@TeriW wrote:

I understand that.I wasn't clear. I meant that since the scheduler likely has no other clients if they are working so much, I have doubts about the IC status.

Perhaps I wasn't clear either, Teri. The answer to your question is: yes, it's legal.

It's a business-to-business transaction in that case and you have the right to accept sub-standard pay as a business. The IC status is also not totally contingent on your ability to work for others. That's just a part of the deciding factor.

(Edited for confusing quote structure)

Edited 1 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2016 07:33PM by SteveSoCal.

Thanks, Steve. That is exactly what I wanted to know.

I am so please that I have the right to accept crappy pay! No thanks.

Sometimes it does seem like businesses get awfully close to the IC/employee line. I'm no lawyer, though. I have read the guidelines, but it seems there is a gray area.

To me all those skills are basic these days. And I'm not sure why you don't understand the state and cities paying FF workers those wages are few and far between. Here those jobs would pay $7.35. I'm also sticking to my guns about the definition of flexibility. A common complaint among part time workers is the inconsistency of their schedules making it difficult, if not downright impossible, to schedule anything else. BTW, nowhere did I say this specific scheduler job is ideal or the pay is sufficient. I just feel your comparisons to California and your lifestyle are not realistic for many people who choose mystery shopping or other work from home jobs.

"I think it's also an apples-to-oranges comparison to think of any basic wage earning job (Which would require a very limited skill-set) with this position, which requires organization, being a self-starter, technical ability, software knowledge and industry experience. I think that the Starbucks & In-N-Out on the corner by my house offer employment at over $12 per hour (and soon to be over $15 per hour) with no experience required, benefits and flexible hours."

@PasswordNotFound wrote:

Not for me, but my parents always taught me that any honest job is a good job. It's a heckuva lot better than living off the taxpayers. I like ACL.

I would respectfully counter that you parents come from a different generation where perhaps that may have applied, but the new millennium has brought us greater disparity in pay for work offered than in the past.

I would also argue the relative honesty of the job if the company is utilizing the IC status of the schedulers to skirt paying a fair wage...and I would seriously doubt that anyone taking that position would not be entitled to certain tax benefits (such as the earned income credit), which are supported by taxpayers if I understand correctly.

Last, your statement about liking ACL is my original point. Since they are so nice, are we supposed to just let them cannibalize the industry so that in the end no jobs have a payment attached to them? I say look past the smile and see what's really going on there. If you saw income statements for the principles at the MSC, you might not be as happy to take those assignments for no pay. It's setting a poor precedent.

@LisaSTL wrote:

I just feel your comparisons to California and your lifestyle are not realistic for many people who choose mystery shopping or other work from home jobs.

I'm not coming down on mystery shopping as a living...or working from home. I do both of those on a part-time basis and definitely see the advantage of it. I'm just against any further deterioration of the industry as a whole and I see this job offer as being indicative of that.

That seems to be the first thing we can agree on today. I'm also guessing we have similar views of the disabled, etc., being accused of "living off the taxpayer."

"I'm just against any further deterioration of the industry as a whole and I see this job offer as being indicative of that."

@Steve, the new generation has also brought us many people who think they are entitled to compensation without an accompanying degree of work, or those who think they are too good to start at the bottom. There are a lot of jobs open in my area that require physical labor that pay enough to live on. They go unfilled because many 20s and 30s don't want to get their hands dirty. (Not all, just many.)

I just signed up for $120 worth of food that will take me 2 hours including drive time. I'm figuring that I am saving $50 of my grocery budget and many hours of time preparing food. That's pay to me. Also, not all their jobs are reimbursement only.

On a side note, ACL just posted shops for April. Half in my area are gone already.



Edited 2 time(s). Last edit at 03/22/2016 09:36PM by PasswordNotFound.

I understand that it can be beneficial to take reimbursement-only assignments. I'm suggesting that perhaps in the long-term it is not good for the industry overall, so you might want to consider the long-term effect when agreeing to those assignments. Do you not have access to assignments that pay a fair wage and still offset your food costs?

...and apparently we don't in the same area because the email I just received from a scheduler at ACL said they were having trouble scheduling assignments in my area and also having trouble finding shoppers. Rather than actually pay a shopper to perform the assignment, they are instead offering me $50 if I can refer another shopper to them.

Do think it's a good idea for me to recommend another shopper for them, since that will offset my food costs $50?

Yes on the other shops that I'm adding on to the food run. I guess I'm not seeing $50 as unfair and driving wages down. It's not a $4 shop. It might be argued that giving Coyle a pass on paying full travel reimbursement is similar.

Why won't they just give you $50 to do the shop? That seems smarter, though I guess they're looking for a long-term solution. I do refer shoppers when it's something I don't want to do, but my area is not particularly saturated. I'm assuming that two or three shoppers snagged the ACL shops they wanted, and left the take-outs as less desirable (not to me; they're fast and easy, and the food is good.)

@PasswordNotFound wrote:

I guess I'm not seeing $50 as unfair and driving wages down. It's not a $4 shop. It might be argued that giving Coyle a pass on paying full travel reimbursement is similar.

...but you do see where taking a $50 referral fee for sending them a shopper drives wages down, yes?

I would be happy taking the assignment if they just paid everyone $10 per assignment, but they insist in offering assignment for no pay and would rather bonus a shop every single month and use their profits to pay incentives for referrals so that in the long run, they can change our expectations of what a shop should pay...and that's where the analogy with Coyle assignments breaks down; Coyle is NOT systematically trying to eliminate full travel reimbursement.

