This is the accessible text file for GAO report number GAO-06-656 
entitled 'Employment Arrangements: Improved Outreach Could Help Ensure 
Proper Worker Classification' which was released on August 2, 2006. 

This text file was formatted by the U.S. Government Accountability 
Office (GAO) to be accessible to users with visual impairments, as part 
of a longer term project to improve GAO products' accessibility. Every 
attempt has been made to maintain the structural and data integrity of 
the original printed product. Accessibility features, such as text 
descriptions of tables, consecutively numbered footnotes placed at the 
end of the file, and the text of agency comment letters, are provided 
but may not exactly duplicate the presentation or format of the printed 
version. The portable document format (PDF) file is an exact electronic 
replica of the printed version. We welcome your feedback. Please E-mail 
your comments regarding the contents or accessibility features of this 
document to Webmaster@gao.gov. 

This is a work of the U.S. government and is not subject to copyright 
protection in the United States. It may be reproduced and distributed 
in its entirety without further permission from GAO. Because this work 
may contain copyrighted images or other material, permission from the 
copyright holder may be necessary if you wish to reproduce this 
material separately. 

Report to the Ranking Minority Member, Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 

GAO: 

July 2006: 

Employment Arrangements: 

Improved Outreach Could Help Ensure Proper Worker Classification: 

Employment Arrangements: 

GAO-06-656: 

GAO Highlights: 

Highlights of GAO-06-656, a report to the Ranking Minority Member, 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions, U.S. Senate 

Why GAO Did This Study: 

Millions of U.S. workers participate in “contingent” employment, such 
as temporary or part-time work, and not in permanent or full-time jobs. 
The Department of Labor (DOL) enforces several labor laws to protect 
these and other workers, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), 
which provides minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor protections. 
In June 2000, GAO reported that contingent workers lagged behind 
standard full-time workers in terms of income, benefits, and workforce 
protections, and that some employees do not receive worker protections 
because employers misclassified them as independent contractors. GAO 
was asked to update this report by describing (1) the size and nature 
of the contingent workforce, (2) the benefits and workforce protections 
provided to contingent workers, and (3) the actions that DOL takes to 
detect and address employee misclassification. We analyzed DOL survey 
data on contingent workers and interviewed DOL officials. 

What GAO Found: 

Contingent workers constituted a relatively constant proportion of the 
total workforce from 1995 through 2005 and had diverse characteristics. 
While the population of the contingent workforce grew by an estimated 3 
million workers during this time period, the proportion of contingent 
workers in the total workforce remained relatively constant at about 31 
percent. In 2005, there were about 42.6 million contingent workers in 
the workforce. Contingent workers vary in terms of their demographic 
characteristics, industries, and occupations. For example, on average, 
contingent workers range in age from about 35 years for one category of 
temporary workers to about 48 years for self-employed workers. In 
addition, contingent workers are employed in a wide range of industries 
and occupations, including the services industry, construction, and 
retail trade. 

A smaller proportion of contingent workers than of standard full-time 
workers has health insurance or pension benefits, or is protected by 
key workforce protection laws, including laws designed to ensure proper 
pay and safe, healthy, and nondiscriminatory workplaces. While 72 
percent of standard full-time workers received employer-provided health 
insurance in 2005, the proportion of contingent workers who received 
employer-provided health insurance ranged from 9 to 50 percent, 
depending on the category of contingent worker. With regard to pension 
benefits, 76 percent of standard full-time workers reported working for 
an employer who offered a pension, whereas 17 to 56 percent of 
contingent workers reported working for an employer who offered a 
pension. One reason that contingent workers are less likely to receive 
protections is that some laws contain requirements that exclude certain 
categories of contingent workers. 

DOL detects and addresses misclassification of employees by 
investigating complaints, but does not always forward misclassification 
cases to other federal and state agencies. Some workers do not receive 
worker protections to which they are entitled because employers 
misclassify them as independent contractors—a category of contingent 
workers excluded from many protections—when they should be classified 
as employees. DOL investigators detect and address employee 
misclassification primarily when responding to FLSA minimum wage and 
overtime pay complaints. DOL investigators examine whether a worker is 
an employee or an independent contractor to determine coverage under 
FLSA. DOL relies heavily on complaints from workers to enforce FLSA, 
but the FLSA workplace poster does not contain any information on 
employment classification or provide a telephone number for individuals 
to register complaints. Misclassification of employees may contribute 
to an FLSA violation or may violate laws enforced by other agencies, 
such as tax laws. DOL procedures require officials to share information 
with other federal and state agencies whenever investigators find 
possible violations of other laws. However, the district offices we 
contacted vary in how often they forward misclassification as a 
possible violation of other agencies’ laws. 

What GAO Recommends: 

GAO recommends that DOL (1) provide additional contact information to 
facilitate the reporting of possible misclassification complaints, and 
(2) evaluate the extent to which misclassification cases found through 
FLSA investigations are referred to other agencies and take action to 
improve as needed. DOL generally agreed with both recommendations. 

[Hyperlink, http://www.gao.gov/cgi-bin/getrpt?GAO-06-656]. 

To view the full product, including the scope and methodology, click on 
the link above. For more information, contact Robert E. Robertson at 
(202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov. 

[End of Section] 

Contents: 

Letter: 

Results in Brief: 

Background: 

Contingent Workers Constitute a Relatively Constant Proportion of the 
Workforce and Are Diverse: 

A Smaller Proportion of Contingent Workers than Others Has Benefits or 
Is Covered by Key Workforce Protection Laws: 

DOL Detects and Addresses Employee Misclassification through 
Investigations, but Offices We Studied Vary in How Often They Forward 
Misclassification Cases to Other Federal and State Agencies: 

Conclusions: 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

Agency Comments: 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

Appendix II: Establishing the Employment Relationship of Workers: 

Appendix III: Size and Characteristics of the Contingent Workforce: 

Appendix IV: Key Laws Designed to Protect Workers: 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

Related GAO Products: 

Tables: 

Table 1: Key Federal and State Agencies That Can Be Affected by 
Employee Misclassification: 

Table 2: Contingent Workers and the Total Employed Workforce (February 
1995, February 1999, February 2005): 

Table 3: Workers with Annual Family Incomes below $20,000 (February 
2005): 

Table 4: Changes in the Size of the Contingent Workforce: 

Table 5: Characteristics of Contingent Workers (February 2005): 

Figures: 

Figure 1: Categories of Workers That GAO Considered Contingent: 

Figure 2: Composition of the Contingent Workforce (February 2005): 

Figure 3: Workers with Health Insurance (February 2005): 

Figure 4: Workers with Employer-Provided Pensions (February 2005): 

Figure 5: Key Laws Designed to Protect Workers: 

Abbreviations: 

BLS: Bureau of Labor Statistics: 
CPS: Current Population Survey: 
DOL: Department of Labor: 
EMPLEO: Employment Education and Outreach: 
ERISA: Employee Retirement Income Security Act: 
ESA: Employment Standards Administration: 
ETA: Employment & Training Administration: 
FLSA: Fair Labor Standards Act: 
FOH: Field Operations Handbook: 
IRS: Internal Revenue Service: 
NLRA: National Labor Relations Act: 
NLRB: National Labor Relations Board: 

United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, DC 20548: 

July 11, 2006: 

The Honorable Edward M. Kennedy: 
Ranking Minority Member: 
Committee on Health, Education, Labor, and Pensions: 
United States Senate: 

Dear Senator Kennedy: 

Millions of workers in the U.S. economy participate in some form of 
"contingent" employment, such as temporary or part-time work. While 
definitions of the contingent workforce vary, broadly defined, 
contingent workers are workers who do not have standard full-time 
employment, that is, are not wage and salary workers working at least 
35 hours a week in permanent jobs. Contingent work arrangements often 
have the potential to provide flexibility for employers and workers. 
However, such arrangements may also exclude some contingent workers 
from receiving key worker benefits and protections such as the 
guarantee of workers' rights to safe and healthful working conditions, 
a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, freedom from employment 
discrimination, and unemployment insurance. The Department of Labor 
(DOL) enforces a wide range of labor laws that provide protections to 
workers, including the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA), which provides 
minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor protections. Other federal 
and state agencies enforce laws that provide workers with additional 
workforce benefits and protections. 

In June 2000, we reported that contingent workers, as broadly defined, 
constituted almost 30 percent of the workforce and that compared with 
standard full-time workers, contingent workers lagged behind in terms 
of income and benefits.[Footnote 1] We also reported that some workers 
do not receive worker protections to which they are entitled because 
employers misclassify them as independent contractors--a category of 
workers that is excluded from many protections--when they should be 
classified as employees. In its last comprehensive misclassification 
estimate, the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) estimated that 15 percent 
of employers misclassified 3.4 million workers as independent 
contractors in 1984, resulting in an estimated tax loss of $1.6 billion 
(or $2.72 billion in inflation-adjusted 2006 dollars[Footnote 2]) in 
Social Security tax, unemployment tax, and income tax. 

In this context, you asked us to update our work on contingent workers 
and review employee misclassification issues. Specifically, you asked 
us to examine (1) the size and nature of the contingent workforce, (2) 
the benefits and workforce protections provided to contingent workers, 
and (3) the actions that DOL takes to detect and address employee 
misclassification. 

To respond to your request, we analyzed data from the Bureau of Labor 
Statistics' (BLS) Current Population Survey (CPS), which is used to 
survey people about their work and workplace benefits, and a CPS 
supplement developed to collect information on the contingent 
workforce. We used this CPS contingent workforce supplement to produce 
estimates of characteristics of contingent workers, their receipt of 
health insurance, and their participation in pension programs. To 
ensure reporting consistency, we used the same definition of contingent 
workers that we used in our 2000 report. This definition included eight 
categories of contingent workers: agency temporary workers (temps), 
direct-hire temps, on-call workers, day laborers, contract company 
workers, independent contractors, self-employed workers, and standard 
part-time workers.[Footnote 3] We interviewed BLS officials and other 
researchers about contingent worker issues. We also reviewed key 
workforce protection laws to determine coverage of contingent workers. 
To obtain information on DOL's efforts to detect and address employee 
misclassification as part of FLSA enforcement, we reviewed DOL 
documents and interviewed DOL officials from headquarters, 3 of 5 
regional offices, and 9 of 51 district offices.[Footnote 4] We also 
reviewed literature and interviewed researchers about employee 
misclassification issues. We performed our work in accordance with 
generally accepted government auditing standards between July 2005 and 
June 2006. Appendix I provides detailed information on the scope and 
methodology of our work. 

Results in Brief: 

Contingent workers constituted a relatively constant proportion of the 
total workforce from 1995 through 2005 and had diverse characteristics. 
While the population of the contingent workforce grew by an estimated 3 
million workers during this time period, the proportion of contingent 
workers in the total workforce remained relatively constant at about 31 
percent.[Footnote 5] In 2005, there were about 42.6 million contingent 
workers in the workforce. Across categories, contingent workers vary in 
terms of their demographic characteristics. For example, on average, 
contingent workers range in age from about 35 years for direct-hire 
temps to about 48 years for self-employed workers. While about two- 
thirds of standard part-time workers are female, females constitute 
about one-third of contract company workers. Contingent workers are 
employed in a wide range of industries and occupations, including the 
services industry, construction, and retail trade. 

A smaller proportion of contingent workers than of standard full-time 
workers has health insurance or pension benefits, or is protected by 
key workforce protection laws, including laws designed to ensure proper 
pay and safe, healthful, and nondiscriminatory workplaces. While 72 
percent of standard full-time workers received employer-provided health 
insurance in 2005, the proportion of contingent workers who received 
employer-provided health insurance ranged from 9 to 50 percent, 
depending on the category of contingent worker. When other sources of 
health insurance are taken into account, the proportional difference 
between contingent and standard full-time workers decreases 
substantially but is not eliminated. With regard to pension benefits, 
76 percent of standard full-time workers reported working for an 
employer who offered a pension, and 64 percent reported being included 
in their employer's plan. In contrast, 17 to 56 percent of contingent 
workers reported working for an employer who offered a pension, and 4 
to 37 percent reported being included in their employer's plan. 

DOL detects and addresses misclassification of employees as independent 
contractors by investigating complaints, but does not always forward 
misclassification cases to other federal and state agencies. DOL 
investigators detect and address employee misclassification primarily 
when responding to FLSA minimum wage and overtime pay complaints. DOL 
investigators examine the employment relationship--whether a worker is 
an employee or an independent contractor--to determine whether workers 
are covered under FLSA. DOL relies heavily on complaints from workers 
to enforce FLSA, but the FLSA workplace poster--a principal means of 
communicating FLSA protections--does not contain any information on 
employment relationship or provide a telephone number for individuals 
to register complaints. While misclassification of an employee as an 
independent contractor is not a violation of FLSA, it may contribute to 
an FLSA violation if the employer does not pay the minimum wage or 
overtime required by the act. In addition, employee misclassification 
may contribute to a violation of laws enforced by other agencies, such 
as tax laws. DOL procedures require officials to share information with 
other federal and state agencies whenever investigators find possible 
violations of other laws. However, the district offices we contacted 
vary in how often they forward misclassification as a possible 
violation of other agencies' laws. 

This report contains recommendations that DOL (1) revise its FLSA 
workplace poster to include additional contact information that would 
facilitate the reporting of potential employee misclassification 
complaints, and (2) evaluate the extent to which misclassification 
cases identified through FLSA investigations are referred to the 
appropriate federal or state agency, and take action to make 
improvements as necessary. In commenting on our draft report, DOL 
agreed with the first recommendation and agreed with the primary part 
of the second recommendation, but disagreed with one part of this 
recommendation. Regarding the second recommendation, DOL agreed with 
the value of sharing potential employee misclassification with 
appropriate federal and state programs, but did not agree with a part 
of the draft recommendation that referral of cases should include 
notifying the employer that the misclassification case has been 
forwarded to the appropriate agency. After considering DOL's position 
concerning this aspect of the draft recommendation, we deleted this 
part from the final recommendation. DOL also provided technical 
comments, which we incorporated in the report as appropriate. Our 
summary evaluation of the agency's comments is on page 36. DOL's 
comments are reproduced in appendix V. 

