"Robert M. Gary" wrote in message
om...
(Sam) wrote in message
. com...

As far as I know, there are no FBOs in the U.S. that have CFI's as
employees. We are almost always "1099" not "W-2". I think this helps
divorse the liability of having employees.

I am an employee of PAVCO as a CFI and get a W-2.

A lot of places that claim that their instructors are 'independent'
contractors are asking to get bitten by their state labor regulators. Some
states allow anyone who claims that they are a contractor to be treated as
one, but some others get downright nasty.

There is no liability protection in having contractors instead of employees.
It is a tax and labor issue. Employers have to pay employer taxes for their
employees and withhold income taxes and deposit them on a regular basis.
They have to pay their employees minimum wage. They have to pay their
employees for all work they do. Both states and the federal government take
a dim view of businesses that attempt to evade taxes and labor laws by
calling their employees 'independent' contractors.

If a CFI was really an independent contractor he could not be required to
perform any additional duties, could not be told how to do his job, could
not be required to use company planes, could not be forbidden to give flight
instruction on his own time or at other FBOs, etc. Some states require
anyone working as a contractor to have a license or otherwise register as a
business.

The first time a 'contractor' CFI gets hurt on the job and files a workman's
compensation claim (or even inadvertently admits to hospital personnel that
he was injured on the job) then the state is going to come looking for back
taxes, penalties, interest, and a real good reason why this CFI should not
be eligible for compensation at the employer's expense. A good argument can
be made that calling your instructors contractors actually increases your
liability exposure a great deal. Employees are easier to insure and much
easier to manage.