employment
Difference between &quot;1099-MISC worker&quot; and &quot;independent contractor&quot;
<p>I live in Massachusetts which recently passed a very complicated law for Paid Family and Medical Leave (PFML).  I'm trying to understand my obligations under this law as described on this <a href="https://www.mass.gov/info-details/whos-a-covered-individual-under-the-pfml-law#counting-ma-1099-misc-contractors-as-covered-individuals-" rel="nofollow noreferrer">mass.gov page</a>.</p>

<p>This page states <code>a 1099-MISC worker</code> is covered by the law unless the person is an <code>independent contractor</code> as defined in the usual way (see <a href="https://www.mass.gov/service-details/independent-contractors" rel="nofollow noreferrer">here</a>).</p>

<p>So this PFML law seems to be stating that:</p>

<ul>
<li>you can be an 1099-MISC worker, but </li>
<li>not be an independent contractor.</li>
</ul>

<p>I was under the impression that a 1099-MISC worker was the same thing as an independent contractor.  A Google search seems to confirm this.</p>

<p>Can anyone explain what is going on here?</p>

<p>I believe that this is drawing a distinction, as labor law usually does, between the manner of payment and the conditions of employment.  Manner of payment has to do with the worker's status under tax law (or perhaps each of several bodies of tax law).  Conditions of employment are related to labor law.</p>

<p>For example, labor law protections typically extend to those who are employees <em>as defined in labor law.</em>  A typical test of this is, for example, whether the worker's hours are set by the worker or the employer.  The point of this is to prevent employers from getting out of having to pay overtime (for example) by choosing to pay their employees as if they were contractors.</p>

<p>The tax law tests and the labor law tests may be slightly different, so a 1099 worker may be an employee for the purpose of some laws even if he or she is legitimately paid as a contractor under tax law.</p>
