> <snip>
> And, as BE points out, this is advantageous for employees, too. When a
> homeowner tries to get the Team to do more than the contract states,
> the maid takes on her role and says, in effect, "Not my job ma'am."
> and kicks it upstairs.
>
> Now, the only way you can appreciate the security of such a set up is
> to read Global Woman or have been employed by someone who made you
> feel as if you could lose your job in a heartbeat. We here imagine
> ourselves to be good employers. This may well not be the case all
> around.
<and more snipping>
> One thing I also learned. We're forgetting the mom and pops, where
> they truly are independent contractors. Why not hire them and pay 1099
> wages?
>
i think you're right on all these counts, and precisely the question with contracts and autonomy (as in your point about kicking upstairs) goes to your final point, about independent contractors. my impression in the anecdote i shared the other day was precisely that this was basically a miniature business and the woman who actually did the cleaning had a solid client base and outstanding references, so she was never worried about getting work and could charge reasonable rates, even for our area (lakeview/wrigleyville, in chicago -- boystown, for those who know it). how they handle income reporting, i have no idea, though. it may very well have been completely under the table.
i like the 1099 idea, though. that's interesting. it does impose certain obligations, like producing a 1099 statement. but still . . .
as a side note, on carrol's point -- in principle, the logic makes sense, but i would need convincing that there's a snowball's chance in hell of successfully organizing a merry maids franchise. afaik, seiu and jwj have cracked servicemaster clean (the corporate crews) but have their hands full with it. i'd be happy to be corrected on this point, however.
j