Is there not an ag exemption for overtime in your state, kenyarider? There has been everywhere I have lived.
it is impossible to read a single provision of a statute as authoritative because they are usually modified or altered in meaning by many other provisions of the same and ther statutes. Just saying.
No, in many states over 8 hours in a day is NOT overtime territory. In my state it is the 41st hour worked in a 7 day period. In some other states it is the 81st hour worked in a 14 day period.
the laws are not the same everywhere.
as to your slight about not knowing how to take care of animals or do math, I have no idea what that has to do with knowledge of labor laws. Grasping at straws?
That is the entire RCW regarding that definition. I am a lawyer so I do know how the law is read. Additionally, Washington is the home of the perm temp, contractees as employees etc. lawsuits. The idea that a person who is so directed as all grooms are by their trainers/riders/barn managers/whatever they are calling themselves is somehow an exempt worker is an insult to all. Workers are not property to be used as we choose. Most facilities fail to provide few if any of the workplace requirements, such as a real bathroom, break room, scheduled breaks etc. I agree that barn work expands suddenly but that does not mean that the folks doing it should not be compensated for their time and effort. Even the best barns can do better but I suspect that most employees would say that about their work situation on some level. Asking a person to work 6 days a week, week after week, is taking advantage of them - absolutely. Just like many “industries” in our country, hunter/jumper land needs to do better. My objection to some of the posts is this view that somehow not following the workplace rules is ok. It is not and no amount of “this is the industry, I pay them a lot, you are a moron, you can’t do math. . .” comments make it ok. Just saying. . . .
The exemption defition as understood for professional employees does not apply. Here is the Ag exemption in your state. See section 130(g).
https://apps.leg.wa.gov/rcw/default…true#49.46.130
carihg for and training livestock counts per that definition, and horses are livestock legally.
not trying to be a jerk but your information seems to me to be in error with respect to overtime. Whether someone should get a 1099 is a different question. I think a lot of this disagreement is because people are talking about a lot of distinct legal issues as if they apply to each other, which they don’t.
Also, the provision you posted above, 72.01.042, applies to state institutions. A private farm is not a state institution. It is totally inapplicable.
it mostly seems to apply to DHHS and the prison system. You might consider stableworkers to be held prisoner, and fair enough! But anyway.
I can’t say this thread has not had a few low points. But it seems like there is a lot of useful information being shared in many directions.
Happy holidays to all! 
Interesting thread that brings up so many issues in our profession. By the legal definition of independent contractor, grooms are employees. They are hired by the farm to perform duties for that farm in exchange for compensation. The employer supplies the tools of the trade - grooming equipment (although some grooms do prefer their own tools), farm implements to clean stalls, tack to prepare the horse for riding, blankets, fly sheets, dress sheets, etc… to cover the horse before and after work and while at the ring, longeing equipment to perform that act if needed, and so on. If the employer is also providing housing, transportation, clothing, and whatever else was provided in the example given by #honestpersonfakeaccount, then they are definitely employees and not independent contractors. But whatever - the employer in that situation seems to believe they have everything covered since they have consulted the right people. All fine and dandy until someone gets hurt on the job or one of their horses being held by that independent contractor hurts another horse.
Maybe this is an area that the sport integrity task force of the USHJA can do some work - create factual (hypothetical) situations and supply answers for those who are looking for them. The intricacies of worker law are difficult to understand if you’ve never read them and I’d have to say most grooms aren’t up on the current laws. My husband has his own business, has 20+ employees that he treats like gold, and he consults his lawyer every step of the way to be sure they (and he) are covered correctly under the laws in our state. His business is a high risk for accidents due to the machines in use and he would never allow an uncovered individual near one of his machines - way too high a liability risk. Kind of like horses…
You would think so. But this is not true in my state (Va). It is calculated off the aggregate of a 2 week period.
I have direct knowledge of this from having to go after a previous employer for unpaid OT.
This all assumes an employee paid an hourly wage versus a salary. And for salaried employees making under $47k annually. (This is why doctors, lawyers, etc work insane hours and don’t get paid OT)
Correct. However, one of the major criteria used by VA for determining employee vs contractor is that an independent contractor can choose whether or not they come to work on a given day without risk of losing their job. I would’ve been fired if I didn’t show up on a given day. Plus, I met 15/20 of the guidelines for an employee put forth by the IRS.
Again, I’m curious about the leap being made on this thread that this barn doesn’t have workers comp insurance based solely on the basis of their classifying their workers as ICs. As I stated twice upthread, I ran a farm and employed PT 1099 workers. I STILL paid for workers comp insurance via commercial carrier. The poster in question never stated that the barn doesn’t.
Yes. And it’s also possible that the employer will be forced to pay on a comp claim anyway if they are found to be miaclassifying employees. My point is this: I’ve worked in various industries in both white and blue collar positions. In my 27 years of working, never have I once worked for a company that was 100% compliant on labor laws. Be it a small business begging ignorance on some point; the restaurant that didn’t make up to minimum wage on nights there were no tips; or the huge company that employes 100s of lawyers to fight legit claims and manipulate every loophole. Not a one. Ever slipped and fallen working in a restaurant? I have. Know what the first question they asked me was? Not “Are you OK?” It was "Didn’t you see that f–king puddle on the floor?! Those aren’t non-slip shoes you’re wearing. " (FTR- they were non-slip.)
