sector employers&quot;, but what about to individual employers? According to US Department of Labor: Fact Sheet #79: Private Homes and Domestic Service Employment Under the Fair Labor Standards Act, household employees &quot;are covered by the FLSA&quot;. So I guess the answer to my question is yes if I'm an independent contractor and generally no if I'm an employee. Addendum 1 After reading ohwilleke's answer, I'd like to provide some more details. I made up the example above, but here are two actual scenarios I'm considering: Hiring a volunteer I post an ad to fairfield volunteers - craigslist asking for help decluttering my apartment, something I've been putting off for years. Independent contractor: If, eg, a professional organizer (who has other paying clients) offers to help me for free, then I think they'd be an independent contractor, so I don't think I'd have to pay them anything, since &quot;independent contractors are not entitled to the minimum wage&quot;. Employee: If, eg, a college student (who isn't already a professional organizer, personal assistant, or the like) offers to help me for free, then I think they'd be an employee, and I think employees are generally entitled to the minimum wage. Working as a volunteer I post an ad to fairfield volunteers - craigslist offering to help others for free. Some of the services I could provide are tutoring, moving, and consulting. Some of my motives for volunteering are to help myself, help others, make connections, and enjoy life.
In the United States, specifically in Norwalk, Connecticut, where I live, may I volunteer for an individual, and may an individual use volunteers? For example, may I volunteer as a personal chef for a celebrity, ie, cook them meals for free, and may they accept my services without compensating me? I think the answer depends on whether I'm an independent contractor or an employee. The answer is not nearly as simple and straighforward as the employee v. independent contractor distinction suggested in the question. People who work for free fit in a number of categories, some lawful and some not, even though the definition of employer under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) (regulations here) and parallel state legislation is facially very broad (people who suffer to let others work for them, more or less) and many of the exceptions are quite narrow. The nature of the categories is a nice illustration of how much social context and nuance is buried in a seemingly straightforward black and white legal rule like the minimum wage. Any time there are common practices that a statute doesn't expressly contemplated that aren't routinely the subject to litigation, you should doubt whether the statute really applies to them (although often enough it does), and courts are more likely in these circumstances than most to devise a definitional oriented, or implied, or common law exception to encompass the common practices as being lawful. The facts in the original question aren't rich enough in character to really determine which category applies, and those facts &quot;smell fishy&quot; as far as whether it would really fit in any legal category of unpaid work, in part, because the motives of the &quot;volunteer&quot; are very unclear. The legal categories include: People work for free in furtherance of their own charitable intent (e.g., working for free at a United Way fundraiser). People working for free who have bona fide donative intent (painting a mural on your boyfriend's wall as a birthday present). This is one possible category that the original question seems to be considering as possibility. Note that donative intent doesn't preclude an expectation that there will be unspecified, not legally enforceable, reciprocity in the future, in the form of reciprocal generosity, or in the form of owing someone an ill defined &quot;favor&quot; that doesn't amount to a true quid pro quo barter transaction. You might have donative intent towards a celebrity because you are a fan, because you appreciate their work or contributions, and because you desire to be part of the inner circle of a celebrity or wish to become a friend of a celebrity and want to do so out of friendship, since the celebrity is an awesome person that it would be nice to have in your life. This category could also include cases of moral but not legal obligation, or cases of seeking to do penance to the person for whom you volunteer out of non-legally binding guilty or shame (as distinct from a threat that you will be embarrassed). Family members doing chores for each other out of a duty of care and support on the part of a parent or spouse, or a duty to obey a parent arising at common law, on the part of a child, and similar family obligations. Closely related is unpaid work as a fiduciary (e.g. an executor, power of attorney agent, or trustee) with a donative or family relationship motivation. Parties to contracts remedying damage that they have done for which they would otherwise have contractual responsibility (e.g. cleaning your own apartment, or an apartment upon which you guaranteed someone else's lease, before the tenant moves out, so you won't have deductions from your security deposit, or so you won't be sued for damages). Similarly, work incurred to protect or add value to your own property. People who work expecting to be paid and have a legal right to be paid who don't get paid after the fact due to the insolvency of the employer, or discharge of the debt in bankruptcy, or the expiration of a statute of limitations or claims deadline in a probate proceeding. People performing court ordered community service and inmates in prison pursuant to a conviction. Self-employed business people who don't make a profit, either personally, or in a capacity as an officer or director of an entity owned by the self-employed person. But, if this involved providing services for no compensation, without a more involved business with expenses as well as receipts, as an alleged independent contractor, for a single other person, this is probably a case where the law would find that someone is actually an employee and not an independent contractor, and where the contract is void for want of consideration. The form over substance analysis that holds that is employment subject to the minimum wage for purposes of the FLSA and state law seems like the most likely scenario in the original question, but