TechWhirl (TECHWR-L) is a resource for technical writing and technical communications professionals of all experience levels and in all industries to share their experiences and acquire information.
For two decades, technical communicators have turned to TechWhirl to ask and answer questions about the always-changing world of technical communications, such as tools, skills, career paths, methodologies, and emerging industries. The TechWhirl Archives and magazine, created for, by and about technical writers, offer a wealth of knowledge to everyone with an interest in any aspect of technical communications.
Subject:Re: What's MS Experience worth on your resume? From:"Gene Kim-Eng" <techwr -at- genek -dot- com> To:"TECHWR-L" <techwr-l -at- lists -dot- techwr-l -dot- com> Date:Fri, 1 Aug 2008 17:30:09 -0700
Once you went to the trouble to self-incorporate, self-insure
and get yourself on a company's approved vendor list, you
would no longer be subject to the 100-day annual layoff rule
anyway. It's a worthwhile effort if you service multiple clients
as a contractor, and especially if you sub out work to other
contractors or hire W2 temps of your own, but for a single
person operation all with one client, it would have to be a
pretty high-dollar longterm contract to justify it.
----- Original Message -----
From: "McLauchlan, Kevin" <Kevin -dot- McLauchlan -at- safenet-inc -dot- com>
> However, the poster on the STC forum is not complaining about working as
> a contractor, he just has a problem being unemployed for that 100 days,
> given that Microsoft is by far the biggest employer of techwriters in
> his area, and interim jobs are quite scarce.
> Microsoft would seem to have an interest in retaining a worker who knows
> the company, knows the project/product, and has a proven work history
> with them - it's only the letter of the law that causes them to exclude
> him for 100 days per year.
> So, my question was: Couldn't Microsoft hire a one-man corporation to
> take over for him while he's on ... er... hiatus... and that one-man
> corporation would just happen to have our poster as its only employee...
> and prez, and shareholder... ?
> Are the rules (of employment standards OR of taxation) so explicit or so
> arcane that such an approach would be either explicitly prohibited or
> made bureaucratically uncomfortable for all parties? Or is it something
> that is commonly done - and I didn't know because I don't work there and
> so don't face those problems? Or do I just think differently enough
> that I'm the first one to suggest it? (unlikely...)
ComponentOne Doc-To-Help gives you everything you need to author and
publish quality Help, Web, and print content. Perfect for technical
authors, developers, and policy writers. Download a FREE trial. http://www.componentone.com/DocToHelp/
True single source, conditional content, PDF export, modular help.
Help & Manual is the most powerful authoring tool for technical
documentation. Boost your productivity! http://www.helpandmanual.com
You are currently subscribed to TECHWR-L as archive -at- web -dot- techwr-l -dot- com -dot-