They have some clients that will reimburse travel more generously than others, but they would be happy to post a job with full travel reimbursement if the client allowed for it, and they often do. And every single assignment with them pays a fee!

@SteveSoCal wrote:

@TeriW wrote:

I wonder about the legality of putting an hourly pay amount on an IC position.

It's not about the pay rate, it's about the control than the employer exerts over you that defines your job as employment vs. contractor. Many contractors bill by the hour.

@LisaSTL wrote:

First, I think you are comparing apples to oranges. Most part time employees do not get benefits such as paid time off.

For benefits; I was referring more to unemployment, disability and workers comp., which I think all part time employees are entitled to....at least in CA they are.

Each person has to find the employment situation that works best for them and agreed that having responsibilities that require you to be at home on occasion make a home workplace more attractive to some, but I also think you are probably underestimating the scheduler position requirements if you think it's a basic job. The job description on the website reads like something I would typically see offered a might higher pay rate:

This is a part-time position, and 7 day per week availability is needed. Candidates must have on-line capability and at least a DSL or Broadband connection to the Internet. The applicant for this position must be an outgoing, people person who possesses great attention to detail, the ability to read and follow precise directions, excellent phone skills, the ability to proactively contact shoppers or potential shoppers by phone daily, creative writing skills and a good working knowledge of the internet, social media and computer software. Prefer candidates with mystery shopping experience.

I think it's also an apples-to-oranges comparison to think of any basic wage earning job (Which would require a very limited skill-set) with this position, which requires organization, being a self-starter, technical ability, software knowledge and industry experience. I think that the Starbucks & In-N-Out on the corner by my house offer employment at over $12 per hour (and soon to be over $15 per hour) with no experience required, benefits and flexible hours. The above job description reads more like the qualifications for a content editor at Buzzfeed, which is a much higher paying job position that would offset any clothing costs and probably net you a few free meals as well.

In IN, part time employees are not entitled to unemployment You must be full time for at least 6 months, and termination must be basically due to lay-off. If you were fired for fault, you are not entitled to it, nor are you if you quit. Anyone may be able to file disability as a reason why they can not work, but I don't believe that's a relation to job benefits here. Part time employees can file workers comp if hurt on the job. But many will end up terminated soon after if they actually do it. And around here, a large number of companies have gone to great lengths to cut employees down to 29 hours to avoid paying any benefits.

As far as the job description, with the exception of the part that actually states contacting shoppers by phone, it reads almost identical to every job description I've seen in the past 5 years, for any position not requiring a degree. And honestly, it sounds a lot less intimidating to me than Starbucks... SOOO many different drinks and recipes! And super fast paced! Holy cow!

As a mostly self-employed (sometimes self employed full time, sometimes working an hourly part-time job when my businesses are slow, and sometimes self-employed part time by choice) individual, I'm insulted by the notion that a stay-at-home mom can or should work for paltry wages because she's home anyway or can "afford" to work for less. Or that because she has a computer and other technology anyway, those expenses don't count. (I'm not saying that anyone here has explicitly said those things, but it's apparently a common feeling.)

I was a full-time marketing communications consultant and part-time Realtor for years, and when my first son was born, I gave up my office space and worked from home. Although I "worked from home," I still had expenses and I didn't reduce my billing rate because those went down. And I still had child-care expenses, because, depending on how old one's child/children are, you can't work and tend to kids at the same time--unless you totally control your own time and can work only when they nap and before/after they go to bed. Which I also did when I was up against a crushing load of work or a tight deadline. The particular IC job in question doesn't sound as if it has that kind of flexibility. They are wanting a helluva lot for what they want to pay.

I find that I have to make at least 33% more, not less, in order to make what I would make as an employee and break even. That 33% figure is old, as I haven't done the math lately, so it's probably more like 45% or 50% now.

I've also had part-time jobs that paid benefits (pro-rated sick days, vacation pay, holiday pay, etc.), so the argument that working part time at home without benefits isn't much different than working part time as an employee without benefits (other than the SE tax) doesn't wash, either.

Everybody has to find a situation that works for them. But I hate to see anyone, male or female, parent or not, devaluing themselves and the work they do because they "can do it from home" or because they "have a computer and free time anyway."

OK, rant over. Sorry for the lengthy post. (Edited several times due to my obsessive need to make sure I don't have typos in my posts....)



Edited 4 time(s). Last edit at 03/24/2016 12:47PM by BirdyC.

I am a scheduler and to work at home is a big incentive that makes $8-10 per hour, especially for part-time work, seem appealing. I don't have to wear office clothes, get my hair done, get my fingernails done, hire a dogsitter, etc. And I can schedule for as many companies as I want. The only drawback is getting OUT of the house, and that's where an occasional mystery shop comes in handy.

Full disclosure, I didn't read the comments. However, I've been both a salaried scheduler and an indepentant contractor. I prefer the indepentant route, however I do average about $10 an hour. It's worth it to me though. (I work about 50 hours a week but I work around my daughters schedule.)

Don't take that position! A-Closer-Look is another company that used to have decent, well paying clients and now most of them have left them. A lot of their regular clients are gone and when you tell them to up the fee because prices on the menus have gone up, they just "Ignore" you. They do NOT check out the menu and bar price increases. The scheduler's that they have are just pawns in the game. They come and go at this company.