Background: 

The term "contingent work" can be defined in many ways to refer to a 
variety of nonstandard work arrangements. Broadly defined, "contingent 
work" refers to work arrangements that are not long-term, year-round, 
full-time employment with a single employer. For example, an employer 
may hire workers when there is an immediate and limited demand for 
their services, without any offer of permanent or even long-term 
employment. Temporary workers, independent contractors, and part-time 
workers are examples of contingent workers. In 2000, we reported our 
definition of contingent workers that we also used in this 
report.[Footnote 6] Figure 1 shows this definition, which includes 
eight categories of contingent workers. 

Figure 1: Categories of Workers That GAO Considered Contingent: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO/HEHS-00-76.

[End of figure] 

Research has shown that employers use contingent work arrangements for 
a variety of reasons. Employers may hire contingent workers to 
accommodate workload fluctuations, fill temporary absences, meet 
employee's requests for part-time hours, screen workers for permanent 
positions, and save on wage and benefit costs, among other 
reasons.[Footnote 7] Previous analyses of data from the CPS Contingent 
Work Supplement have indicated that workers also take temporary and 
other contingent jobs for a variety of personal and economic reasons. 
For example, workers in various types of contingent jobs indicated that 
they (1) preferred a flexible schedule to accommodate their school, 
family, or other obligations; (2) needed additional income; (3) could 
not find a more permanent job; or (4) hoped the job would lead to 
permanent employment.[Footnote 8] Studies using data from the BLS 
National Longitudinal Survey of Youth show that events such as the 
birth of a child or a change in marital status affect the likelihood of 
entering different types of employment arrangements and prompt some 
workers to enter contingent work arrangements.[Footnote 9] 

Concerns arise when employers misclassify workers as independent 
contractors, who are in a category of contingent workers excluded from 
certain worker protections. Employee misclassification occurs when an 
employer improperly classifies a worker as an independent contractor 
when the worker should be classified as an employee. In 2000, we 
reported that because most key workforce protection laws cover only 
workers who are employees, independent contractors and certain other 
contingent workers, such as self-employed workers, are, by definition, 
not covered. (See app. IV for a more detailed description of these key 
laws.) 

Misclassification of employees can affect the administration of many 
federal and state programs, such as payment of taxes and pension 
benefits. For example, if employers misclassify workers as independent 
contractors, then they may not be paying the payroll taxes required to 
be paid for employees. At the federal level, misclassification can 
reduce tax payments, Medicare payments, and Social Security payments. 
At the state level, misclassification can affect payments into state 
tax, workers' compensation, and unemployment insurance programs. Table 
1 shows key federal and state agencies that can be affected by employee 
misclassification issues. 

Table 1: Key Federal and State Agencies That Can Be Affected by 
Employee Misclassification: 

Entity: U.S. Department of Labor; 
Law: Fair Labor Standards Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Minimum wage, 
overtime, and child labor provisions. 

Entity: U.S. Department of Labor; 
Law: Family and Medical Leave Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Job-protected 
and unpaid leave. 

Entity: U.S. Department of Labor; 
Law: Occupational Safety and Health Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Safety and 
health protections. 

Entity: U.S. Department of Treasury-Internal Revenue Service; 
Law: Federal tax law, including:; Federal Insurance Contributions Act; 
Federal Unemployment Tax Act; Self-Employment Contributions Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Federal 
income and employment taxes. 

Entity: U.S. Department of Health and Human Services; 
Law: Title XVIII of the Social Security Act (Medicare); 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Medicare 
benefit payments. 

Entity: DOL/IRS/Pension Benefit Guaranty Corporation; 
Law: Employee Retirement Income Security Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Pension, 
health, and other employee benefit plans. 

Entity: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; 
Law: Title VII of the Civil Rights Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Prohibitions 
of employment discrimination based on race, color, religion, gender, 
and national origin. 

Entity: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; 
Law: Americans with Disabilities Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Prohibitions 
of discrimination against individuals with disabilities. 

Entity: Equal Employment Opportunity Commission; 
Law: Age Discrimination in Employment Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Prohibitions 
of employment discrimination against any individual 40 years of age or 
older. 

Entity: National Labor Relations Board; 
Law: National Labor Relations Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: The right to 
organize and bargain collectively. 

Entity: Social Security Administration; 
Law: Social Security Act; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Retirement 
and disability payments. 

Entity: DOL/state agencies; 
Law: Unemployment insurance law; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Unemployment 
insurance benefit payments. 

Entity: State agencies; 
Law: State tax law; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: State income 
and employment taxes. 

Law: State workers' compensation law; 
Areas potentially affected by employee misclassification: Workers' 
compensation benefit payments. 

Source: GAO analysis of laws. 

[End of table] 

DOL may encounter employee misclassification while enforcing worker 
protection laws. DOL's mission is to promote the welfare of job 
seekers, workers, and retirees in the United States by improving their 
working conditions, advancing their opportunities for profitable 
employment, protecting their retirement and health care benefits, 
helping employers find workers, strengthening free collective 
bargaining, and tracking changes in employment, prices, and other 
national economic measurements. In carrying out this mission, DOL 
enforces a variety of worker protection laws, including those 
guaranteeing workers' rights to safe and healthful working conditions, 
a minimum hourly wage and overtime pay, freedom from employment 
discrimination, and unemployment insurance. 

In particular, DOL's Employment Standards Administration's (ESA) Wage 
and Hour Division enforces FLSA. The Wage and Hour Division--with staff 
located in 5 regional and 72 district, area, and field offices 
throughout the country--conducts investigations of employers who have 
$500,000 or more in annual sales volume.[Footnote 10] In addition, the 
division conducts outreach efforts for employers and workers to ensure 
compliance with FLSA. District directors oversee investigators, who 
play a key role in carrying out FLSA enforcement. Investigators are 
trained to investigate a wide variety of workplace conditions and 
complaints and enforce a variety of labor laws in addition to 
FLSA.[Footnote 11] Regional and district offices conduct outreach to 
employers and workers through brochures, workplace posters, 
presentations or training sessions for individuals or groups, and Web- 
based information. 

FLSA--which provides minimum wage and overtime pay protections-- 
requires that employers pay those employees covered by the act at least 
the minimum wage and pay overtime wages when they work more than 40 
hours a week.[Footnote 12] FLSA requires that an employer-employee 
relationship exist for a worker to be covered by the act's provisions. 
The act defines "employee" broadly as an individual employed by an 
employer. The U.S. Supreme Court has identified certain factors to be 
considered in determining whether a worker meets the FLSA definition of 
employee. Appendix II contains more information on establishing the 
employment relationship under FLSA. 

Contingent Workers Constitute a Relatively Constant Proportion of the 
Workforce and Are Diverse: 

Contingent workers constituted a relatively constant proportion of the 
total workforce from 1995 through 2005 and had diverse characteristics. 
While the number of contingent workers grew by an estimated 3 million 
during this time period, the contingent proportion of the total 
workforce remained relatively constant. In 2005, there were about 42.6 
million contingent workers in the workforce. The different categories 
of contingent workers vary in terms of demographic characteristics, 
industries, occupations, preferences for the type of job that they 
currently hold, and incidence of low family income.[Footnote 13] 
Appendix III contains detailed information on changes in the size of 
the contingent workforce and characteristics of contingent workers. 

Contingent Workers' Proportion of the Total Workforce Has Changed 
Little over the Past Decade: 

In 2005, an estimated 31 percent of the workforce could be considered 
to maintain a contingent work arrangement.[Footnote 14] As shown in 
table 2, while the number of contingent workers grew from 39.6 million 
workers in 1995 to 42.6 million workers in 2005, contingent workers' 
share of the total workforce remained relatively constant over this 
time period.[Footnote 15] 

Table 2: Contingent Workers and the Total Employed Workforce (February 
1995, February 1999, February 2005): 

Category of worker: Contract company workers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 652; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 0.5; 
February 1999: 769; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 0.6; 
February 2005: 813; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 0.6. 

Category of worker: Agency temps; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 1,181; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 1.0; 
February 1999: 1,188; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 0.9; 
February 2005: 1,217; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 0.9. 

Category of worker: On-call workers/day laborers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 2,014; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 1.6; 
February 1999: 2,180; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 1.7; 
February 2005: 2,736; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 2.0. 

Category of worker: Direct-hire temps; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 3,393; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 2.8; 
February 1999: 3,227; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 2.5; 
February 2005: 2,972; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 2.1. 

Category of worker: Self-employed workers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 7,256; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 5.9; 
February 1999: 6,280; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 4.8; 
February 2005: 6,125; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 4.4. 

Category of worker: Independent contractors; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 8,309; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 6.7; 
February 1999: 8,247; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 6.3; 
February 2005: 10,342; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 7.4. 

Category of worker: Standard part-time workers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 16,813; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 13.6; 
February 1999: 17,380; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 13.2; 
February 2005: 18,360; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 13.2. 

Category of worker: Subtotal: contingent workers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 39,618; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 32.2[A]; 
February 1999: 39,271; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 29.9[A]; 
February 2005: 42,567; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 30.6. 

Category of worker: Standard full-time workers; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 83,589; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 67.8; 
February 1999: 92,222; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 70.1; 
February 2005: 96,385; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 69.4. 

Category of worker: Total workforce; 
February 1995: Estimated numbers of workers (in thousands): 123,207; 
February 1995: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 100.0; 
February 1999: 131,493; 
February 1999: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 100.0; 
February 2005: 138,952; 
February 2005: Estimated percentage of the workforce: 100.0. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 1995, 1999, and 2005 
Contingent Work Supplements. 

Note: We combined the on-call workers and day laborers categories 
because the definitions and characteristics of these workers are 
similar and the number of day laborers alone was not large enough to be 
statistically significant. 

[A] Percentages do not add up to subtotal because of rounding. 

[End of table] 

Contingent Workers Are a Diverse Group: 

The categories of contingent workers differ considerably in terms of 
their share of the contingent workforce. In 2005, standard part-time 
workers constituted the largest category (43 percent) and contract 
company workers constituted the smallest category (2 percent) of the 
contingent workforce (see fig. 2). 

Figure 2: Composition of the Contingent Workforce (February 2005): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

Note: Actual estimated percentages do not add to 100 percent because of 
rounding. 

Contingent workers exhibit a wide range of demographic characteristics. 
For example, direct-hire temps (with a mean age of about 35 
years[Footnote 16]) were, on average, the youngest contingent workers 
in 2005, while self-employed workers (with a mean age of about 48 
years[Footnote 17]) were the oldest. An estimated 68 percent of 
standard part-time workers were female, while about 31 percent of 
contract company workers were female.[Footnote 18] Self-employed 
workers had the highest percentage (81 percent) of white/non-Hispanic 
workers, while agency temps had the smallest percentage (50 percent) of 
white/non-Hispanic workers. Standard part-time workers had the highest 
percentage (21 percent) of workers with less than a high school degree, 
while self-employed workers and independent contractors had the lowest 
percentages (8 percent). 

Contingent workers are employed in a wide range of industries and 
occupations. Regarding industry, in 2005, the percentage of part-time 
workers employed in retail trade (38 percent) was greater than in other 
industries, the percentage of agency temps in business services (28 
percent) was greater than in other industries, the percentage of direct-
hire temps in educational services (28 percent) was greater than in 
other industries, and the percentage of independent contractors in 
construction (22 percent) was greater than in other industries. 
Regarding occupation, in 2005, the percentage of self-employed workers 
in management (29 percent) was greater than in other occupations, the 
percentage of agency temps in office and administrative support (25 
percent) was greater than in other occupations, and the percentage of 
contract company workers in construction and extraction (20 percent) 
was greater than in other occupations. 

The extent to which contingent workers express a preference for a 
different type of employer or job also varies across the different 
categories of contingent workers. For example, in 2005, 59 percent of 
agency temps expressed a preference to work for a different type of 
employer. Similarly, 48 percent of on-call workers/day laborers 
indicated that they would prefer a job where they worked regularly 
scheduled hours. In contrast, 9 percent of independent contractors and 
8 percent of self-employed workers indicated that they would prefer to 
work for someone else. 

The proportion of contingent workers reporting low family incomes 
varies considerably across the different categories of contingent 
workers. As shown in table 3, while 16 percent of the overall 
contingent worker population reported family incomes below $20,000 in 
2005, the incidence of low family income ranged from 8 percent for self-
employed workers (the same percentage as for standard full-time 
workers) to 28 percent among agency temps. The relatively high 
incidence of low family income among some groups of contingent workers 
may reflect a number of factors, including lower levels of educational 
attainment, lower number of hours worked, or employment in low-wage 
sectors of the economy. 

Table 3: Workers with Annual Family Incomes below $20,000 (February 
2005): 

Category of worker: Self-employed workers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 382,484; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
8. 

Category of worker: Contract company workers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
85,210[B]; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
11. 

Category of worker: Independent contractors; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 952,924; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
11. 

Category of worker: Direct-hire temps; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 464,561; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
18. 

Category of worker: Standard part-time workers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
2,963,389; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
19. 

Category of worker: On-call workers/day laborers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 501,014; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
21. 

Category of worker: Agency temps; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
318,535[B]; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
28. 

Category of worker: Subtotal: contingent workers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
5,668,117; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
16. 

Category of worker: Standard full-time workers; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
6,902,861; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
8. 

Category of worker: Total workforce; 
Estimated number of workers with family incomes below $20,000: 
12,570,978; 
Estimated percentage of workers with family incomes below $20,000[A]: 
11. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

[A] The percentages in this table are based on valid responses only. 

[B] The 95 percent confidence interval for agency temps and for 
contract company workers are 318,535 +/-70,692, and 85,210 +/-36,585, 
respectively. The 95 percent confidence intervals for totals for other 
categories of contingent workers are within +/-20 percent of the 
estimate itself. 