the facts aren't detailed enough to tell definitively. Unpaid interns and students learning while doing something of value (generally permitted, but the analysis of the FLSA and state law is rather involved). This is another category that plausible could apply to the original question. People within other express FLSA exceptions that are also present in state law. The illegal categories include: Slaves. These rare cases are usually prosecuted criminally intended to punish keeping slaves (often accompanied by human trafficking charges). Indentured servants (basically slaves for a term of years who aren't allowed to quit, often to someone who paid a major expense such as travel costs to a new country for you, in order to repay the debt). These rare cases are usually prosecuted criminally intended to punish this practice (often accompanied by human trafficking charges). Inmates in jails who have not yet been convicted of a crime, and who are awaiting trial, who are required to work without pay. People working for free due to duress or blackmail, not expressly authorized by law, and not merely the generalized economic duress of needing money to live (e.g. doing household chores for a bully because he threatened to beat you up if you don't). These cases, if they are litigated at all, are usually prosecuted criminally under extortion statutes. More generally, you are not a true &quot;volunteer&quot; if you work is in any meaningful sense involuntary, even if it does not support a provable case beyond a reasonable doubt of true criminal extortion. People in normal employment relationships who are paid for some work but required to do additional unpaid work as condition of employment. Most civil FLSA litigation involving completely unpaid work, involves this category of unpaid work. I'm sure that there are other possibilities that I have not considered and listed, but generally, the legality of working for free is evaluated on a category by category basis. Situations where payment is predominantly in kind (e.g. room and board and clothing) can be complex to analyze and these arrangements are frequently subject to special rules. The primary statutory minimum wage exemptions are as set forth in the exemptions provision of the FLSA: §213. Exemptions (a) Minimum wage and maximum hour requirements The provisions of sections 206 (except subsection (d) in the case of paragraph (1) of this subsection) and 207 of this title shall not apply with respect to— (1) any employee employed in a bona fide executive, administrative, or professional capacity (including any employee employed in the capacity of academic administrative personnel or teacher in elementary or secondary schools), or in the capacity of outside salesman (as such terms are defined and delimited from time to time by regulations of the Secretary, subject to the provisions of subchapter II of chapter 5 of title 5, except that an employee of a retail or service establishment shall not be excluded from the definition of employee employed in a bona fide executive or administrative capacity because of the number of hours in his workweek which he devotes to activities not directly or closely related to the performance of executive or administrative activities, if less than 40 per centum of his hours worked in the workweek are devoted to such activities); or (2) Repealed. Pub. L. 101–157, §3(c)(1), Nov. 17, 1989, 103 Stat. 939. (3) any employee employed by an establishment which is an amusement or recreational establishment, organized camp, or religious or non-profit educational conference center, if (A) it does not operate for more than seven months in any calendar year, or (B) during the preceding calendar year, its average receipts for any six months of such year were not more than 331/3 per centum of its average receipts for the other six months of such year, except that the exemption from sections 206 and 207 of this title provided by this paragraph does not apply with respect to any employee of a private entity engaged in providing services or facilities (other than, in the case of the exemption from section 206 of this title, a private entity engaged in providing services and facilities directly related to skiing) in a national park or a national forest, or on land in the National Wildlife Refuge System, under a contract with the Secretary of the Interior or the Secretary of Agriculture; or (4) Repealed. Pub. L. 101–157, §3(c)(1), Nov. 17, 1989, 103 Stat. 939. (5) any employee employed in the catching, taking, propagating, harvesting, cultivating, or farming of any kind of fish, shellfish, crustacea, sponges, seaweeds, or other aquatic forms of animal and vegetable life, or in the first processing, canning or packing such marine products at sea as an incident to, or in conjunction with, such fishing operations, including the going to and returning from work and loading and unloading when performed by any such employee; or (6) any employee employed in agriculture (A) if such employee is employed by an employer who did not, during any calendar quarter during the preceding calendar year, use more than five hundred man-days of agricultural labor, (B) if such employee is the parent, spouse, child, or other member of his employer's immediate family, (C) if such employee (i) is employed as a hand harvest laborer and is paid on a piece rate basis in an operation which has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment, (ii) commutes daily from his permanent residence to the farm on which he is so employed, and (iii) has been employed in agriculture less than thirteen weeks during the preceding calendar year, (D) if such employee (other than an employee described in clause (C) of this subsection) (i) is sixteen years of age or under and is employed as a hand harvest laborer, is paid on a piece rate basis in an operation which has been, and is customarily and generally recognized as having been, paid on a piece rate basis in the region of employment, (ii) is employed on the same farm as his parent or person standing in the place of his parent, and (iii) is paid at the same piece rate as employees over age sixteen are paid on the same farm, or (E) if such employee is principally engaged in the range production of livestock; or (7) any employee to the extent that such employee is exempted by regulations, order, or certificate of the Secretary issued under section 214 of this title; or (8) any employee employed in connection with the publication of any weekly, semiweekly, or daily newspaper with a circulation of less than four thousand the major part of which circulation is within the county where published or counties contiguous thereto; or (9) Repealed. Pub. L. 93–259, §23(a)(1), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 69. (10) any switchboard operator employed by an independently owned public telephone company which has not more than seven hundred and fifty stations; or (11) Repealed. Pub. L. 93–259, §10(a), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 63. (12) any employee employed as a seaman on a vessel other than an American vessel; or (13), (14) Repealed. Pub. L. 93–259, §§9(b)(1), 23(b)(1), Apr. 8, 1974, 88 Stat. 63, 69. (15) any employee employed on a casual basis in domestic service employment to provide babysitting services or any employee employed in domestic service employment to provide companionship services for individuals who (because of age or infirmity) are unable to care for themselves (as such terms are defined and delimited by regulations of the Secretary); or (16) a criminal investigator who is paid availability pay under section 5545a of title 5; (17) any employee who is a computer systems analyst, computer programmer, software engineer, or other similarly skilled worker, whose primary duty is— (A) the application of systems analysis techniques and procedures, including consulting with users, to determine hardware, software, or system functional specifications; (B) the design, development, documentation, analysis, creation, testing, or modification of computer systems or programs, including prototypes, based on and related to user or system design specifications; (C) the design, documentation, testing, creation, or modification of computer programs related to machine operating systems; or (D) a combination of duties described in subparagraphs (A), (B), and (C) the performance of which requires the same level of skills, and who, in the case of an employee who is compensated on an hourly basis, is compensated at a rate of not less than $27.63 an hour; or (18) any employee who is a border patrol agent, as defined in section 5550(a) of title 5; or (19) any employee employed to play baseball who is compensated pursuant to a contract that provides for a weekly salary for services performed during the league's championship season (but not spring training or the off season) at a rate that is not less than a weekly salary equal to the minimum wage under section 206(a) of this title for a workweek of 40 hours, irrespective of the number of hours the employee devotes to baseball related activities.
Is this work for hire? There is an arguable case to be made that you are an employee for copyright law purposes and, if so, the copyright belongs to the company. The closer an employment relationship comes to regular, salaried employment, the more likely it is that a work created within the scope of that employment will be a work made for hire. But because no precise standard exists for determining whether a work is made for hire under part 1 of the definition in section 101 of the copyright law, consultation with a lawyer may be advisable. Second, if you do own the copyright, there is clearly an implied licence with the company to allow them to use it. It is arguable that the licence is exclusive since the software is bespoke and made specifically for the company. Can you sign an agreement now Yes, but … It is clear that the purpose of signing the agreement is to screw the company over (with the compliance of 2 of the directors). That’s a contract entered into in bad faith and possibly for an illegal purpose and would likely be found invalid. You need to understand that the company is a distinct legal entity from its owners and it has its own rights. People make the mistake of thinking the owners are the company: they aren’t. The two rebel founders are on dangerous legal ground. Assuming they are the directors of the company, they have a fiduciary duty to act in the best interests of the company. That is, they must put the company’s interests ahead of their own. It is clearly not in the company’s interest to have a rival business start so they cannot plan to do that while they are directors - they need to resign first. You are not so much at risk - as an employee/contractor your duty is to follow the directions of the company (the company - not a faction within the company). However, if you aid the other two in what might be a crime, you could be in trouble.
No The intent of the proposed bill is to codify existing case law. You are an employee now and you will be an employee then. You are an employee now because a) you are not free from the company's control and direction or b) the work you are doing is the company's main business. If you read the bill you will find out that c) involves "an independently established trade, occupation, or business" so your business qualifies for this but you need to qualify for all three factors to be an independent contractor.
This is a well established model in the UK. One route is the umbrella company. Y here would be the umbrella company. A would then either be providing services to Y or be employed by Y. You may be wondering what use it is if A is employed by Y. The answer here is that whilst A may not benefit from the tax treatment, X does not bear the burden of running PAYE etc. Further, because of regulations such as IR35, it may be that there is a doubt as to whether employment tax apply even if there is a contract for service. Essentially disguised employment means taxes are levied on the employer as if an employment existed; however, in this situation X has the comfort that if this arises they will (normally) fall on Y rather than X. Another route is the service company, where normally A himself will own it (or it is owned between A and A's spouse), take a combination of salary and dividends out (using two allowances if owned between spouses), and he will bill X or Y; companies exist which will perform all the necessary paperwork to do this (in which case Y is called a managed service company), as opposed to a personal service company (if A sets it up himself). It's not clear where you are based, but if you are based outside the UK (and possibly if you are inside the UK) there are accountancy companies that specialise in setting all this up.
