There’s Employment and Then There’s Employment

I’m a word geek. I find words fascinating -- their different meanings, how we use them, how they evolve, how to carefully express an idea or a sentiment with them, the beauty of a well-constructed sentence -- it all speaks to me.

It’s why I can get a bit testy about people using words too carelessly. Masseuse vs. massage therapist. Impact as a verb. Impactful under any circumstances. Employment...

Wait (I hear you saying) that's a good word! Yes it is. The problem is that too many people use "employment" when they should be saying "contracting". The difference matters. A lot.

In the February 2012 issue of Massage Today, columnist Angie Patrick suggested that our two work choices as MTs are entrepreneur or employee. We work for ourselves or we work for others. The problem with this either/or categorization is that there is a third choice (there's almost always a third choice) and it's the one masses of us find ourselves in: independent contractor.

Am I splitting hairs? Absolutely not.

Angie is right that, very broadly speaking, we can work by ourselves or we can work with other people. When we work with other people, however, we aren't necessarily working for other people.

When we work with an organization as an independent contractor we are not an employee. (Approximately 99% of the MTs I know here in DC who work as part of another organization [spa, group practice, chiro, etc.] are independent contractors.) We don't have the privileges of an employee -- paid time off, regular salary, medical benefits, etc. -- but we also don't have the restrictions of an employee -- employer decides when, how, and where you will work using what tools, processes, and procedures, etc.

There is a balance of power inherent in working relationships. When you are an employee, the employer has more control but they also have more responsibility. When you are an independent contractor, you negotiate more of the details of your working relationship and the balance of power is less one-sided.

Here's another sneaky little truth in our industry: even when we are officially employees, we often don't get the goodies we assume come with employment, such as paid time off or medical benefits. I have learned from talking to a number of MTs who are officially employees that even when companies offer these benefits, the rules governing what it takes to actually qualify are usually not written in our favor.

In one case here in DC, an MT could be scheduled to be at work for 40 hours a week but the only hours the company would count towards qualifying for benefits would be the hours the MT was actually in session with a client. If you had 25 one-hour sessions in a week (a completely full schedule for most of us), the company would say you were only "part-time" so you weren't eligible for benefits. Yes, despite the fact that you were scheduled to be on-site for 40 yours and might actually be getting paid for 40 hours. For the purposes of qualifying for benefits, you were only "working" 25 hours, not enough to get benefits.

Is that fair? In an official employment relationship, remember, the employer has more control to go along with their greater responsibility. I don't think it's fair but it's within their rights as an employer.

The IRS is very particular about the difference between contracting and employment. You and your "employer" can get into trouble if your working reality and your contractual arrangement are not in synch with each other.

I get frustrated by how casually writers in our trade pubs use the word "employment" when they really should be saying "contracting". I suspect this happens most often when the writer is not an MT and has never been self-employed. The difference between the two words is enormous for us and using the words incorrectly has led way too many MTs astray.