[End of table] 

A Smaller Proportion of Contingent Workers than Others Has Benefits or 
Is Covered by Key Workforce Protection Laws: 

A smaller proportion of contingent workers than of standard full-time 
workers has health insurance or pension benefits, or receives 
protections offered by key workforce protection laws, including ones 
designed to ensure proper pay and safe, healthy, and nondiscriminatory 
workplaces. A smaller proportion of contingent workers than of standard 
full-time workers has employer-provided health insurance coverage. When 
other sources of health insurance are taken into account, the 
difference between contingent and standard full-time workers decreases, 
but it remains the case that a smaller proportion of contingent workers 
is insured. In addition, a smaller proportion of contingent workers 
than of standard full-time workers has employers who offer pension 
plans or is included in employer-provided plans. Finally, contingent 
workers are less likely than standard full-time workers to receive 
protections offered by key workforce protection laws. Some laws contain 
requirements that exclude certain categories of contingent workers or 
contain certain time-in-service requirements that make it difficult for 
them to be covered. In addition, in cases where contingent workers have 
more than one employer, it is difficult to determine which employer is 
responsible for providing workers with workforce protections. Appendix 
IV contains a detailed description of the key workforce protection 
laws. 

A Smaller Proportion of Contingent Workers than Others Receives Health 
Insurance: 

The proportion of contingent workers receiving health insurance is 
smaller than the proportion of standard full-time workers receiving 
health insurance. Overall, an estimated 13 percent of contingent 
workers received health insurance through their employer in 2005, 
compared to 72 percent of standard full-time workers. As shown in 
figure 3, the share of contingent workers receiving employer-provided 
health insurance ranged from 9 percent for agency temps to 50 percent 
for contract company workers.[Footnote 19] 

Figure 3: Workers with Health Insurance (February 2005): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

[A] Most workers in these categories do not have an employer and were 
excluded in our analysis of employer-provided health insurance. 

[B] For this figure, the population of contingent workers is defined as 
all those respondents who gave a valid response to the question "Do you 
receive health insurance from any source?" The percentages reported 
above are based on this population. 

[End of figure] 

Although the proportion of contingent workers who received health 
insurance increased significantly when other sources of health 
insurance were taken into account, a smaller proportion of contingent 
workers than of standard full-time workers received health insurance 
from any source. Overall, about 73 percent of contingent workers 
received health insurance through any source in 2005, compared to 87 
percent of standard full-time workers. The share of contingent workers 
who received health insurance through any source ranged from 41 percent 
among agency temps to 81 percent among contract company workers. As 
might be expected, a smaller proportion of workers with low family 
incomes received health insurance than of workers of all income 
levels.[Footnote 20] Overall, the highest percentage of contingent 
workers who had health insurance through a source other than their 
employer received it from their spouse's health insurance plan. 
Contingent workers also reported receiving health insurance through 
other family members' plans, plans offered through other or previous 
jobs, direct purchase, or participating in Medicare or Medicaid 
programs. 

Workers may lack access to employer-provided health insurance for a 
number of reasons, including electing not to participate in an 
available plan, having an employer who does not offer a health 
insurance plan, or being ineligible for their employer's plan if one is 
offered. Just over half of workers--both contingent and standard full- 
time--who lacked employer-provided health insurance coverage in 2005 
worked for an employer who offered health insurance to some of its 
employees. Not all workers reported being able to participate in their 
employer's health insurance plan. An estimated 38 percent of the 
contingent workers in this group reported that they could participate 
in their employer's health insurance plan if they wanted to, compared 
to 81 percent of standard full-time workers. Both contingent and 
standard full-time workers reported several reasons for not 
participating in health insurance plans offered by their employer, 
including having coverage through another plan and the expense of their 
employer's plan. 

Some states and professional associations have developed health 
insurance programs that help contingent workers access health care. For 
example, Massachusetts recently passed legislation that will make 
health insurance available to all residents of the state, including 
contingent workers such as part-time workers, contractors, and self- 
employed workers. This new law provides for health insurance premium 
assistance for low-income workers as well as low-cost policies 
available for purchase in the private market. In addition, Maine 
recently created the Dirigo program, which provides low cost health 
insurance to self-employed workers and workers without employer- 
sponsored insurance. Similarly, New York's Healthy NY program helps 
uninsured workers, including self-employed workers, who earn too much 
to qualify for Medicaid access comprehensive health insurance. 
Professional associations are also creating health plans to serve 
contingent workers. For example, the HR Policy Association--a nonprofit 
organization of senior human resources executives of Fortune 500 
companies--recently brought major health insurers and large companies 
together to create the National Health Access program. This program 
provides a range of low-cost health plans to part-time, seasonal, and 
temporary workers, as well as independent contractors at participating 
companies who are ineligible for the companies' traditional health 
plans. While these public and private initiatives are relatively new 
and long-term outcomes have yet to be determined, the programs have 
succeeded in expanding health insurance options to some contingent 
workers. 

A Smaller Proportion of Contingent Workers than Others Has Access to 
Employer-Provided Pensions: 

A smaller proportion of contingent workers than of standard full-time 
workers has employers who offer pensions or is included in their 
employer's pension plans.[Footnote 21] Overall, 38 percent of 
contingent workers reported having employers who offered a pension in 
2005, compared to 76 percent of standard full-time workers. Similarly, 
while 17 percent of contingent workers reported being included in their 
employers' pension plan, 64 percent of standard full-time workers 
reported being included in such plans. As shown in figure 4, with the 
exception of agency temps, 53 to 56 percent of the contingent workers 
in other categories reported having employers who offered pension 
plans.[Footnote 22] The percentage of contingent workers who were 
included in employer-provided pension plans ranged from 4 percent for 
agency temps to 37 percent for contract company workers. 

Figure 4: Workers with Employer-Provided Pensions (February 2005): 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

[A] Because workers in the self-employed category, and most workers in 
the independent contractor category, do not have employers, they were 
not included in this figure. 

[B] For this figure, the population of contingent workers is defined as 
all those respondents who gave a valid response to the question "Do you 
work for an employer who offers a pension plan?" The percentages 
reported above are based on this population. 

[End of figure] 

Among contingent workers with employers who offered pension plans, the 
most frequently reported reasons for not being included in the plan 
were those related to eligibility. For example, these workers reported 
that they were not allowed to join the plan, they had not worked enough 
hours or weeks, or they had not worked long enough to be eligible. 

In addition to employer-provided pension plans, other types of tax 
deferred retirement accounts (such as individual retirement accounts 
and Keogh plans) may offer workers an opportunity to save for 
retirement. A larger proportion of self-employed workers and 
independent contractors than of other categories of contingent workers 
reports having other types of tax deferred retirement 
accounts.[Footnote 23] For example, 45 percent of self-employed workers 
and 42 percent of independent contractors, compared to 16 percent of 
standard full-time workers, reported having such accounts in 2005. 

Contingent workers with low family incomes have less access to employer-
provided pension benefits than workers of all income levels. Overall, 
29 percent of contingent workers with low family incomes reported 
having employers who offered pension plans in 2005; 7 percent of 
contingent workers with low family incomes reported being included in 
such plans. Contingent workers with low family incomes commonly 
reported that they were not included in their employer's pension plan 
for reasons related to eligibility; for example, they were not allowed 
to join the plan, they had not worked enough hours or weeks, or they 
had not worked long enough to be eligible. 

Some Categories of Contingent Workers Are Not Covered by Key Laws 
Designed to Protect Workers: 

Contingent workers who are employees are generally protected under key 
laws designed to protect workers, but certain categories of contingent 
workers--such as independent contractors and self-employed workers-- 
may be excluded from coverage under these laws. While most of the key 
worker protection laws do not distinguish between types of employees 
(i.e., contingent and standard full-time employees), some laws contain 
requirements that exclude certain categories of contingent workers or 
contain certain time-in-service requirements that make it difficult for 
them to be covered.[Footnote 24] In addition, because these laws are 
based on the traditional employer-employee relationship, they generally 
cover only workers who are employees; independent contractors and self- 
employed workers, therefore, are not covered. According to the 2005 
Contingent Work Supplement, 10.3 million individuals are independent 
contractors; these individuals would not be covered by these workforce 
protection laws. 

When employers have misclassified workers as independent contractors, 
workers may need to go to court to establish their employee status and 
their eligibility for protection under the laws. In addition, DOL may 
bring a lawsuit on behalf of the worker or group of workers to require 
that the employer provide the benefit or protection under the law. As 
shown in figure 5, the key workforce protection laws cover a wide range 
of issues. 

Figure 5: Key Laws Designed to Protect Workers: 

[See PDF for image] 

Source: GAO analysis of laws. 

[End of figure] 

Certain categories of contingent workers, such as temporary, on-call, 
and part-time workers, are not covered by some of the laws designed to 
protect workers. For example, the Family and Medical Leave Act requires 
workers to have worked for the same employer at least 12 months and a 
minimum of 1,250 hours during the past 12 months to be covered. These 
conditions decrease the likelihood that workers who are temporary, on- 
call, or part-time will be covered. Although employers are not required 
to provide pension or health care plans to their employees, when plans 
are offered, the Employee Retirement Income Security Act (ERISA) has 
rules that govern which employees must be included in the plans in 
order to qualify for special tax treatment. For example, ERISA allows 
employers to exclude workers who have worked less than 1,000 hours in a 
12-month period from entering their pension plans. ERISA also allows 
employers to exclude employees who have worked for the company less 
than 3 years as well as part-time and seasonal employees from the count 
of employees who must be included in self-insured medical plans and 
group term life insurance plans. As a result, some temporary, on-call, 
and part-time workers may not be included in their employers' benefit 
plans. These exclusions are intended to strike a balance between 
providing benefits to workers and not be unduly burdening employers. 
For example, the exclusions in ERISA were enacted to recognize that it 
may be impractical or too costly for employers to include all short- 
term employees in their pension plans. 

Some laws have exemptions for portions of certain industries or types 
of employers that may disproportionately affect contingent workers. For 
example, FLSA exempts all agricultural employers from the overtime pay 
requirement and exempts agricultural employers who do not use more than 
500 days of labor in any calendar quarter from the minimum wage 
requirement. These exemptions affect some categories of contingent 
workers more than standard full-time workers because a greater 
proportion of these contingent workers is in the agriculture industry; 
for example, an estimated 11 percent of self-employed workers, 2 
percent of on-call workers and day laborers, 2 percent of independent 
contractors, and 1 percent of direct-hire temporary workers are 
employed in agriculture, compared with 1 percent of standard full-time 
workers. 

Similarly, the nature of contingent work makes it difficult for some 
contingent workers to meet state eligibility requirements for 
unemployment insurance. Temporary and part-time workers may not meet 
the minimum earnings requirements, which vary by state, and these 
workers may have difficulty meeting the rules governing job loss 
because they have less flexibility when the circumstances of their jobs 
change. For example, temporary workers who choose this type of work in 
order to meet family obligations or to attend school might be more 
likely to quit if their employer changed the job location or required 
them to work different hours. Nevertheless, they would be ineligible 
for unemployment insurance benefits in many states because they 
voluntarily quit without good cause.[Footnote 25] In addition, 
contingent workers can find it difficult to meet continuing eligibility 
requirements.[Footnote 26] 

Some contingent workers, such as temporary or contract workers, may 
also find it difficult to meet the requirements of the National Labor 
Relations Act (NLRA) for joining an existing bargaining unit or forming 
a new bargaining unit. For example, under the act, temporary workers 
wanting to join an existing collective bargaining unit at a work site 
must first demonstrate that they have a "sufficient community of 
interest" with the permanent workers in the bargaining unit.[Footnote 
27] In 2004, the National Labor Relations Board (NLRB) overturned a 
decision made in 2000, and required consent from both the user and 
supplier employer before temporary employees could join an existing 
bargaining unit.[Footnote 28] The 2004 decision made it more difficult 
for temporary and leased employees to join unions and bargain 
collectively. Contingent workers may also find it difficult to form new 
collective bargaining units. For example, temporary workers and day 
laborers may find it difficult to form bargaining units because they do 
not work at one location or with one employer long enough to identify 
with a particular group of workers and organize a union. In addition, 
some worker advocacy groups maintain that contract company workers have 
difficulty forming new collective bargaining units because employers 
that use contract company workers may cancel contracts and contract 
with other companies when workers attempt to unionize. 

Incorrect Employment Relationship May Result in Lack of Worker 
Protections: 

In some cases it is difficult to determine which employer is 
responsible for providing workers with workforce protections because 
some contingent workers have more than one employer. In these cases, 
employers may be (1) an intermediary, such as a temporary employment 
agency, contract company, or leasing company; (2) the client firm that 
obtains the workers through the intermediary; or (3) both the 
intermediary and the client firm. Because it is often difficult in 
these cases to determine which employer is liable to provide workers 
with workforce protections, litigation may be necessary to resolve this 
issue. 

Even in cases where there is only one employer involved, employers 
sometimes classify workers improperly, primarily by designating some 
workers as independent contractors when, in fact, they are more 
appropriately considered employees. Moreover, employers have economic 
incentives to misclassify employees as independent contractors because 
employers are not obligated to make certain financial expenditures for 
independent contractors that they make for employees, such as paying 
certain taxes (Social Security, Medicare, and unemployment taxes), 
providing workers' compensation insurance, paying minimum wage and 
overtime wages, or including independent contractors in employee 
benefit plans. 

In addition, the tests used to determine whether a worker is an 
independent contractor or an employee are complex, subjective, and 
differ from law to law. For example, the NLRA, the Civil Rights Act, 
FLSA, and ERISA each use a different definition of an employee and 
various tests, or criteria, to distinguish independent contractors from 
employees.[Footnote 29] (See app. II for more information on employment 
relationship.) 

