Freelance CFIs and plane rentals??

(Sam) wrote in message . com...
I posted a message awhile back about one of my relatives offering me
free flight instruction. He's a very experienced airline pilot and
has done a lot of CFI work in the past. He's still current on his CFI
rating, and the plan is to begin training in June (when I have more
money and he has more time).

Do you think there will be any problem with one of the local FBOs
renting us a plane for my training? Obviously they'll want to check
him out and see his history, but beyond that is there anything I need
to know? Obviously we should just make a couple of calls and see what
their policy is, but I just wanted to know if this was a common
situation or not first. TIA!

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.
Your question really varies by the FBO. There are many FBOs in
Sacramento that will not consider it unless you want to fly full time
for them. There are others that just want you to sign up as a member
of their club. In general the professional training type places are
not likely to permit this. I'm an independent CFI and know of several
places I can get planes to teach in and places that I can't. The
bottom line is, you need to call.

Also, make sure this guy is really commited to training you. Accepting
a student is a BIG responsibility and I don't believe you should take
it on unless you are willing to see the student all the way through.

-Robert, CFI

"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.

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...
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.

I'm pretty sure that isn't true. I work in the teleco industry and
about 25% of us (engineers) are contractors. You would never know the
difference just walking around the cubes. The contractors are still
told how to do their job just like employees. They are still required
to use the same equipment. They do not have to be ind. businesses (we
operate in almost every state and over 30 countries). They are still
forbidden from working for anyone else during their contract. The
company has 6 lawyers dedicated to preventing the state from
considering these guys as employees (there are some strange things
they do to maintain the difference).


-Robert

(Robert M. Gary) wrote
The
company has 6 lawyers dedicated to preventing the state from
considering these guys as employees (there are some strange things
they do to maintain the difference).

And there is the key. If you have enough money to pay for good enough
lawyers, you can get away with anything (including murder). What FBO
has that kind of money?

Michael

"C J Campbell" wrote
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.

I am an independent contractor at an FBO. I don't get a W2 or 1099.
I meet all the above tests. The FBO does not pay me - I am
responsible for finding my own students, doing my own billing, etc.
The student pays the FBO for the aircraft, and pays me for instruction
in a completely separate transaction. I set my own rates. All
instructors there work on the same basis. There are operations that
do it right.

I estimate these comprise less than 5% of all FBO's.

The first time a 'contractor' CFI gets hurt on the job and files a workman's
compensation claim ...

It doesn't even require that. All it really takes is one disgruntled
fired flight instructor filing for unemployment. If the state labor
board decides he doesn't meet the definition of independent contractor
(and most don't), watch out. The argument that he knew what the deal
was up front doesn't fly - the reason labor law exists in the first
place is that the employer is understood to have much more power in
the situation than the employee.

Personally, I would love to see these laws enforced against FBO's. It
would lead to a much better business climate.

Michael

"C J Campbell" wrote in message ...

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.


State labor regulators? I'd be a lot more concerned about the IRS.
A few years ago they started cracking down on employers who claimed
their employees were independent contractors, in order to avoid
payroll taxes. Some FBOs that I know of treat their instructors as
true independent contractors, while others have gone the employee
route. It depends on how the FBO is run.

John Galban=====N4BQ (PA28-180)