Bad example - you can't have two crews making the same movie! Movie themes get 'optioned' and you buy the rights to that subject for a period, with a big payday if the movie gets made.
I meant a play, rather than a movie, and I was only using it because I was trying to stick with the carpenter analogy - I did say it wasn't an ideal comparison.
So you want security, whilst offering the workers no security? Doesn't seem fair to me, and it sounds as if these workers are actually employees.
If you haven't got the employment status right (highly likely) It'll catch up with you eventually and when it does, it will be very, very costly.
Again, this is very standard across most industries that routinely use contractors. You don't expect your contractors to be working with your competitors at the same time they are working for you. There is no lack of security for them - they agree a contract with you, they fulfil the contract, get paid, then move onto their next contract, which can be with whoever they like.
In that respect they are like employees, in that you wouldn't expect your employees to work for your competitors whilst they are working for you (and a lot of companies put non-compete clauses in that apply for a period after they have finished working with you).
That is the only respect in which they are like employees. Believe it or not, and this may well come as a shock to you, this isn't my first rodeo and I and my partners did actually go through a process to ensure we employed the people that were doing what is unquestionably an employee role, and bring in contractors for those roles that are specifically..contracting roles. They meet all the criteria to be badged as contractors - if they are unable to work one particular day, they can send a replacement; they don't wear a uniform; they perform no 'office holder duties', etc etc.
Do you honestly think that contractors brought in to do some coding at Microsoft are free to freelance with Apple at the same time? I absolutely guarantee you they are not, nor would they expect to be.
I worked as an IT contractor for a number of years and every single contract I did had a clause in it forbidding me from working within a certain distance if it was a local based company, or taking a contract with a competitor of the one I am planning on working for, or both. Not once did I think this was inappropriate at all.
Not that it makes any difference from a legal perspective, but the reality on the ground is that, to a man (and woman), not one of my contractors wants to be employed. They enjoy the freedom freelancing gives them as well as the tax arrangements that work for them. The only restriction on where they can work that we put in place is that they cannot work for a direct competitor, one running an organisation in the same way ours is, within a specified distance, whilst they under contract with us. These are the firms that we directly compete with and competing for customers is tough enough without running the risk of a contractor encouraging our customers to go to their 'other venue'. We do not place any other restrictions on them - they can do their own thing wherever they want, they can work at other businesses that are outside of our catchment area, all whilst enjoying a guaranteed income from us on an open ended contract that can be terminated by either party at any time.
They really do not complain, it's an arrangement that is genuinely mutually beneficial. The only people that seem to be vexed about it are all on this forum!