DOL Detects and Addresses Employee Misclassification through 
Investigations, but Offices We Studied Vary in How Often They Forward 
Misclassification Cases to Other Federal and State Agencies: 

DOL detects and addresses employee misclassification when enforcing the 
FLSA minimum wage and overtime pay provisions. As part of its FLSA 
investigation process, DOL examines the employment relationship-- 
whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor--to 
determine which workers are covered. Investigators use various methods 
to test the employment relationship of workers, including interviewing 
employers and workers, reviewing payroll and related documents, and 
touring work sites. While misclassification alone is not an FLSA 
violation, it may contribute to FLSA violations or violations of other 
laws, such as tax violations. DOL's outreach efforts provide some 
information to employers and workers on employee misclassification 
issues. DOL procedures require officials to share information with 
other federal and state agencies whenever investigators find possible 
violations of other laws. However, the district offices that we 
contacted vary in how often they forward misclassification cases as a 
possible violation of other agencies' laws. 

Investigators Determine Workers' Employment Relationship: 

DOL relies on complaints as a primary way to identify potential 
violations for investigation.[Footnote 30] All FLSA investigations of 
minimum wage and overtime pay complaints begin with an examination of 
workers' employment relationship because FLSA applies only to 
employees, not to independent contractors. If investigators determine 
that a worker is an employee and not an independent contractor, they 
continue with their FLSA investigation to determine whether the 
employer has provided the minimum wage and overtime pay required by the 
act. 

DOL's Field Operations Handbook (FOH) provides investigators with 
statutory interpretations and investigation procedures regarding the 
employment relationship required for FLSA to apply. It also describes 
the Supreme Court factors and explains how to apply them to test 
employment relationship. For example, the Supreme Court factors address 
whether the worker uses his or her own tools or equipment and whether 
the worker can decide which hours to work. Appendix II contains more 
information on the employment relationship. According to DOL officials, 
investigators rely on their professional judgment when applying the 
Supreme Court factors. Investigators receive classroom training and on- 
the-job mentoring on the Supreme Court factors and techniques for 
applying the factors. In their training, they are taught to identify 
all the relevant factors and make a full, balanced assessment of the 
facts of each case.[Footnote 31] 

Investigators may identify possible employee misclassification at 
different points during the investigation. According to DOL officials, 
misclassification issues may come up during the initial conference with 
the employer or during an investigator's review of records to determine 
whether an employer had classified workers as employees or independent 
contractors. At the initial conference with the employer, investigators 
ask employers about the nature of their work, annual dollar volume of 
business, the number of workers, and how workers are paid, and they 
request payment documents, such as payroll records, time cards, and W- 
2 forms. While it is standard practice for investigators to review 
payroll and other records related to wages and employment, 
investigators do not necessarily review contracts or 1099 forms used to 
pay independent contractors unless they have a reason to suspect 
possible misclassification. 

Investigators may have reason to suspect misclassification stemming 
from the complaint that initiated the case or their knowledge of 
potential misclassification in that industry. In these cases, the 
investigator would ask employers about whether they contract any work 
and how they classify their workers. For example, according to DOL 
officials, if an investigator was conducting an investigation of a 
large drywall employer, then the investigator would probably spend a 
large amount of time pursuing independent contractor issues because 
misclassification has been a problem in the past with construction 
contractors subcontracting work to drywallers, roofers, electricians, 
and carpenters. In other cases where the investigator has no knowledge 
about potential misclassification, the employer's responses at the 
initial conference may raise questions. For example, if the employer 
had millions of dollars in annual business but only two employees, then 
the investigator would likely ask further questions about the 
employment relationship of any other workers. In addition, DOL 
officials told us that investigators compare payroll records with the 
work process identified by the employer to see if there are any gaps. 
For example, investigators would need to follow up with employers who 
describe work processes that required many workers but had no employees 
listed on the payroll. Such a scenario could indicate that employers 
had misclassified workers as independent contractors who were not 
listed on the payroll. 

Investigators may learn about employment relationship when interviewing 
workers to verify the employer's payroll and time records or to 
identify workers' duties in order to determine whether FLSA applies. 
According to DOL officials, an investigator would not ask directly 
whether the worker is an independent contractor or an employee; 
instead, an investigator would ask questions to determine whether the 
worker is an employee or an independent contractor. For example, an 
investigator would ask whether workers set their own work hours or use 
their own equipment on the job--indications that workers may be 
independent contractors, not employees. 

Investigators may obtain additional information on employment 
relationship while touring an employer's establishment. During a tour, 
investigators can compare their observations about employment 
relationship in the work environment to the information from the 
records and interviews with employers and workers. Specifically, 
investigators can observe control issues, such as whether workers are 
supervised and provided with supplies and equipment. For example, if an 
apartment rental complex treats its maintenance workers as independent 
contractors, then the investigator would observe who provides the 
plumbing supplies and paint--the employer or the workers--to help 
determine whether workers are independent contractors or employees. 
Also, a tour can identify potential misclassification issues for an 
investigator to follow up on. For example, if the payroll records show 
that the employer has 10 employees but the investigator sees 15 workers 
during the tour, then the investigator will conduct further interviews 
and record review to determine whether these other 5 workers are 
employees or independent contractors. 

Because employee misclassification is not a violation of FLSA, 
investigators are not required to discuss misclassification identified 
during FLSA investigations with employers or to include it in their 
investigation report. According to DOL officials, however, an 
investigator may discuss misclassification with the employer during the 
investigation and may note instances of misclassification in the 
investigation report. In discussing a misclassification case with the 
employer, the investigator would explain that the workers should be 
classified as employees, not independent contractors, and that the 
employer may be violating other laws administered by other agencies, 
such as tax laws or workers' compensation laws. Specifically, 
investigators would explain to the employer how they applied the 
Supreme Court factors in determining that the workers were employees, 
not independent contractors. DOL officials said that investigators 
would provide employers with publications and fact sheets on employment 
relationship if they identified misclassification during an 
investigation. In addition, the investigators may mention employee 
misclassification in their final investigation report that summarizes 
the facts of the investigation. According to DOL officials, if the 
investigators included misclassification in the case report, it would 
be mentioned as an underlying reason for a minimum wage or overtime 
violation. However, investigation reports do not always include the 
reason for the violation. 

Employee Misclassification, though Not an FLSA Violation, May 
Contribute to FLSA or Other Violations: 

Employee misclassification alone is not a violation of FLSA, but may 
contribute to FSLA minimum wage and overtime pay violations or 
violations of tax, workers' compensation, or unemployment insurance 
laws.[Footnote 32] DOL investigations have identified FLSA violations 
associated with employee misclassification. For example, one 
misclassification case involved a valet parking company located in 
Arizona that provided services to local restaurants, sports venues, 
hotels, and theaters. In 2004, this company paid $66,947 in minimum 
wage and overtime pay back wages to 262 employees who had been 
misclassified as independent contractors. When reviewing the employment 
relationship, the DOL investigator found that the services provided by 
these workers were integral to the business, and that the employer had 
imposed strict policies and procedures to follow and told them when 
they would work, where they would work, what their pay rate would be, 
and what uniforms they would wear. The investigator determined that the 
workers were not required to use initiative, judgment, or foresight to 
be successful as independent contractors; did not have any investment 
in facilities or equipment; and were not operating to make a profit. 

Another misclassification case involved a chicken-processing company 
based in California that contracted out its deboning operations to a 
subcontractor. In 2005, DOL investigators found that the subcontractor 
had misclassified as independent contractors the employees he hired to 
work at this deboning plant. The subcontractor violated FLSA when he 
failed to meet payroll for 2 weeks, pay minimum wages and overtime pay, 
and keep adequate payroll records. The subcontractor also illegally 
deducted the cost of aprons, gloves, hair nets, and other required 
equipment from workers' paychecks. When the subcontractor went 
bankrupt, the contractor agreed to cover the back wages due--$40,000 
owed to 59 workers--although the contractor was not legally required to 
do so. 

DOL officials told us that their investigators have encountered cases 
where employers classified workers as independent contractors instead 
of employees to avoid paying proper wages under federal and state wage 
laws or to avoid providing benefits under other laws, such as workers' 
compensation and unemployment insurance laws. For example, in 2004, a 
joint DOL-State of California investigation found that a services 
company located in California had misclassified employees and not paid 
overtime in accordance with FLSA. The affected workers provided 
janitorial services to a major department store chain located in 
California, Arizona, Nevada, Texas, and New Mexico. According to DOL 
officials, the company contracted out the janitorial work to 
individuals who were not legitimate contractors in that, among other 
things, they did not control the location or hours of work. These 
"contractors" then hired others to do the janitorial work. As a result 
of this arrangement, the services company avoided paying minimum wage, 
overtime, and other benefits, such as workers' compensation. In 
response to the investigation, the company agreed to pay $1.9 million 
in back wages to 775 employees. Throughout the investigation, DOL 
worked with the state to ensure compliance with state wage laws, 
workers' compensation programs, and unemployment insurance programs. 

DOL's Outreach Efforts Provide Some Information on Employee 
Misclassification Issues: 

As part of general FLSA outreach efforts to employers and workers, DOL 
provides some information on establishing the employment relationship. 
While these outreach efforts primarily focus on how to comply with 
provisions of FLSA--minimum wage, overtime pay, and child labor--they 
also include some information on the employment relationship. 
Specifically, information on employment relationship issues is 
available to employers and workers through brochures, pamphlets, fact 
sheets, and Web-based information. According to DOL officials, outreach 
efforts conducted specifically for industries likely to use independent 
contractors may also address the topic of employee misclassification. 

The DOL Web site contains several sources of information on the FLSA 
employment relationship. DOL's Wage and Hour Division posts its 
Employment Relationship under FLSA (WH Publication 1297) and fact 
sheets that provide information on determining the employment 
relationship in applying provisions of FLSA. For example, Fact Sheet 
13: Employment Relationship under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA) 
outlines the Supreme Court's factors for determining an employment 
relationship under FLSA and is available in several languages, 
including Chinese, Korean, Spanish, Thai, and Vietnamese. It also 
identifies common problems: (1) construction contractors hire so-called 
independent contractors, who in reality should be considered employees 
because they do not meet the Supreme Court tests for independence and 
(2) individuals who work at home are often improperly considered 
independent contractors. Another DOL Web site resource is Employment 
Laws Assistance for Workers and Small Businesses (elaws) FLSA Advisor, 
an interactive system that allows employers and workers to determine 
whether a worker would be considered an employee or an independent 
contractor. These Web site outreach sources contain contacts--such as 
the Wage-Hour toll-free telephone line and links to district office 
telephone numbers--to obtain additional information about employment 
relationship issues. 

Another form of outreach that DOL provides is its workplace poster. 
FLSA regulations require that every employer that has employees subject 
to the act's provisions post a notice explaining the act in a prominent 
and accessible place at the work site.[Footnote 33] While DOL relies 
heavily on complaints from workers to enforce FLSA, the FLSA workplace 
poster does not provide a telephone number for workers or others to 
call to register complaints. Instead, the poster directs inquiries for 
additional information to the nearest Wage and Hour Division office 
listed in the telephone directory under "United States Government, 
Labor Department." Also, the FLSA workplace poster does not include any 
information on the employment relationship. As a result, individuals 
seeking to report possible employee misclassification complaints have 
no easy method to do so. 

DOL district offices conduct locally based general FLSA outreach 
efforts for employer and worker groups that do not target employee 
misclassification, but they provide some information on establishing 
the employment relationship. DOL officials told us that they distribute 
employment relationship publications and fact sheets to industries that 
use independent contractors--such as the construction and garment 
industries--and may be more likely to misclassify employees. According 
to DOL officials, this outreach to industries using independent 
contractors may also address the topic of employee misclassification. 
Also, in DOL's Western Region, a recent outreach effort to educate 
Hispanic employers and workers about general workplace rights and 
responsibilities has identified cases of employee misclassification 
from calls to a hotline. Specifically, the Employment Education and 
Outreach (EMPLEO)--an alliance of federal and state agencies, Mexican 
and Central American consulates, and private nonprofit groups--provides 
a toll-free hotline staffed by Spanish-speaking volunteers, not 
associated with the government, who forward calls to the appropriate 
agency for response. 

DOL Offices We Studied Vary in How Often They Forward Misclassification 
Cases to Other Federal and State Agencies: 

Employers' misclassification of workers as independent contractors may 
in some circumstances violate tax, unemployment insurance, and workers' 
compensation laws. According to the Field Operations Handbook, DOL 
regional or district officials are required to share information with 
other appropriate federal and state agencies whenever investigators 
conducting FLSA investigations find instances of possible violations of 
other laws. At the same time, however, the FOH cautions investigators 
not to interpret laws outside their authority. We discussed whether DOL 
forwards misclassification cases identified during an FLSA 
investigation. The DOL officials we spoke to in 9 district offices 
could not provide the number of misclassification cases they referred 
to other agencies because they do not track this information. However, 
their responses indicated that district offices vary in how often they 
implement the procedures to refer cases to other agencies. Some of the 
DOL district offices told us that they notified IRS and state agencies 
when they found misclassification, while others told us that they had 
little or no contact with other agencies regarding misclassification 
issues. These district offices also reported that it was rare for them 
to receive misclassification referrals from other federal or state 
agencies.[Footnote 34] 

DOL requires its regional or district officials to notify other 
agencies about possible violations identified during DOL 
investigations. The procedures state that investigators should note 
conditions that appear to be possible violations of other federal or 
state laws or regulations. They also state that for matters that are 
not within the authority of the Wage and Hour Division, investigators 
should confine their investigative activities to obvious conditions 
that they observe, or are brought to their attention, to avoid any 
impression that the Wage and Hour Division is overstepping its 
investigation authority. Further, the procedures instruct investigators 
not to interpret any law other than those administered by the Wage and 
Hour Division. They also direct investigators to report to district 
office management any possible violations of other laws or regulations. 
The Wage and Hour Division provides a form (WH-124) for regional or 
district office officials to use to notify other federal or state 
agencies about possible violations of laws or regulations administered 
by those agencies. 

