Is This Legit?

[Jim Frame]

A county contracts with an engineering-surveying consulting firm to handle some (all?) of its map checking workload. The consulting firm contracts with an "outside consultant" to check maps. There is no BPELSG license associated with the outside consultant's name. The outside consultant has a county email address.

I don't (yet) have an issue with the outside consultant's comments on my map (I haven't really dug into them yet), but to my way of thinking the concepts of direct supervision and responsible charge are getting kind of diluted here.

Thoughts?

[Ric7308]

1) Did an individual authorized to practice land surveying sign the contract for the engineering-surveying consulting firm?
2) Was an individual authorized to practice land surveying described in the contract as in responsible charge?
3) Who executed the contract from the outside consultant with the engineering-surveying firm?

There's likely some violation(s) in this situation and a complaint should be filed online with whatever information you are aware of so the Board can confirm compliance.

[CBarrett]

A county contracts with an engineering-surveying consulting firm to handle some (all?) of its map checking workload. The consulting firm contracts with an "outside consultant" to check maps. There is no BPELSG license associated with the outside consultant's name. The outside consultant has a county email address.

I don't (yet) have an issue with the outside consultant's comments on my map (I haven't really dug into them yet), but to my way of thinking the concepts of direct supervision and responsible charge are getting kind of diluted here.

Thoughts?

Is the outside consultant a company, or a contracted employee/sole proprietor?
Does BPELSG require that a technician performing tasks under supervision be an employee?

I ask this for several reasons - in the past during recessions especially I did a lot of work as a temporary contract employee. This included field and office experience which would normally qualify for one year field and one year office experience to apply for an LS.
I ran into many LS's reluctant to sign off on the experience out of fear of what the board would say about the level of responsible charge over a contract/temp employee. They were unsure and worried about self incrimination and getting investigated or penalized.

Another reason - I had discussions with someone looking to contract out tasks involved in map checking services to non-licensed contract employee. I did not know how that would work out regarding responsible charge over that employee.

[bryanmundia]

Seems kind of diluted to me as well. I don't think this would fall under the purview of Section 6731.2 as the work seems to not be incidental to the engineering practice. I would imagine that the "outside consultant" would need to be a licensed professional land surveyor and have an organizational record filed with the board.

My question is who is the name of the person checking the map? Are they licensed? Does the engineering firm have a pre-82 civil on their organizational record?

I think this may warrant a complaint to the board based on what has been provided.

[Jim Frame]

Rather than file a complaint, I started a conversation with the CS, pointing him to this thread. He got Ric involved, and in the discussion that followed it appears (though has not yet been verified -- see below) that the reviewer's signature line is misleading. The CS says that the reviewer is a full-time employee of the contracted consultant firm, and if that's the case then there's no violation, assuming that proper oversight of the reviewer is being accomplished by the designated professional in the consulting firm.

I know of at least one engineering firm that moved some employees to contractor status when things slowed down, and that's why I think verification of the reviewer's employment status is necessary. An employment status change that may seem innocent from a business perspective can have significant ramifications when direct supervision is required by law.

[DWoolley]

...
I know of at least one engineering firm that moved some employees to contractor status when things slowed down, and that's why I think verification of the reviewer's employment status is necessary. An employment status change that may seem innocent from a business perspective can have significant ramifications when direct supervision is required by law.

The illicit practice of the misclassification of employee status is consistent with the current discussions of land surveyors' proclivities on another thread. I doubt there is much "innocence from a business perspective".

For additional information see California Assembly Bill 5 aka Dynamex decision:

Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions:

The worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact;

The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and

The worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

[Almost every firm fails the second prong of the test]

Also, see Industrial Welfare Commission Wage Order 4-2001.

When I hear "independent contractor", I am hearing "I didn't set monuments" and I am hearing "Tryna catch me ridin' dirty" on a loop.

[feign surprise]

DWoolley

[DWoolley]

Some folks may wonder why land surveyors would misclassify employees as independent contractors?

