As it is in elance, if the “buyer” elects WorkView, it’s a requirement or the billing is not, for lack of a better word, enforceable. So, it becomes very cloudly. Once a “buyer” has selected it, it cannot be changed without CANCELLING the job and reposting.

Would you expect an architect, accountant, attorney, or even a secretarial service to agree to WorkView? They almost all charge by the hour for something. These are not industries that have or require “site supervision” as the construction industry does.

No, they are service businesses. Every provider on elance is supposed to be a business entity, whether it is as a sole proprietor or state-chartered entity. Possibly because it is through the Internet, some seem to think it doesn’t matter. But it does.

“Buyers” are supposed to be contractors. When they select WorkView, they are moving one step closer to definitely being assessed wage taxes — creating documentation for statement unemployment departments to justify requiring unemployment taxes be paid (add elance’s fee to that!).

Not only are these writers correct, “Buyers” on elance subject to US tax laws should be objecting even more.

That is the point.

Jeannine Silkey

WorkView is hire for wages, whether elance wants to look at it that way or not. To my way of thing, by implementing WorkView, elance has become a staffing agency, a temporary agency liable for all payroll taxes. It’s NOT self-employment any more.

Interestingly, on the “Employer requires a Form W-9″ only means that the CONTRACTOR (not an employer supposedly) has signed up for elance to complete their Forms 1099 at year-end. It does NOT mean the employer gets a copy of the Form W-9 for their tax records and proper accounting. Furthermore, it’s misleading to the SUBCONTRACTOR (provider) in that EVERY USA CONTRACTOR should be requiring a Form W-9 … not just those using elance’s Form 1099 services. It makes it look like the Contractors are evading the laws when it indicates the W-9 form is not required.

In the next year or so, I don’t know the new timeline, the IRS will require all payment processors (which previously I elance was and they may still be one) to issue a new type of Form 1099 showing ALL moneys received on behalf of the people the process payments for.

So, if the Contractor issues its own Forms 1099 and elance issues their NEW TYPE of Form 1099, its going to be a bit of a zoo.

I’ve pointed out to elance in surveys and by other means that these hourly rates are not appropriate in the way that they have them. They just remind SUBCONTRACTORS (providers) to include their elance fee in the estimate. (Recently, they have added it to all bids–someone’s making headway with them). I’m a professional,

In determining professional rates, SUBCONTRACTORS need to consider the same things other professionals consider, overhead, marketing (which includes overall time spent analysis “requests for proposals” and completing the proposals), supplies, etc. I’ve not seen that kind of training or information on elance and it should be there in a highly visible “can’t be missed” place.

I found your forum in my search for good alternatives to elance.

Thank you for having this forum.

Jeannine Silkey
QualityCounts on Elance.

I returned to this post, and you make some very solid points. I shouldn’t have commented before reading. You’re right. If we aren’t getting the same benefits that regular employees get, then we should at least get our freedom. There should be some point at which being monitored means you are an employee. Even though I doubt that many of my clients even look through the screenshots, the fact that I need to be monitored to do my job is pretty damned childish and unprofessional.

Plus, I think it shows a lack of respect for the ideation process, something that seems to get no respect on the bidding sites. Even though my screen might not show that I’m doing something worthwhile, I actually am. I’m trying to find a good angle or an idea. If you are more than just a content factory, you’re bound to spend more and more time just thinking up ideas. That is time we all deserve to get paid for.

I’ll admit that my comments come out of a kind of a naivete. I’m still pretty new to this whole making money as a writer thing. Your blog is a very helpful and engaging read. It’s inspiring me to take things further and get paid more. You have my respect.

That’s the last time I ever breeze through an article and comment.

All The Best,
-Ted Bendixson

Let me begin by saying I am not in India. I am a US-based freelancer. My rates are set accordingly. Whether you realize it or not, you have just articulated the larger issue (and I’ll leave my personal feelings on it aside): It would seem that Elance’s business plan is to become a marketplace for outsourcing work, offshore, for bargain-basement prices. Just because you found one provider – a company with 100 subcontractors “sitting in a box 10 hours a day,” as you put it – don’t assume that speaks for the masses.

Regarding Elance’s monthly fees and its earnings: at this moment Elance boasts 158,252 providers and the minimum monthly membership for providers is $10. You do the math. Many providers pay additionally every month for extra bidding chips, called “connects.” When you compare that with the 50-75% (as reported by many in all categories) of jobs that go unawarded, for which Elance collects no commissions (but keeps those bidding “connects” fees), it is not too difficult to assess where their bread and butter comes from.

You wrote: “The business system they offer is not required, its an option (as a customer of elance I dont have to use them).” Exactly. It’s “optional” for the buyer; not the provider. And I think you’re failing to see whom is whose “customer.” Providers are Elance’s clients. Buyers are the providers’ clients.

It’s the ignorance and acceptance from people who don’t really understand the issue that puts the rest of us at risk of having our rights as independent contractors abused by buyers who think these enabling “tools” mean certain things are okay.

And it doesn’t matter that the clients ultimately make the decision. In nearly every way these tools can be used, they can be used to circumvent the rules of a client / contractor relationship, putting more cost and fewer rights in workers hands (not something clients can do; they’d have to become employers and take on the cost themselves). So the bigger problem of this specific post is that Elance is making a choice to enable this behavior, and not only do they not seem to care, but their reps who have responded don’t even seem to understand the implications of their own tools, because they can’t say anything but “it’s optional” – which is not completely true.

If a buyer can require it before making a hiring decision, that’s no longer an option, and it’s an unacceptable form of discrimination that basically says “let me treat you like an employee, but you keep paying all the costs, or I won’t hire you.” As I noted in the post, one of the deciding factors between contractor / employee status is the fact that clients cannot tell contractors what tools they must use to get the job done. That choice is up to contractors. Elance very blatantly lets them get around that point. It’s not solely the monitoring side of it that makes this tool a big problem for freelancers. And that’s when it potentially crosses legal lines. If Elance gave a damn about their workers — you know… the people who pay them — they’d eliminate this tool completely, and they’d do it asap.

I like tracker because it’s convenient for my clients. They sign up for it and get billed. I doubt any of them actually have the time to check the screenshots. They could, but they like my work and they trust me. It’s no big deal.

Employer? Client? Isn’t it all the same? It’s someone who wants you to do something for them. If you aren’t comfortable with the way the relationship is going, it’s up to you to go somewhere else. Elance or Odesk are just places to find clients. It’s the relationships you build that matter the most.

And by all means you (and everyone) is welcome to their opinion. This is just a case where how providers feel about it are actually irrelevant to the legality of how buyers can (and may already) use the tool. ;)