According to DOL officials, investigators do not have the authority or 
the expertise to look for violations of other laws. DOL officials told 
us that because investigators focus on identifying minimum wage, 
overtime pay, and child labor violations during FLSA investigations, 
checking for compliance with laws enforced by other agencies is not a 
priority. DOL officials also noted that interagency collaboration on 
employee misclassification referrals is difficult because different 
laws have different tests of establishing the employment relationship. 

The DOL district offices we contacted varied in how often they 
implemented the procedures to refer possible violations, including 
misclassification, to other federal or state agencies. According to the 
DOL officials in these offices, in most cases, district offices are 
responsible for contacting other agencies. While some districts told us 
that they notified IRS and state agencies about misclassification 
cases, other districts told us that they had no contact with states or 
other federal agencies about misclassification issues. Some district 
officials told us that they notified IRS when investigators found 
instances of misclassification that appeared to involve tax law 
violations, but rarely received any response from IRS after submitting 
their referral.[Footnote 35] Other districts told us that they had 
little contact with IRS regarding misclassification.[Footnote 36] For 
example, one district official said his district generally does not 
receive any feedback from IRS. He said that his district would have 
more incentive to refer cases if IRS would inform the district when it 
received DOL referrals and if the district knew that IRS would act on 
the referrals. 

Similarly, some DOL officials told us that their contact with state 
agencies could include misclassification, while others said they had 
little contact with states about these issues. For example, one 
regional official cited coordination with the state agencies that are 
responsible for employment tax and registration of contractors in the 
construction industry. He said that this state agency imposes fines on 
individuals who are not registered as contractors and that this 
sometimes involves misclassification.[Footnote 37] 

District officials in the offices we contacted said they rarely receive 
referrals about misclassification from other federal or state agencies. 
While one district official said that other state agencies in the 
region refer some complaints that occasionally include 
misclassification issues, most officials said their districts have not 
received any misclassification referrals from IRS or other federal or 
state agencies. 

Conclusions: 

Contingent workers constitute an important and diverse sector of the 
U.S. workforce. Yet while contingent work arrangements offer 
flexibility to both employers and workers, they also provide contingent 
workers with fewer workforce protections than are available to other 
workers. Contingent workers also received fewer benefits. Many 
contingent workers may not be covered under employer-sponsored health 
and benefit plans and may not be able to afford these benefits on their 
own--a situation that could have long-term adverse consequences for 
workers and government programs. To the extent that contingent workers 
neither receive health or pension benefits nor qualify for unemployment 
or workers' compensation, they may have to turn to needs-based 
programs, such as Medicaid, to make ends meet. To the extent that this 
occurs, costs formerly borne by employers may be shifted to federal and 
state public assistance budgets. To help address the lack of health 
insurance coverage, some state and professional associations have 
developed programs that help contingent workers access health care. 
Although these initiatives are relatively new and long-term outcomes 
have yet to be determined, they may serve as promising practices for 
the future. 

DOL investigators identify instances of employee misclassification when 
responding to minimum wage and overtime pay complaints. However, 
because the FLSA workplace poster does not provide an easy method for 
workers to report complaints, DOL may be missing opportunities to 
address other instances of potential misclassification. Improving the 
workplace poster would reinforce DOL's complaint-based strategy and 
would help further protect the wages of employees who may be 
misclassified. 

While DOL investigators conducting FLSA investigations are required to 
share information with other federal and state agencies whenever they 
find instances of possible violations of other laws, DOL district 
offices we studied varied in how often they forwarded misclassification 
cases to other agencies. DOL does not know the extent to which district 
offices refer misclassification cases to other agencies. DOL cautions 
investigators not to interpret laws outside their authority, but 
referring misclassification cases identified through FLSA 
investigations would not require DOL to interpret other agencies' laws. 
In addition, referring this information may assist other federal and 
state agencies in addressing misclassification. Furthermore, when DOL 
does not refer cases of misclassification, other agencies lose 
opportunities to fulfill their fiduciary duties in conserving 
government funds. 

Recommendations for Executive Action: 

To facilitate the reporting of FLSA complaints, we recommend that the 
Secretary of Labor instruct the Wage and Hour Division to revise the 
FLSA workplace poster to include national, regional, and district 
office telephone numbers and a Web site address that complainants may 
use to report alleged employee misclassification issues. 

To facilitate addressing employee misclassification across federal and 
state programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor instruct the 
Wage and Hour Division to evaluate the extent to which 
misclassification cases identified through FLSA investigations are 
referred to the appropriate federal or state agency potentially 
affected by employee misclassification, and take action to make 
improvements as necessary. In addressing its referral mechanism, the 
Wage and Hour Division officials should consider building upon efforts 
by district offices currently engaging in referrals. 

Agency Comments: 

We provided a draft of this report to DOL for comment. Overall, DOL 
agreed with the first recommendation and agreed with the primary part 
of the second recommendation, but disagreed with one part of this 
recommendation. DOL's written comments are reproduced in appendix V. 

DOL's ESA agreed with the first recommendation on revising the 
workplace poster to provide additional contact information to 
facilitate the reporting of possible misclassification complaints. ESA 
noted that the Wage and Hour Division is in the process of revising its 
workplace poster to add the division's toll-free phone number. 

Regarding the second recommendation, on referring misclassification 
cases to other agencies, DOL agreed with the value of sharing potential 
employee misclassification with appropriate federal and state programs. 
The agency commented that the Wage and Hour Division will review its 
processes to determine the appropriateness of referral of such cases to 
other agencies. However, DOL did not agree with a part of the draft 
recommendation that referral of cases should include notifying the 
employer that the misclassification case has been forwarded to the 
appropriate agency. The agency stated that such notification could 
place the Wage and Hour Division staff in the untenable position of 
having to defend a referral based upon interpretations of laws, which 
the division staff has no expertise or authority to interpret or 
enforce. After considering DOL's position concerning this aspect of the 
draft recommendation, we deleted this part from the final 
recommendation. 

DOL's BLS also provided technical comments, which we incorporated in 
the report as appropriate. 

As agreed with your office, unless you publicly announce its contents 
earlier, we plan no further distribution of this report until 30 days 
from the date of this report. At that time, we will send copies of this 
report to the Secretary of Labor and other interested parties. We will 
also make copies available to others upon request. In addition, the 
report will be available at no charge on GAO's Web site at [Hyperlink, 
http://www.gao.gov]. 

If you or your staff have any questions about this report, please 
contact me at (202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov. Contact points for 
our Offices of Congressional Relations and Public Affairs may be found 
on the last page of this report. GAO staff who have made major 
contributions to this report are listed in appendix VI. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 

[End of section] 

Appendix I: Objectives, Scope, and Methodology: 

The objectives of our study were to determine (1) the size and nature 
of the contingent workforce, (2) the benefits and workforce protections 
provided to contingent workers, and (3) the actions that the Department 
of Labor (DOL) takes to detect and address employee misclassification. 

To obtain information on the contingent workforce, we analyzed data 
from the Bureau of Labor Statistics (BLS). Specifically, we reviewed 
BLS's Current Population Survey (CPS), which is used to survey people 
about their work and benefits, and a CPS supplement that BLS developed 
to collect information on the contingent workforce. We defined 
"contingent workers" according to the methodology used in our 2000 
review of the contingent workforce, examining eight categories of 
workers who could be considered contingent: agency temporary workers 
(temps), direct-hire temps, on-call workers, day laborers, contract 
company workers, independent contractors, self-employed workers, and 
standard part-time workers.[Footnote 38] Standard full-time workers 
were defined as all workers who do not fall into one of the contingent 
worker categories. We reported descriptive statistics on the 
characteristics of contingent workers and standard full-time workers, 
their receipt of health insurance, and their participation in pension 
plans. We did not conduct multivariate analyses to determine the causal 
relationships explaining contingent workers' incidence of low family 
income, receipt of health insurance, or participation in pension plans. 
We also interviewed BLS officials and other researchers about 
contingent worker issues. 

To estimate the size of the contingent workforce and describe how it 
has changed over the past decade, we used data collected in the CPS as 
well as data collected in a special supplement to the survey--the 
Contingent Work Supplement--in February 1995, 1999, and 2005.[Footnote 
39] To describe the demographic characteristics of the contingent 
workforce and the extent to which these workers have access to health 
insurance and pension benefits, we used data collected in the CPS and 
the Contingent Work Supplement in February 2005. 

The CPS is designed and administered jointly by the Bureau of the 
Census (Census) and BLS. It is the source of official government 
statistics on employment and unemployment in the United States. The 
survey is used to collect information on employment as well as such 
demographic information as age, sex, race, marital status, educational 
attainment, and family structure. The survey is based on a sample of 
the civilian, noninstitutionalized population of the United States. 
Using a multistage stratified sample design, about 60,000 households 
are selected on the basis of area of residence to be representative of 
the country as a whole and of individual states. A more complete 
description of the survey, including sample design, estimation, and 
other methodology, can be found in the CPS documentation prepared by 
Census and BLS.[Footnote 40] 

The Contingent Work Supplement was designed by BLS to obtain 
information from workers on whether they hold contingent jobs, defined 
by BLS as jobs that are expected to last only a limited period of 
time.[Footnote 41] In addition, information is collected on several 
alternative employment relationships, namely working as independent 
contractors and on call, as well as working through temporary help 
agencies or contract firms. All employed persons except unpaid family 
members are included in the supplement. For persons holding more than 
one job, the questions refer to the characteristics of their main job-
-the job in which they work the most hours. Similar surveys have been 
conducted in February of 1995, 1997, 1999, 2001, and 2005. For a more 
complete description of the supplement see the technical documentation 
prepared by Census and BLS.[Footnote 42] 

For our data reliability assessment, we reviewed agency documents on 
the CPS and conducted electronic tests of the files. On the basis of 
these reviews, we determined the required data elements from the CPS 
were sufficiently reliable for our purposes. 

Because the CPS is a probability sample of the population based on 
random selection, the sample is only one of a large number of samples 
that might have been drawn. Since each sample could have provided 
different estimates, confidence in the precision of the particular 
sample's results is expressed as a 95 percent confidence interval (for 
example, +/-4 percentage points). This is the interval that would 
contain the actual population value for 95 percent of the samples that 
could have been drawn. As a result, we are 95 percent confident that 
each of the confidence intervals in this report will include the true 
values in the study population. 

For the CPS estimates in this report, we use the CPS general variance 
methodology to estimate the sampling error and report it as confidence 
intervals. Percentage estimates based on the total workforce have 95 
percent confidence intervals of within +/-1 percentage point of the 
estimate itself, unless otherwise noted.[Footnote 43] Percentage 
estimates for individual categories of contingent workers have 
confidence intervals of within +/-10 percentage points of the estimate 
unless otherwise noted. Estimates of totals exceeding 1 million workers 
have 95 percent confidence intervals of within +/-10 percent of the 
estimate itself unless otherwise noted. Estimates of totals exceeding 
400,000 workers have 95 percent confidence intervals of within +/-20 
percent of the estimate itself unless otherwise noted. The 95 percent 
confidence intervals for other estimates are presented with the 
estimates themselves in the body of the report. Consistent with CPS 
documentation guidelines, we do not produce estimates from the February 
2005 supplement for populations of less than 75,000. 

In addition to the reported sampling errors, the practical difficulties 
of conducting any survey may introduce other types of errors, commonly 
referred to as nonsampling errors. For example, differences in how a 
particular question is interpreted, the sources of information 
available to respondents, or the types of people who do not respond can 
introduce unwanted variability into the survey results. For the CPS, 
data are often collected from one household member for all household 
members. Nonsampling error could occur if a proxy responder was unable 
to provide correct pension or insurance information for household 
members not at home at the time of the interview. 

Although we used data from the Contingent Work Supplement, we used a 
definition of contingent worker different from the one used by BLS in 
its analysis of the data. As in our 2000 review of contingent workers, 
we did not restrict our definition to include only workers with 
relatively short job tenure, but rather provided information on a range 
of workers who could be considered contingent under different 
definitions. Although we believe that it is useful to consider the 
nature and size of the population of workers in jobs of limited 
duration as well as their access to benefits, we also believe that it 
is useful to provide information according to categories that are more 
readily identifiable and mutually exclusive.[Footnote 44] The 
categories we used to define the contingent workforce included direct- 
hire temporaries (workers hired directly by employers to work in 
temporary jobs), even though the Contingent Work Supplement did not 
contain a question that directly asked for this information.[Footnote 
45] We also combined on-call workers and day laborers because the 
definitions and characteristics of these workers are similar and the 
number of day laborers alone was not large enough to be statistically 
significant. Information on leased workers was not included in our 2000 
review of contingent workers because of a lack of data on these 
workers. For this reason, leased workers were not included in the 
definition of the contingent workforce used in this report. 

To obtain information about the workforce protections that are offered 
to contingent workers, we reviewed key workforce protection laws, 
related court cases, and other studies on contingent workers. 

To obtain information on DOL's actions to detect and address employee 
misclassification as part of FLSA enforcement, we reviewed FLSA and its 
corresponding regulations. We also reviewed DOL documents related to 
FLSA, including policies and procedures on conducting investigations, 
information on investigator training, and outreach efforts. We 
interviewed officials from the Wage and Hour Division headquarters 
office, 3 of the 5 regional offices, and 9 of the 51 district offices-
-3 district offices in each region. We selected a nonprobability sample 
of district and regional offices to target offices located in large 
cities and that provided geographic coverage across each region. 
Because this was not a probability sample, we did not generalize the 
results of our regional and district interviews to the regions and 
districts we did not contact. In each office, we interviewed regional 
and district management-level officials using a standard set of 
questions in order to obtain information related to employee 
misclassification as part of FLSA enforcement. The interview questions 
asked about (1) the extent and source of employee misclassification, 
(2) investigations related to employee misclassification, and (3) 
training and outreach efforts related to employee misclassification. We 
contacted the following offices: 

* Northeast Regional Office: 

* New York City District Office: 
* Richmond District Office: 
* Southern New Jersey District Office: 

* Midwest Regional Office: 

* Columbus District Office: 
* Detroit District Office: 
* Springfield District Office: 

* Western Regional Office: 

* East Los Angeles District Office: 
* Phoenix District Office: 
* Seattle District Office: 

In addition, we reviewed literature and interviewed researchers from 
four academic institutions and two nonprofit groups about employee 
misclassification issues. 