So, as a 43yo single parent with bills to pay and mouths to feed, and college tuitions to fund; who has ridden this rodeo before and is 100% mercenary about working? I’m going to go with the employer that may screw but pays well over the one I know will screw me and pay $23k a year.
Responding to Wanderosa, the “Honest” poster stated when we raised the WC question that she was sure her employer was so generous that they would pay the medical bills out of pocket if a worker was injured on the job, and mentioned a worker being paid when they had to take some kind of family leave. So, that led to the assumption/conclusion that no WC coverage is in place for the workers in question. WC premium is calculated as a percentage of payroll, and typically retroactively. So unless the employer has been dutifully reporting the IC payroll and paying premium based on that payroll…
I am not aware of WC policies that would extend to ICs, in any event. That is why if you hire a true IC in a risky industry, you are typically going to ask to see the IC’s WC certificate (to be sure they are covering their own employees), and to be listed as an “additional insured” on the IC’s CGL policy (so that if one of the ICs causes the accident, your business is protected under the IC’s policy). I have heard of instances of a company getting a WC policy, using it for a couple of office employees, but then never reporting the payroll of the alleged “ICs” (actually employees) out in the field doing risky work. That is an effort to game the system that does not work out well from what I have seen.
That’s why I also stated “general rule of thumb.” Obviously it varies by state. Not everyone who makes under 47k gets overtime for example. It depends. But it’s a general rule of thumb.
Agree that the governing body orgs would do a lot of good to start educational campaigns directed to appropriate risk management for this industry. It’s hard because much of this is state specific, but some basics would help, starting with: for the different categories of people who come onto my farm, what insurance policy is going to respond in the event of an accident? For the alleged ICs who are really EEs, there is no good answer for that, and those who can afford $100K grooms can’t afford not to get appropriately advised on these topics. (Even if it means reducing your next horse-buying budget from $800K to $700K, LOL, to pay for the advice, the coverage, the withholding, etc.)
You are correct. Chapter 71 governs public employees but chapter 49 covers private workers. My tax guy does NOT consider stable hands exempt from overtime, worker’s compensation etc. if they are working all year long. The rationale is that the farm workers’ overtime exemption was based on the idea of busy/slack times for planting and harvest. Since stable hands never have slack time, they are hourly workers and need overtime. He may be too narrow in his interpretation but I prefer to avoid the attentions of the IRS, NLRB and state worker’s compensation agency. I have no idea why horse people get so wrapped around the axle about paying and treating their workers fairly but it seems they do, as this thread reveals.
I think the disconnect happens, at least in part, from your phrasing. Many (both employers and employees) do believe that, at least for them, the current system is “fair”. YMMV, but I do think you’re doing yourself a disservice (if, that is, you aim to have a rational discussion) by equating “skirting the lines of IC vs employee” with exploitation.
I do not mean to suggest that there aren’t people working in exploitative circumstances (read any of the threads on working students, for example), nor that entities which knowingly mis-classify workers aren’t breaking the labor laws, just that one can’t necessarily draw conculsions from what’s been presented here. As a lawyer, you know there can be two sides (at least!) to every story.
These grooms make, in some cases, double what I do. My annual salary still allows me to horse show and own my own farm. I have to roll over 40 hours in one week to get overtime and 35 hours is considered full time employment. They make more than our salaried management and work fewer hours. I am gobsmacked that the good people of COTH still consider some of their employers “monsters” who are going to hell. But then again, it is COTH.
Word. I’m gobsmacked that they call the person being told to go to hell a troll and are shocked by their reaction that post. That was the first nasty, personal attack inflammatory post in this thread that started the train wreck and the person got a total pass for it! I guess when you throw in something about Trump in your insult you can do whatever you want, including demanding the person you first insulted be removed for being “rude” to you.
I wonder, if people are this nasty to a stranger, how could they possibly be as kind to their grooms/staff as they claim to be?
Hopefully it’s just holiday stress. I know I wouldn’t want to spend 2k+ a weekend to show my horse and wind up stabled next to some of these folks. I joined this forum to try to connect with other equestrians with similar interests and find my peers. If the constant nastiness and mudslinging is truly indicative of the type and class of people who participate in this sport, I truly have to question my decision to continue on. This sport is supposed to be fun.
To me, the issue isn’t the places who pay well. It’s the places that don’t pay well and follow this model that is in the best interest of the barn and not the employee. There are more of those than not. Even at the higher pay scale, one injury at work that the personal insurance won’t cover due to it being a work related injury, or a disgruntled former employee alerting the IRS will bring the house of cards down. I highly doubt the employer will pay out of pocket $120,000+ for medical bills. That was the cost of my latest horse injury. That excluded the follow ups with more x-rays.
I wouldn’t call the examples given monsters. I also wouldn’t say they have their grooms best interest at heart either. If a place can shell out that much money for help, surely they could find their way to have workers comp insurance and classify their employees legally.
The moral of this thread appears to be legal vs illegal doesn’t really matter so long as you pay people off enough.
By submitting your email, you agree to our Terms of Service and Privacy Policy. You may also receive promotional emails from The Chronicle of the Horse. You can opt out at any time.
For Customers
Company
Terms of Use
