User talk:Quorumangelorum

Is an independant contractor a "subordinate"?
From: Reference desk/Language

I am wondering about these two terms in a literal sense; it seems to me that an independant contractor is an "associate" or "peer", but not a "subordinate"...an employee can be a subordinate because there is an implied hierarchal relationship which is commonly one of the implicit or explicit terms of employment.

"Contracting", however, is not the same as "employment"; when one enters into a contract with a contractor, one is not in a position of hierarchal authority over that person.

I realize there is no one right answer for this, but I'd like to know what others think.

Thanks. —Preceding unsigned comment added by Quorumangelorum (talk • contribs) 09:42, 17 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Actually, there is indeed a right answer. Which is "No".  One with whom you make a contract is a contractor, not an employee.  There is no employment relationship and, thus, no hierarchical authority such as superior or subordinate.  That being said ... both parties to the contract can expect / require / force / demand / insist that the other party to the contract live up to the terms and conditions of the contract.  That is, that the other party comply with the agreement.  (Remember that both parties have this right, not just one party over the other.)  So, when one party actually does so (expects / insists / demands / etc.) ... this might seem like or look like a superior bossing around a subordinate.  But, it is not the same case.  So, let me give you an example to make it clearer.  Let's say that the officials of Big Fat-Cat Corporation make a contract with Clara's Cleaning Service.  Let's say that the contract calls for the people who work for Clara's to go in at the end of the work day and clean, vacuum, dust, empty the garbage, etc., in the Fat-Cat offices.  Let's say that one of the Fat-Cat officials says something to one of the Clara's Cleaning Service workers ... something like this: "I want you to go in and clean and scrub the fifth floor bathroom ... I just went in there, and it's a mess!"  The Fat-Cat official is not speaking to the Clara's Cleaning crew as a superior boss, addressing and making demands of a subordinate employee.  Rather, the Fat-Cat official is saying (in paraphrase):  "The work that you did does not meet the standards that we all agreed to in our contract ... and I am requesting that the work you perform meet with those agreed-upon standards ... or else, I will not pay you and I will claim that you broke the contract."  Remember -- as I mentioned -- both parties to the contract have the right to insist upon the other party holding up their end of the contract.  So, the Clara's Cleaning Service crewmember might say: "Well, Mister Fat-Cat ... I have a copy of the contract right here and you will see on Page 8, Section 5, Paragraph 3, that the office cleaning does not include bathrooms ...  but is limited to offices, desks, and hallways".  So, as an answer to your question, both parties to a contract are peers on equal footing.  In the legal sense.  No one is superior or subordinate over the other.  Both parties are expected to comply with the agreement ... and the other party can demand or insist upon that.  As the example I just gave you illustrates, both parties were demanding of the other that they uphold their end of the bargain.  Mister Fat-Cat's demand was in error, as he mistakenly thought that the contract included bathroom cleaning.  Miss Clara's demand was not in error ... she was saying, in effect, "Mister Fat-Cat, I expect you to live up to our agreement ... and our agreement specifically excludes bathroom cleaning ... and I expect you to comply with that section of our agreement (by not expecting or demanding me to clean the bathroom)."  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 03:32, 19 January 2008 (UTC))


 * Why thank you, Mr. Spadaro. So then, while one is free to terminate such a contract for whatever reasons are permitted or not forbidden within that contract, one cannot legitimately accuse the contractee of "insubordination", am I correct?Quorumangelorum (talk) 08:05, 20 January 2008 (UTC)


 * Hello. Thanks.  First, if you want to chat with me, please reply at my Talk Page - not at yours.  I check my Talk Page every day and see the new postings.  I certainly do not check your Talk Page every day to see if you posted anything there.  My Talk Page is at this link here --> User talk:Joseph A. Spadaro.  Second, per Wikipedia rules, I am not giving any legal advice at all, just trying to answer a semantics question.  Third, remember that the situation and laws are different all over the place.  I am in the USA and answering as such ... I have no idea where you are located, and if it is within or outside the USA.  So, all of that being said ... I can now answer your latest follow-up questions.  Let me address the first part of your question, which states: "one is free to terminate such a contract for whatever reasons are permitted or not forbidden within that contract."  In a one word answer, yes.  But, the way that your follow-up question is worded, it seems like you are mixing apples and oranges -- that is, confusing very different things.  I guess I am not sure what you mean by "terminating" a contract?  The contract itself usually has dates within it, such as "This contract runs from January 1, 2008, and will expire on December 31, 2008."  So, you never "terminate" that contract -- it just "dies" on December 31, 2008.  If you want to "break" ("stop") the contract before the ending date of December 31, that's a different story --- and it would depend on why (what reasons) you want to not finish out the whole year-contract.  As you refer to, some contracts will have explicit terms within them that delineate when/where/how/why the contract may be terminated.  Some contracts have no dates in them, correct.  And, within them, there will be (there should be) certain reasons as to when / how / why either party may "end" the contract.  But, in a one-word simplistic answer ... yes, one is free to terminate such a contract for whatever reasons are permitted or not forbidden within that contract.  Now, let me address the second part of your question, which states: "one cannot legitimately accuse the contractee of 'insubordination' ..."  Again, you are mixing apples and oranges.  So, it is a hard question to answer.  In a simple answer, the answer is ... maybe yes and maybe no.  If any terms of the contract deal with "insubordination", then - yes, one party may certainly accuse the other party of insubordination.  For example, a contract may state: "If Party A does not report to the work site prior to 9 AM, that will be considered insubordination" ... or "If Party B does not submit the appropriate paper work at the end of the day, that action will be considered insubordination" ... or something like that.  So, if the terms of the contract deal with insubordination, then - yes, one party may certainly accuse the other of insubordination.  Now, let's say that the contract does not in any way mention insubordination.  (This is probably the likely case that you are referring to.)  Then, in terms of semantics (that is, language and wording) ... then, no -- one party may not accuse the other of insubordination.  But, really, they can accuse the other party of breaching the terms of the contract ... that is, not meeting up with their end of the bargain in the contract.  So, the real and correct words (semantics) would be that one party accuses the other of either: breaching (breaking) the contract ... or ... not complying with the terms and conditions of that contract ... or words like that.  Those essentially mean the same thing as the concept of insubordination (not doing what you are supposed to do and expected to do, when asked to do so).  But, you just would not use the actual word insubordination.  You would use the words "violating our contract".  But, in spirit, it all means the same thing.  So, if I was the party to the contract .... and the other party accused me of "insubordination" ... and our contract terms never mention insubordination ... then, I would take that to mean that the other party is accusing me of not adhering to the terms of the contract and he is simply using the wrong jargon ... but he may (or may not) be wrong in principal and substance.  In other words, just because the other party used the wrong/incorrect word (he improperly used the incorrect word of insubordination), that doesn't change the fact that maybe, yes, I did do something wrong and I did go against the contract.  I hope this all helps.  Please reply at my Talk Page.  Maybe if you make your question a little more clear and detailed, I can craft a better answer.  Thanks.  (Joseph A. Spadaro (talk) 16:07, 20 January 2008 (UTC))