We performed our work in accordance with generally accepted government 
auditing standards between July 2005 and June 2006. 

[End of section] 

Appendix II: Establishing the Employment Relationship of Workers: 

Establishing the employment relationship of workers under the Fair 
Labor Standards Act (FLSA) and the Employee Retirement Income Security 
Act (ERISA) can be complex and may result in litigation. FLSA requires 
that an employer-employee relationship exist for a worker to be covered 
by the act's provisions.[Footnote 46] FLSA--which provides minimum wage 
and overtime pay protections--requires that employers pay those 
employees covered by the act at least the minimum wage and pay overtime 
wages when they work more than 40 hours a week.[Footnote 47] The act 
defines "employee" broadly as an individual employed by an employer. 
The U.S. Supreme Court has identified certain factors that should be 
considered in determining whether a worker is an employee or an 
independent contractor under FLSA. In general, a worker who meets the 
FLSA definition of employee is one who is economically dependent on the 
business he or she serves. In contrast, an independent contractor is 
one who is engaged in a business of his or her own. The test used to 
determine whether an employment relationship exists for FLSA purposes 
is referred to as the economic realities test.[Footnote 48] The court 
has indicated that in applying this economic realities test under FLSA, 
such determinations must consider the circumstances of the whole 
activity and cannot be based on isolated factors or a single 
characteristic. In enforcing FLSA, DOL uses the following factors: 

* The extent to which the worker's services are an integral part of the 
employer's business: 

* Examples: Does the worker play an integral role in the business by 
performing the primary type of work that the employer performs for 
their customers? Does the worker perform a discrete job that is one 
part of the business' overall process of production? Does the worker 
supervise any of the company's employees? 

* The permanency of the relationship: 

* Example: How long has the worker worked for the same company? 

* The amount of the worker's investment in facilities and equipment: 

* Examples: Is the worker reimbursed for any purchases, materials, or 
supplies? Does the worker use his or her own tools or equipment? 

* The nature and degree of control by the employer: 

* Examples: Who decides on what hours to be worked? Who is responsible 
for quality control? Does the worker work for any other company(s)? Who 
sets the pay rate? 

* The worker's opportunities for profit and loss: 

* Examples: Did the worker make any investments such as insurance or 
bonding? Can the worker earn a profit by performing the job more 
efficiently or exercising managerial skill or suffer a loss of capital 
investment? 

* The amount of initiative, judgment, or foresight in open market 
competition with others required for the success of the claimed 
independent contractor: 

* Examples: Does the worker perform routine tasks requiring little 
training? Does the worker advertise independently through the Yellow 
Pages or business cards? Does the worker have a separate business site? 

In some cases, employers misclassify workers as independent contractors 
when they should be classified as employees. Under FLSA, the courts 
have examined the issue of misclassification by applying the economic 
realities test and making case-by-case determinations as to whether the 
workers are employees and thereby covered by the act. For example, a 
federal district court recently determined that over 500 delivery 
workers for supermarket and drugstore chains had been misclassified as 
independent contractors.[Footnote 49] The court ruled that the 
companies that had hired these workers to make deliveries controlled 
their placement and pay, provided them with delivery carts to rent and 
uniforms to purchase, required little skill to perform the job, and 
that the work performed constituted an integral part of the companies' 
business. Therefore, the court ruled that they were employees and 
entitled to overtime wages under FLSA. In another case, DOL brought 
suit on behalf of cable installers against cable television providers 
and cable installation companies for overtime compensation under FLSA. 
In this case, the court ruled that the employer did not exhibit the 
type of control needed to characterize the relationship as employee- 
employer, that the workers provided their own van and other equipment, 
and that the job required skilled labor. On the basis of these factors, 
the court denied the claim and held that the cable installers were 
properly classified as independent contractors and not entitled to 
protection under FLSA.[Footnote 50] 

The complexity of issues involving joint employment and 
misclassification of employees is illustrated by litigation involving 
the Microsoft Corporation. In the late 1980s, Microsoft began to hire 
what the company classified as independent contractors to fill many of 
its full-time employment vacancies. After the Internal Revenue Service 
(IRS) determined that these workers were common law employees in 1989 
and 1990, Microsoft terminated the employment relationship, set up an 
employment agency, and converted these workers into temporary agency 
employees. The workers sued Microsoft, and in 1996 the court ruled that 
they were employees of the company rather than independent contractors 
or temporary agency employees.[Footnote 51] The court then considered 
whether or not the employees were eligible for the employer's saving 
and stock purchase plan benefits under ERISA. The determining factor 
was the language included in Microsoft's plan, which expressly made any 
common law employee on the U.S. payroll eligible for benefits. However, 
while the court determined that the workers were common law employees, 
it directed Microsoft to determine what rights these workers, as common 
law employees, had under Microsoft's ERISA plan. Eventually the parties 
entered into a settlement agreement in which Microsoft paid $96.9 
million. 

Other cases have held that although workers may have been 
misclassified, they still did not qualify for benefits under ERISA 
plans because they did not qualify under the language of the plan that 
excluded certain types of employees, such as temporary or leased 
employees.[Footnote 52] Some employers amended their ERISA plans in 
response to the Microsoft decision to limit participation to workers 
that the employers classified as employees, whether or not the excluded 
workers may later be determined to be employees by the IRS or courts. 
The IRS has approved the use of such language in ERISA plans.[Footnote 
53] 

[End of section] 

Appendix III: Size and Characteristics of the Contingent Workforce: 

This table provides the following information on contingent workers: 
growth rates (percentage changes) and changes in the share of the total 
workforce (percentage point changes) for 1995-1999, 1999-2005, and 1995-
2005. 

Table 4: Changes in the Size of the Contingent Workforce: 

Category of worker: Agency temps; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 0.6*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.1*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 2.4*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): 0.0*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 3.0*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.1*. 

Category of worker: Direct-hire temps; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): - 4.9*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.3; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): - 7.9*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.4; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): - 12.4; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.7. 

Category of worker: On-call workers/ day laborers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 8.2*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.1*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 25.5; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.3; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 35.8; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.4. 

Category of worker: Contract company workers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 17.9*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.1*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 5.7*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): 0.0*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 24.7; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.1*. 

Category of worker: Independent contractors; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): - 0.7*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.4; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 25.4; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 1.1; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 24.5; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.7. 

Category of worker: Self-employed workers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): - 13.5; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 1.1; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): - 2.5*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.4; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): - 15.6; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 1.5. 

Category of worker: Standard part-time workers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 3.4*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.4*; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 5.6; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): 0.0*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 9.2; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.4*. 

Category of worker: Subtotal: contingent workers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): - 0.9*; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 2.3; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 8.4; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 0.7; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 7.4; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 1.6. 

Category of worker: Standard full-time workers; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 10.3; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 2.3; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 4.5; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): - 0.7; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 15.3; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): + 1.6. 

Category of worker: Total workforce; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage change (number of workers): + 6.7; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 1999: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): ------; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 5.7; 
Feb. 1999--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): ------- ; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage change (number of workers): + 12.8; 
Feb. 1995--Feb. 2005: Percentage point change (percentage of total 
workforce): -------. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

Note: An asterisk (*) denotes that the change over this period was not 
statistically significant for this category of worker at the 95 percent 
confidence level. 

[End of table] 

Table 5: Characteristics of Contingent Workers (February 2005): 

(Percentage unless indicated otherwise). 

Age: 16-19 years; 
Agency temps: 3; 
Direct-hire temps: 11; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 1; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 20; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Age: 20-24 years; 
Agency temps: 17; 
Direct-hire temps: 21; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 15; 
Contract company workers: 11; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 17; 
Standard full-time workers: 8.  


Age: 25-34 years; 
Agency temps: 30; 
Direct-hire temps: 25; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 22; 
Contract company workers: 25; 
Independent contractors: 15; 
Self-employed workers: 13; 
Standard part-time workers: 15; 
Standard full-time workers: 24. 

Age: 35-54 years; 
Agency temps: 37; 
Direct-hire temps: 29; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 39; 
Contract company workers: 47; 
Independent contractors: 54; 
Self-employed workers: 55; 
Standard part-time workers: 30; 
Standard full-time workers: 52. 

Age: 55-64 years; 
Agency temps: 11; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 11; 
Contract company workers: 14; 
Independent contractors: 19; 
Self-employed workers: 21; 
Standard part-time workers: 10; 
Standard full-time workers: 13. 

Age: 65 and older; 
Agency temps: 3; 
Direct-hire temps: 5; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 9; 
Self-employed workers: 9; 
Standard part-time workers: 8; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Mean age (years); 
Agency temps: 37.4; 
Direct-hire temps: 35.2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 38.9; 
Contract company workers: 40.3; 
Independent contractors: 46.4; 
Self-employed workers: 47.9; 
Standard part-time workers: 36.2; 
Standard full-time workers: 40.8. 

Gender: Men; 
Agency temps: 47; 
Direct- hire temps: AGE: 49; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 53; 
Contract company workers: 69; 
Independent contractors: 65; 
Self-employed workers: 63; 
Standard part-time workers: 32; 
Standard full-time workers: 56. 

Gender: Women; 
Agency temps: 53; 
Direct-hire temps: 51; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 47; 
Contract company workers: 31; 
Independent contractors: 35; 
Self-employed workers: 35; 
Standard part-time workers: 37; 
Standard full-time workers: 68. 

Race: White, non-Hispanic; 
Agency temps: 50; 
Direct-hire temps: 63; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 68; 
Contract company workers: 62; 
Independent contractors: 80; 
Self-employed workers: 81; 
Standard part-time workers: 76; 
Standard full-time workers: 69. 

Black, non-Hispanic; 
Agency temps: 22; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 8; 
Contract company workers: 15; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 9; 
Standard full-time workers: 11. 

Race: Hispanic; 
Agency temps: 21; 
Direct-hire temps: 18; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 19; 
Contract company workers: 16; 
Independent contractors: 9; 
Self-employed workers: 7; 
Standard part-time workers: 11; 
Standard full-time workers: 14. 

Race: Other, non-Hispanic; 
Agency temps: 8; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 5; 
Contract company workers: 7; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 9; 
Standard part-time workers: 5; 
Standard full-time workers: 6. 

Education: Less than high school diploma; 
Agency temps: 18; 
Direct-hire temps: 15; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 20; 
Contract company workers: 17; 
Independent contractors: 8; 
Self-employed workers: 8; 
Standard part-time workers: 21; 
Standard full-time workers: 9. 

Education: High school diploma, no college; 
Agency temps: 29; 
Direct-hire temps: 21; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 29; 
Contract company workers: 22; 
Independent contractors: 28; 
Self-employed workers: 28; 
Standard part-time workers: 27; 
Standard full-time workers: 31. 

Education: Some college; 
Agency temps: 32; 
Direct-hire temps: 33; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 28; 
Contract company workers: 29; 
Independent contractors: 29; 
Self-employed workers: 26; 
Standard part-time workers: 35; 
Standard full-time workers: 28. 

Education: College degree; 
Agency temps: 19; 
Direct-hire temps: 17; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 16; 
Contract company workers: 18; 
Independent contractors: 22; 
Self-employed workers: 23; 
Standard part-time workers: 12; 
Standard full-time workers: 21. 

Education: Graduate school; 
Agency temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 14; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 14; 
Independent contractors: 13; 
Self-employed workers: 15; 
Standard part-time workers: 5; 
Standard full-time workers: 11. 

Division: New England; 
Agency temps: 4; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 6; 
Standard full-time workers: 5.  

Division: Middle Atlantic; 
Agency temps: 8; 
Direct-hire temps: 11; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 12; 
Contract company workers: 15; 
Independent contractors: 11; 
Self-employed workers: 12; 
Standard part-time workers: 15; 
Standard full-time workers: 14. 

Division: E. North Central; 
Agency temps: 17; 
Direct-hire temps: 14; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 14; 
Contract company workers: 10; 
Independent contractors: 15; 
Self-employed workers: 15; 
Standard part-time workers: 19; 
Standard full-time workers: 15. 

Division: W. North Central; 
Agency temps: 5; 
Direct-hire temps: 8; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 4; 
Independent contractors: 8; 
Self-employed workers: 9; 
Standard part-time workers: 8; 
Standard full-time workers: 7. 

Division: South Atlantic;  
Agency temps: 19; 
Direct-hire temps: 17; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 15; 
Contract company workers: 30; 
Independent contractors: 19; 
Self-employed workers: 17; 
Standard part-time workers: 16; 
Standard full-time workers: 19. 

Division: E. South Central; 
Agency temps: 7; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 4; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 5; 
(Percentage unless indicated otherwise): Standard part-time workers: 5; 
Standard full-time workers: 6. 

Division: W. South Central; 
Agency temps: 12; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 13; 
Contract company workers: 15; 
Independent contractors: 10; 
Self-employed workers: 11; 
Standard part-time workers: 9; 
Standard full-time workers: 11. 

Division: Mountain; 
Agency temps: 6; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 6; 
Independent contractors: 9; 
Self-employed workers: 8; 
Standard part-time workers: 6; 
Standard full-time workers: 7. 

Division: Pacific; 
Agency temps: 22; 
Direct-hire temps: 23; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 23; 
Contract company workers: 13; 
Independent contractors: 19; 
Self-employed workers: 19; 
Standard part-time workers: 15; 
Standard full-time workers: 15.  

Industry: Business services; 
Agency Temps: 28; 
Direct-hire temps: 4; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 5; 
Contract company workers: 5; 
Independent contractors: 7; 
Self-employed workers: 5; 
Standard part-time workers: 4; 
Standard full-time workers: 3. 

Industry: Auto and repair services; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 4; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Industry: Personal services: Private Households;  
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 0. 