I assume that you arranged a contract with some company which paid the contractor the full amount, and not you have to pay that company. If you stop paying the finance company, they will initiate legal proceedings against you to make good on your obligation, and that won't affect what the contractor does. It might not hurt you to write a formal letter (no phone calls) to the contractor stating that you require them to complete the job by some date certain, and hope that you won't have to take the matter to court. If you decide to write the letter yourself, you want to avoid saying anything that could be held against your interest, for example "I don't care how crappy a job you do, I just want this job done!": you need to be sure that what you say in a letter does not put you at a legal disadvantage. The best way to guarantee that is to hire an attorney to write the letter. If you want your money back (plus interest), you will almost certainly need to hire an attorney to write the letter. It is possible that there is an arbitration clause in your contract, requiring you to settle disputes with the firm Dewey, Cheatham &amp; Howe. In that case, your attorney might not be able to do much for you. There cannot be a clause in a contract that penalizes you simply for hiring an attorney.
I am not a lawyer; I am not your lawyer. You do not cite a jurisdiction so this makes it very difficult to get a definitive answer. What follows is for Australia but the general principles are common law and would be applicable to other common law jurisdictions except where statues apply or case law has diverged. In the first instance, it seems that you were not party to any arrangement to pay for the electricity. So on the face of it you are not party to any contract requiring you to pay. Even if there was such an agreement: family, domestic, social and voluntary agreements (which this would be) are presumed not to be intended to legally bind the participants. Whether this presumption would be overturned would depend on the specific facts. On the face of it, there is no legal obligation to pay. Your options are: Do nothing; this puts the ball in their court, they can: Forget about it (it would then be over) Attempt to sue you with little prospect of success (which would cost them and you a lot more than $50 irrespective of who won) Do something illegal like beating you up (you really need to assess this risk) Tell everyone they know (in person and on social media) what a skiving prick you are (you could probably sue them for damages but that's not really going to happen, is it?) Pay them what they are asking Offer to pay them something less. Option 1 is likely to break any relationship you have with the person, Option 2 is likely to preserve it and Option 3 could go either way. Ultimately, like most legal questions, this is not about the law; it's about relationships ... broken ones mostly.
Ask yourself... What are you trying to achieve? My understanding is an employer is not obliged to provide you a positive job reference. I believe at most, they are only to obliged to confirm that you worked there. Anything above that is optional. The fact that you have left British Columbia only makes it more difficult for the company to chase you - It does not alter your legal obligations. As part of the settlement, both the employer and employee singed an mutual non-disparagement agreement. Why did you sign a mutual non-disparagement agreement if you still disagree? It leads me to believe there could be trust issues between you and others. Why do you think your old employer must abide by the agreement, but you have an exemption? Let's say you make noise - let's say your old employer in BC tracks you down. Ask yourself how an independent third party like your new employer would react when they read that you signed an agreement, then decided to ignore it. Both you and your previous employer have begun new separate journeys. You two crashed once - I suggest you not alter your path or you could crash again. Life is too short. Concentrate on making your new home in your new city and a new job a new start. It will bring you a greater benefit than breaking a signed, sealed non-disparagement agreement.
Since Medicare and Medicaid are US federal government programs, I assume you are referring to US Medicare. What you describe is theoretically possible: a person has worked in the US but is 4 quarters short of the required 40 for Medicare eligibility (also, they do not gain spousal eligibility) because they have been previously employed. If they have earned income up to a certain level within a tax year, they would pay SS taxes thus qualifying for Social Security and Medicare. For 2020 that amount was $5,640 to get the maximum of 4 credits – it does not have to be stretched out over a year. You can earn those credits doing anything (certain government-sector jobs excluded). Then you pay income taxes and social security taxes on that amount. If the person earns the money as an independent contractor they pay the entire tax, if they are an employee the employer pays part of the tax (then the employer has to figure out what their obligation is, which the IRS is happy to tell you about). The employer also withholds the employee's contribution and pays it to the IRS, and the amount is reported on their form W2. These are mandatory obligations on the employer: you must pay the employer portion and you must withhold. It would be illegal to not make the required contributions. There is no law that prohibits employment of a person who has not already qualified for Medicare or SS (that should be obvious). There is no law that sets &quot;usefulness&quot; standards that an employee must meet in order to be lawfully employed. No untruthful statements are required in order to hire a person that just stands at the door and says &quot;Hello&quot;. If it actually is the case that the employee does not even receive their wage, as you conjecture, then that would be a violation of state or federal labor laws. In connection with that, continued employment is not required to continue receiving SS and Medicare, and this might be a scheme to exploit a senior citizen into working for low wages when they don't have to.