Sole Practitioner: Self–Employed or Contingent Worker? Investigating Worker Misclassification and Its Implications to Commercial Interior Design

Abstract

Issue

Sole practitioners in the area of contract design can be subject to compromise in their employer relationships. Designers who do not take stands against improper and illegal employer demands jeopardize their self–employed status and may become exploited workers. The employing firm, in turn, puts itself at risk with an IRS audit of worker classification.

Goal

Abuse of worker classification is recognized to be a general practice in many fields and professions nationwide. The goal was to examine this accommodative and destructive work pattern.

Application

Forfeiture through cooperation of the self–employed status has detrimental personal and financial results for the individual, creates adverse federal tax and employment benefit effects for both participants, denies self–employment, denigrates the interior design profession, and erodes all workers’ rights.

Description

Revelation of employment practices common in other industries and professions and knowledge of federal law provide a basis of understanding that can stop such illegal work behavior.

Conclusion

Industry acknowledgment of the exploitation will go a long way toward correction. However, sole practitioners themselves must reject employer requests to misrepresent their employment status. Federal enforcement of the law is helping, but professional associations, industry leaders, and design educators need to become strong advocates for conducting business the right way.