Industry: Personal services: Other personal services; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 6; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Industry: Arts, entertainment, recreation services; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 4; 
Contract company workers: 1; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 2; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 1.  

Professional services: Hospitals; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 4; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 5; 
Standard full-time workers: 5.  

Professional services: Health services; 
Agency Temps: 7; 
Direct-hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 5; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 7; 
Standard part-time workers: 7; 
Standard full-time workers: 5. 

Professional services: Educational services; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 28; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 18; 
Contract company workers: 8; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 2; 
Standard part-time workers: 10; 
Standard full-time workers: 10. 

Professional services: Social services; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 4; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Professional services: Other professional services; 
Agency Temps: 5; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 4; 
Contract company workers: 5; 
Independent contractors: 15; 
Self-employed workers: 8; 
Standard part-time workers: 6; 
Standard full-time workers: 7. 

Professional services: Agriculture; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 11; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Professional services: Mining; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 0; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 0. 

Professional services: Construction; 
Agency Temps: 3; 
Direct-hire temps: 9; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 14; 
Contract company workers: 17; 
Independent contractors: 22; 
Self-employed workers: 6; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 7. 

Professional services: Durable goods manufacturing; 
Agency Temps: 17; 
Direct-hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 8; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 10. 

Professional services: Nondurable goods manufacturing; 
Agency Temps: 12; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 6; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 5.  

Professional services: Transportation and warehousing; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 4; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 5. 

Professional services: Communications, information, Internet; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 4; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 3. 

Professional services: Utilities and sanitation; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Wholesale trade; 
Agency Temps: 6; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 5; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 4.  

Retail trade: Other retail trade; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 5; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Retail trade: Eating and drinking establishments; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 5; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 5; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 16; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Retail trade: Banking and other finance; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 2; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Retail trade: Insurance and real estate; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 5; 
Independent contractors: 8; 
Self-employed workers: 7; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Retail Trade: Forestry and fisheries; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 0; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 0; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 0. 

Retail trade: Justice, public order, and safety; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 3.  

Retail trade: Admin of human resource programs; 
Agency Temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 0; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Retail trade: National security, international affairs; 
Agency Temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 0; 
Contract company workers: 6; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Retail trade: Other public administration; 
Agency Temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 7; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Occupation: Management; 
Agency temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 5; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 4; 
Independent contractors: 16; 
Self-employed workers: 29; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 10. 

Occupation: Business and financial operations; 
Agency temps: 6; 
Direct- hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 6; 
Independent contractors: 6; 
Self-employed workers: 2; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 5. 

Occupation: Computer and mathematical science; 
Agency temps: 3; 
Direct- hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 13; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 3. 

Occupation: Architecture and engineering; 
Agency temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 6; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Occupation: Life, physical, and social science; 
Agency temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 0; 
Contract company workers: 1; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Occupation: Community and social service; 
Agency temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 1; 
Contract company workers: 1; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Occupation: Legal; 
Agency temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 0; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Occupation: Education, training, and library; 
Agency temps: 2; 
Direct- hire temps: 17; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 14; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 7; 
Standard full-time workers: 6. 

Occupation: Arts, design, entertainment, sports, media; 
Agency temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 4; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 4; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 7; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Occupation: Health care practitioner and technical; 
Agency temps: 3; 
Direct-hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 7; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 6; 
Standard part-time workers: 6; 
Standard full-time workers: 5. 

Occupation: Health care support; 
Agency temps: 5; 
Direct-hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 1; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 4; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Occupation: Protective service; 
Agency temps: 0; 
Direct-hire temps: 1; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 12; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 1;  
Standard full-time workers: 3. 

Occupation: Food preparation and serving; 
Agency temps: 1; 
Direct-hire temps: 5; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 0; 
Self-employed workers: 1; 
Standard part-time workers: 16; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Occupation: Building, grounds cleaning, and maintenance; 
Agency temps: 5; 
Direct-hire temps: 3; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 6; 
Contract company workers: 7; 
Independent contractors: 5; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 4; 
Standard full-time workers: 3. 

Occupation: Personal care and service; 
Agency temps: 4; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 1; 
Independent contractors: 7; 
Self-employed workers: 8; 
Standard part-time workers: 5; 
Standard full-time workers: 2. 

Occupation: Sales and related occupations; 
Agency temps: 2; 
Direct-hire temps: 6; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 5; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 17; 
Self-employed workers: 21; 
Standard part-time workers: 18; 
Standard full-time workers: 10. 

Occupation: Office and administrative support; 
Agency temps: 25; 
Direct-hire temps: 15; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 9; 
Contract company workers: 5; 
Independent contractors: 3; 
Self-employed workers: 5; 
Standard part-time workers: 18; 
Standard full-time workers: 15. 

Occupation: Farming, fishing, and forestry; 
Agency temps: 1; 
Direct- hire temps: 2; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 2; 
Contract company workers: 0; 
Independent contractors: 1;  
Self-employed workers: 0; 
Standard part-time workers: 0; 
Standard full-time workers: 1. 

Occupation: Construction and extraction; 
Agency temps: 4; 
Direct-hire temps: 7; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 15; 
Contract company workers: 20; 
Independent contractors: 15; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 2; 
Standard full-time workers: 6. 

Occupation: Installation, maintenance, and repair; 
Agency temps: 3; 
Direct-hire temps: 4; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 4; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 4; 
Self-employed workers: 3;  
Standard part-time workers: 1; 
Standard full-time workers: 4. 

Occupation: Production; 
Agency temps: 17; 
Direct-hire temps: 4; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 3; 
Contract company workers: 2; 
Independent contractors: 2; 
Self-employed workers: 4; 
Standard part-time workers: 3; 
Standard full-time workers: 8. 

Occupation: Transportation and material moving; 
Agency temps: 13; 
Direct-hire temps: 5; 
On-call workers and day laborers: 10; 
Contract company workers: 3; 
Independent contractors: 4; 
Self-employed workers: 3; 
Standard part-time workers: 6; 
Standard full-time workers: 7. 

Source: GAO analysis of data from the CPS February 2005 Contingent Work 
Supplement. 

[End of table] 

[End of section] 

Appendix IV Key Laws Designed to Protect Workers: 

This appendix provides a more detailed description of the key laws 
designed for workers' protection and their applicability to members of 
the contingent workforce. By definition, these laws apply only to 
employees--independent contractors and self-employed workers are not 
covered. However, no definitive test exists to distinguish whether a 
worker is an employee or an independent contractor. In determining 
whether an employment relationship exists under federal statutes, 
courts have developed several criteria. These criteria have been 
classified as the economic realities test, the common law test, and a 
combination of the two sometimes referred to as a hybrid test. 

The economic realities test looks to whether the worker is economically 
dependent upon the principal or is in business for himself. The test is 
not precise, leaving determinations to be made on a case-by-case basis. 
The test consists of a number of factors, such as the degree of control 
exercised by the employing party over the worker, the worker's 
opportunity for profit or loss, the worker's capital investment in the 
business, the degree of skill required for the job, and whether the 
worker is an integral part of the business. 

The traditional common law test examines the employing party's right to 
control how the work is performed. To determine whether the employing 
party has this right, courts may consider the degree of skill required 
to perform the work, who supplies the tools and equipment needed to 
perform the work, and the length of time the worker has been working 
for the employing party. 

When the tests are combined in some type of hybrid, a court typically 
weighs the common law factors and some additional factors related to 
the worker's economic situation, such as how the work relationship may 
be terminated, whether the worker receives leave and retirement 
benefits, and whether the hiring party pays Social Security taxes. 

Each of the laws is discussed in more detail below, including the tests 
used under each to determine whether a worker is an employee or an 
independent contractor. 

Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 (29 U.S.C. 2601): 

The Family and Medical Leave Act of 1993 provides various protections 
for employees who need time off from their jobs because of medical 
problems or the birth or adoption of a child. The act requires 
employers to allow employees to take up to 12 weeks of unpaid leave for 
medical reasons related to the employee or a family member or to care 
for a newborn or newly adopted child without reduction of pay or 
benefits when he or she returns to work. It also requires employers to 
maintain the same health care coverage for employees while they are on 
leave that was provided when they were actively employed. To be 
eligible for this coverage, employees must have been employed for 12 
months by an employer that employs 50 or more employees who work 20 or 
more calendar weeks in a year and must have worked at least 1,250 hours 
during the past 12 months. 

To determine whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, the 
courts have applied the economic realities test. 

Employee Retirement Income Security Act (29 U.S.C. 1001): 

The Employee Retirement Income Security Act establishes uniform 
standards for employee pension and welfare benefit plans, including 
minimum participation, accrual, and vesting requirements; fiduciary 
responsibilities; and reporting and disclosure requirements. The act 
does not require employers to provide pension or welfare benefits to 
employees; it applies to any employer or employee organization engaged 
in commerce or any industry affecting commerce that maintains a covered 
employee benefit plan. 

Contingent workers are covered by the act only if the employer allows 
them to participate in a pension or welfare benefit plan. Which 
employees are included in a plan depends on how the plan documents are 
drafted and interpreted. If an employer wishes to exclude some or all 
types of contingent workers from participating in a plan, the employer 
must clearly define the excluded groups of workers, and that definition 
must be properly applied. Otherwise, contingent workers whom the 
employer intended to exclude may be covered. 

To determine whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, the 
courts have applied the common law test. 

Fair Labor Standards Act (29 U.S.C. 201): 

The Fair Labor Standards Act establishes minimum wage, overtime, and 
child labor standards for employees. The act covers all employees of 
employers engaged in commerce or the production of goods that meet a 
dollar-volume-of-business requirement. The act also covers all 
employees engaged in commerce or the production of goods for commerce; 
all employees engaged in domestic service covered by the law; all 
employees of a hospital, residential care institution, or school; and 
all federal, state, and local government employees. 

To determine whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, the 
courts have applied the economic realities test. 

National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 151): 

The National Labor Relations Act guarantees the right of employees to 
organize and bargain collectively. The act applies to all employers and 
employees in their relationships with labor organizations whose 
activities affect interstate commerce. The act does not differentiate 
by firm size. 

The coverage issue regarding temporary workers is whether they have a 
right to join the same bargaining units as permanent employees with 
whom they work. Generally, agency temps who work at one site on a 
fairly regular basis over a sufficient period of time can join the 
existing collective bargaining unit of permanent employees if the 
agency (or agencies, if more than one is involved) and the employer 
that hired the workers from the agency consent to this arrangement. 
However, temporary workers often do not work at one work site long 
enough to have an interest in joining a union. 

To determine whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, the 
courts have applied the common law test. 

Unemployment Insurance: 

The unemployment insurance system is a joint federal-state system 
funded by both federal and state payroll taxes. It was established by 
the Social Security Act of 1935 and was intended to provide temporary 
relief through partial wage replacement for workers who lose jobs for 
economic reasons, such as layoffs, and to help stabilize the economy 
during recessions. The system pays benefits to workers who become 
unemployed and meet state-established eligibility rules. To determine 
whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, most states use a 
different type of test than is used for other laws. This test is called 
the ABC test: workers are considered employees unless (a) they are free 
from direction and control over performance of the work; (b) the 
service is performed either outside the usual course of the business 
for which it is performed or is performed outside of all places of 
business of the enterprise for which it is performed; and (c) the 
individual is customarily engaged in an independent trade, occupation, 
profession, or business. 

Workers' Compensation: 

State and federal workers' compensation programs provide benefits for 
wage loss and medical care to injured workers and, in some cases, their 
families. At the same time, employers' liabilities are limited strictly 
to workers' compensation payments. Benefits paid depend on the nature 
and extent of the injuries and the ability of injured workers to 
continue working. For employees whose injuries are not serious, the 
only benefits received are of a medical nature. Employees with more 
serious injuries or illnesses may also be entitled to wage-loss 
benefits; vocational rehabilitation benefits; and schedule payments for 
the permanent loss, or loss of use of, parts or functions of the body. 
In addition, survivors of an employee may receive death benefits if the 
employee's death resulted from a job-related injury or illness. To 
determine whether a worker is a covered employee under the law, most 
states use the common law test. 

Occupational Safety and Health Act (29 U.S.C. 651): 

The Occupational Safety and Health Act requires employers to maintain a 
safe and healthful workplace and provides employees with certain rights 
and responsibilities. Courts use either the economic realities test or 
the common law test to determine whether someone is an employee under 
the act. According to the law, the party responsible for ensuring 
safety is the employer that is in direct control of the workplace and 
the actions of those who work there, including contingent workers such 
as agency temps and contract company workers who are supplied by 
another party. Thus, if an accident occurs at the workplace, the 
employer that created the hazard, not the temporary help firm or 
contract company, is responsible. 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act (42 U.S.C. 2000e), the Americans with 
Disabilities Act (42 U.S.C. 12101), and the Age Discrimination in 
Employment Act (29 U.S.C. 621): 

Title VII of the Civil Rights Act, the Americans with Disabilities Act, 
and the Age Discrimination in Employment Act protect all employees and 
job applicants from various forms of discrimination, such as 
discrimination based on race, national origin, gender, disability, or 
age. The Civil Rights Act and the Americans with Disabilities Act apply 
to employers that have 15 or more employees for each of 20 or more 
calendar weeks in a year. The Age Discrimination in Employment Act 
applies to employers that have 20 or more employees for each working 
day in each of 20 or more calendar weeks. 

Further, each of these laws explicitly covers temporary employment 
agencies. Title VII of the Civil Rights Act explicitly prohibits 
employment agencies from discriminating on the basis of race, color, 
religion, gender, or national origin in classifying or referring people 
for employment. The Americans with Disabilities Act explicitly includes 
employment agencies in the definition of entities covered by the law. 
The Age Discrimination in Employment Act explicitly prohibits 
employment agencies from discriminating on the basis of a person's age 
(if over 40) in classifying or referring a person for employment. 