1. No workman's compensation
2. No overtime or minimum wage
3. No payroll tax, FICA, social security, unemployment insurance, etc
4. No sick leave, holidays, vacation, medical benefits
5. Not paying the worker until paid, usually more than 30 days, not paying weekly like an employee. Essentially, the independent contractor is financing the business with their own money.

Why would these folks limit the exploitation to the paying public? This is unacceptable by firms that have employees and have the infrastructure in place. It is another form of failure to file. Is this the mentoring folks are talking about?

I can see a one person shop hiring another person, although not according to Hoyle, as a independent contractor to help out on occasion and not having the infrastructure to hire the assistance as an employee.

DWoolley

[LS_8750]

Let's not forget public works directors, building plans examiners and inspectors are going to prison for fraud, bribery, etc.
Keeping an eye out is not a bad thing.

[CBarrett]

Do we have a handle on if more of this is happening because of the lack of knowledge, or lack or care? (on the part of city or county officials)

[hellsangle]

Ms. Barrett . . .

I think Mr. Clark is referring to lack of morals and ethics . . .

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/ra ... ing-crimes

https://www.reuters.com/article/us-usa- ... K720140404

https://www.justice.gov/usao-ndca/pr/fo ... ral-prison

https://www.sfdistrictattorney.org/arch ... t-charges/

The afore links are related to just one city . . .

[DWoolley]

More links on folks getting wise to being misclassified independent contractors rather than employees:

https://www.msn.com/en-us/lifestyle/lif ... li=BBnb7Kz

San Francisco doesn't have a corner on the corruption. LA City has their issues:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/ch ... -1-million

https://laist.com/news/politics/ridley- ... -two-years

Equally interesting is the City Council members working with union labor to ice out the non-Hispanic folks:

https://www.cnn.com/2022/10/11/us/ron-h ... index.html

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.dailyn ... esign/amp/

[Interestingly, the articles focus on the racist comments, but they do not always elaborate on the nature of the discussions. They were chopping districts up with the union leader to decentralize or dilute the non-Hispanic constituencies. Another example of non-Hispanic folks paying into organized labor to work against their own interest. For our Hispanic friends, it isn't as awesome as it might sound, understand the meeting members separate themselves from other Hispanics depending on which part of Mexico from which you hail - ain't no sunshine for our Oaxacan friends. The Council members and union leadership expressed their additional grievances with the Jewish and Armenian communities too. This was one conversation recorded after having worked closely together for many years. These folks were very comfortable with their discussions. It sounded as though this was routine business amongst them].

Building and safety have a storied history of bribes in the City Los Angeles:

https://www.justice.gov/usao-cdca/pr/fo ... aking-tens

'Merica

DWoolley

[PLS7393]

Some folks may wonder why land surveyors would misclassify employees as independent contractors?

1. No workman's compensation
2. No overtime or minimum wage
3. No payroll tax, FICA, social security, unemployment insurance, etc
4. No sick leave, holidays, vacation, medical benefits
5. Not paying the worker until paid, usually more than 30 days, not paying weekly like an employee. Essentially, the independent contractor is financing the business with their own money.

DWoolley

It is my understanding from communications with upper management of government agencies, this is exactly why most cities contract out the City Surveyor position. In my opinion, the few cities in CA which have a surveyor on staff is much better off, but what do I know?

[DWoolley]

Some folks may wonder why land surveyors would misclassify employees as independent contractors?

1. No workman's compensation
2. No overtime or minimum wage
3. No payroll tax, FICA, social security, unemployment insurance, etc
4. No sick leave, holidays, vacation, medical benefits
5. Not paying the worker until paid, usually more than 30 days, not paying weekly like an employee. Essentially, the independent contractor is financing the business with their own money.

DWoolley

It is my understanding from communications with upper management of government agencies, this is exactly why most cities contract out the City Surveyor position. In my opinion, the few cities in CA which have a surveyor on staff is much better off, but what do I know?

Also, the pension liability associated with employees. Many cities are struggling to make their pension payments to CalPERS.

Keith, from your backyard:

https://www.eastbaytimes.com/2022/10/23 ... itor-says/

DWoolley