To determine whether a worker is a covered employee under federal 
antidiscrimination statutes, the courts have used all three tests--the 
common law test, the economic realities test, and the hybrid test. 
Independent contractors receive some protection from discrimination. 
Under a provision of the Civil Rights Act that protects contractual 
rights, independent contractors are protected against racial 
discrimination in both the termination of a contract and the creation 
of a hostile work environment. In joint employment situations, one 
employer may be liable for the discriminatory acts of the other 
employer if the employer that is being held liable controls some 
substantial aspect of the employee's compensation or terms and 
conditions of employment. 

Consolidated Omnibus Budget Reconciliation Act (29 U.S.C. 1161): 

Continuation of group health plan coverage is generally required under 
this act for employees who otherwise would lose coverage as a result of 
certain events, such as being laid off by their employers. Individuals 
may continue coverage under their former employers' group health plans 
at their own expense. Depending on the qualifying event, the duration 
of required coverage ranges from 18 to 36 months. In general, when a 
covered employee experiences termination or reduction in hours of 
employment, the continued coverage of the employee and the employee's 
spouse and dependents must continue for 18 months. The act applies to 
all group health plans, except those maintained by employers with fewer 
than 20 employees. Workers who were considered employees under the 
group health plans are also employees for purposes of this act. 

Health Insurance Portability and Accountability Act of 1996 (Pub. L. 
No. 104-191): 

This act guarantees the availability and renewability of health 
insurance coverage for certain individuals. It limits, and in most 
cases eliminates, the waiting time before a plan covers a preexisting 
condition for group health plan participants and beneficiaries who move 
from one job to another and from employment to unemployment. The act 
also creates federal standards for insurers, health maintenance 
organizations, and employer plans, including employers who self-insure. 
The act does not require employers to offer health insurance to its 
employees or, if they offer health insurance, to cover part-time, 
seasonal, or temporary employees. The act increases the tax deduction 
for health insurance for self-employed workers, including independent 
contractors, to 100 percent of premiums and provides new tax incentives 
to encourage individuals and employers to purchase long-term-care 
insurance. 

[End of section] 

Appendix V: Comments from the Department of Labor: 

U.S. Department of Labor: 
Assistant Secretary for Employment Standards: 
Washington, D.C. 20210: 

Jun 14 2006: 

Mr. Robert E. Robertson: 
Director, Education, Workforce, and Income Security Issues: 
United States Government Accountability Office: 
Washington, D.C. 20548: 

Dear Mr. Robertson: 

Thank you for the opportunity to comment on the draft report entitled 
"Employment Arrangement: Improved Outreach Could Help Ensure Proper 
Worker Classification " (GAO-06-655) (Job Code 130460). 

The report contains two recommendations to address employee 
misclassification. Our comments follow a restatement of each 
recommendation. 

Recommendation 1: 

To facilitate the reporting of FLSA complaints, we recommend that the 
Secretary of Labor instruct the Wage and Hour Division to revise the 
workplace poster to include national, regional and district office 
phone numbers and a Web site address that complainants may use to 
report alleged employee misclassification issues. 

Response: 

The WHD is in the process of revising its workplace poster to add the 
WHO's toll-free number, 1-866-4US-WAGE (1-866-487-9243). Calls to the 
number are handled by call center staff who screen information, provide 
general guidance to employees and refer complainants to the appropriate 
WHD office. The call center currently has Spanish-speaking customer 
service representatives and an interpreter service that supports 150 
languages. The WHD will also add the agency's web site address to the 
poster, which can be used to report alleged violations, including those 
that may be related to employee misclassification issues. 

Recommendation 2: 

To facilitate addressing employee misclassification across federal and 
state programs, we recommend that the Secretary of Labor instruct the 
Wage and Hour Division to evaluate the extent to which 
misclassification cases identified through FLSA investigations are 
referred to the appropriate federal or state agency potentially 
affected by employee misclassification, and take action to make 
improvements as necessary. Referral of cases should include notifying 
the employer that the misclassification case has been forwarded to the 
appropriate agency. In addressing its referral mechanism, the Wage and 
Hour Division officials should consider building upon efforts by 
district offices currently engaged in referrals. 

Response: 

The WHD agrees with the value of sharing potential employee 
misclassification with appropriate federal and state programs. However, 
automatic referrals to multiple agencies that may make little or no use 
of the information provided may not be an efficient use of federal 
resources. 

The WHD will review its internal processes to determine the extent and 
appropriateness of referring employee misclassification cases to other 
federal or state agencies. In evaluating the effectiveness of the 
current referral mechanism, WHD will consider building upon efforts by 
district offices currently engaged in referrals. 

However, WHD does not agree with the recommendation that employers be 
notified when the WHD refers potential misclassification cases 
involving laws not enforced by the WHD to another agency. Such 
notification could place WHD staff in the untenable position of having 
to defend a referral based upon interpretations of laws, which WHD has 
no expertise or authority to interpret or enforce. As GAO notes, WHD 
investigators are specifically cautioned to "not interpret laws outside 
their authority." Further, there is a strong possibility that the 
receiving agency will not react to the referral (which is correctly 
stated in the GAO report). 

We appreciate the opportunity to provide comments in advance of the 
publication of the final report. 

Sincerely, 

Signed by: 

Victoria A. Lipnic: 

[End of section] 

Appendix VI: GAO Contact and Staff Acknowledgments: 

GAO Contact: 

Robert E. Robertson, (202) 512-7215 or robertsonr@gao.gov. 

Staff Acknowledgments: 

In addition to the contact named above, Brett S. Fallavollita, Linda L. 
Siegel, Janice L. Peterson, and Jason R. Campbell contributed 
significantly to all aspects of this report. Daniel A. Schwimer 
reviewed the coverage of contingent workers under laws designed to 
protect workers; Richard P. Burkard provided legal support; 
Paula J. Bonin, Evan B. Gilman, Mark F. Ramage, and Joan K. 
Vogelassisted in analyzing the BLS data; Thomas D. Short assisted with 
IRS issues; and Jonathan S. McMurray assisted in report development. 

[End of section] 

Related GAO Products: 

Department of Labor, Wage and Hour Division: Defining and Delimiting 
the Exemptions for Executive, Administrative, Professional, Outside 
Sales, and Computer Employees. GAO-04-735R. Washington, D.C.: May 5, 
2004. 

Worker Protection: Labor's Efforts to Enforce Protections for Day 
Laborers Could Benefit from Better Data and Guidance. GAO-02-925. 
Washington, D.C.: September 26, 2002. 

Private Pensions: Improving Worker Coverage and Benefits. GAO-02-225. 
Washington, D.C.: April 9, 2002. 

Health Insurance: Proposals for Expanding Private and Public Coverage. 
GAO-01-481T. Washington, D.C.: March 15, 2001. 

Health Insurance: Characteristics and Trends in the Uninsured 
Population. GAO-01-507T. Washington, D.C.: March 13, 2001. 

Pension Plans: Characteristics of Persons in the Labor Force without 
Pension Coverage. GAO/HEHS-00-131. Washington, D.C.: August 22, 2000. 

Contingent Workers: Incomes and Benefits Lag Behind Those of Rest of 
Workforce. GAO/HEHS-00-76. Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000. 

Fair Labor Standards Act: White-Collar Exemptions Need Adjustments for 
Today's Work Place. GAO/T-HEHS-00-105. Washington, D.C.: May 3, 2000. 

Fair Labor Standards Act: White Collar Exemptions in the Modern Work 
Place. GAO/HEHS-99-164. Washington, D.C.: September 30, 1999. 

Employment-Based Health Insurance: Medium and Large Employers Can 
Purchase Coverage, but Some Workers Are Not Eligible. GAO/HEHS-98-184. 
Washington, D.C.: July 27, 1998. 

Private Health Insurance: Continued Erosion of Coverage Linked to Cost 
Pressures. GAO/HEHS-97-122. Washington, D.C.: July 24, 1997. 

Tax Administration: Issues in Classifying Workers as Employees or 
Independent Contractors. GAO/T-GGD-96-130. Washington, D.C.: June 20, 
1996. 

Tax Administration: Issues Involving Worker Classification. GAO/T-GGD- 
95-224. Washington, D.C.: August 2, 1995. 

Tax Administration: Estimates of the Tax Gap for Service Providers. 
GAO/GGD-95-59. Washington, D.C.: December 28, 1994. 

Tax Administration: Improving Independent Contractor Compliance with 
Tax Laws. T-GGD-94-194. Washington, D.C.: August 4, 1994. 

Tax Administration: Approaches for Improving Independent Contractor 
Compliance. GGD-92-108. Washington, D.C.: July 23, 1992. 

Workers at Risk: Increased Numbers in Contingent Employment Lack 
Insurance, Other Benefits. GAO/HRD-91-56. Washington, D.C.: March 8, 
1991. 

Tax Administration: Information Returns Can Be Used to Identify 
Employers Who Misclassify Workers. GAO/GGD-89-107. Washington, D.C.: 
September 25, 1989. 

FOOTNOTES 

[1] GAO, Contingent Workers: Incomes and Benefits Lag Behind Those of 
Rest of Workforce, GAO/HEHS-00-76 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000). 

[2] The $2.72 billion is intended to be an estimate of the magnitude of 
tax loss due to misclassification in 2006 dollars--not an updated 
estimate. The actual tax loss due to misclassification in 2006 may be 
higher or lower based on the tax rates, the level of independent 
contractors used in various sectors of the economy, and the types and 
levels of misclassification observed in 2006. 

[3] Standard part-time workers are individuals who regularly work less 
than 35 hours a week for a particular employer and are wage and salary 
workers. 

[4] We selected the regional and district offices using a 
nonprobability sample--a sample in which some items in the population 
have no chance, or an unknown chance, of being selected. Results from 
nonprobability samples cannot be used to make inferences about a 
population; 
thus, the information we obtained cannot be generalized to all regional 
and district offices. 

[5] Estimates of the size and characteristics of the contingent 
workforce are based on CPS sample data and are subject to sampling 
error. For example, the 95 percent confidence intervals for percentages 
of the total workforce are within +/-1 percentage point of the estimate 
itself. Appendix I contains information on the magnitude of sampling 
error for the CPS estimates contained in this report. 

[6] Although we used data from the Contingent Work Supplement, we used 
a definition of contingent worker different from the one used by BLS in 
its analysis of the data. As in our 2000 review of contingent workers, 
we did not restrict our definition to include only workers with 
relatively short job tenure, but rather provided information on a range 
of workers who could be considered contingent under different 
definitions. Although we believe that it is useful to consider the 
nature and size of the population of workers in jobs of limited 
duration as well as their access to benefits, we also believe that it 
is useful to provide information according to categories that are more 
readily identifiable and mutually exclusive. Appendix I provides a more 
detailed description of GAO's definition of contingent workers. 

[7] See Susan N. Houseman, "Temporary, Part-Time, and Contract 
Employment in the United States: A Report on the W.E. Upjohn 
Institute's Employer Survey on Flexible Staffing Policies" (November 
1996, revised June 1997), and Susan N. Houseman, "Why Employers Use 
Flexible Staffing Arrangements: Evidence from an Establishment Survey," 
Industrial and Labor Relations Review (October 2001):149-170. 

[8] See Sharon R. Cohany, "Workers in Alternative Employment 
Arrangements," Monthly Labor Review (October 1996): 31-45; 
Anne E. Polivka, "Into Contingent and Alternative Employment: By 
Choice?," Monthly Labor Review (October 1996):55-74; 
Sharon R. Cohany, "Workers in Alternative Employment Arrangements: a 
Second Look," Monthly Labor Review (November 1998):3-21; 
Steven Hipple, "Contingent Work: Results from the Second Survey," 
Monthly Labor Review (November 1998):22-35; 
Steven Hipple, "Contingent Work in the Late-1990s," Monthly Labor 
Review (March 2001):3-27. 

[9] Donna S. Rothstein, "Entry Into and Consequences of Nonstandard 
Work Arrangements," Monthly Labor Review (October 1996): 76-83, and 
Barbara A. Wiens-Tuers and Elizabeth T. Hill, "How Did We Get Here from 
There? Movement into Temporary Employment," Journal of Economic Issues 
(June 2002):303-311. 

[10] In addition, other types of employers--such as hospitals and 
schools--are covered by FLSA regardless of their annual sales volume. 

[11] Complaints are a key component of DOL enforcement efforts under 
many federal labor laws. DOL enforcement generally relies on two types 
of information to identify potential violations: (1) complaints from 
individuals who believe they may have suffered a violation and (2) 
analysis of data to specifically target problematic industries or work 
sites. 

[12] FLSA also includes record-keeping and child labor provisions. 

[13] GAO's 2000 review of contingent workers used $15,000 as the family 
income threshold for defining "low family income." This income level 
was selected because the BLS reports family income in $5,000 
increments, and $15,000 was the income level closest to and below the 
1999 federal poverty threshold for a family of four ($17,028). We 
selected $20,000 as the family income threshold for "low family income" 
for this report because it was the income level closest to the current 
federal poverty level. The 2004 federal poverty threshold for a family 
of four (the most current information published by the Bureau of the 
Census at the time this project was designed) was $19,307. 

[14] Workforce characteristics are estimated from the CPS February 2005 
Contingent Work Supplement. Percentage estimates based on the total 
workforce have 95 percent confidence intervals of within +/-1 
percentage point of the estimate itself. Appendix I contains additional 
information and confidence interval ranges for other CPS estimates 
presented in this report. 

[15] Similarly, the proportions of the various categories of contingent 
workers changed little over this time period (see app. III). 

[16] The 95 percent confidence interval is from 34.1 to 36.3 years old. 

[17] The 95 percent confidence interval is from 47.2 to 48.5 years old. 

[18] The percentage estimates for individual categories of contingent 
workers have 95 percent confidence intervals of within +/-10 percentage 
points, unless noted. See appendix I for additional information. 

[19] Workers who do not have employers are not included in the 
questions on employer provided health insurance in the CPS February 
2005 Contingent Work Supplement. All workers in the "self-employed" 
category, and most workers in the "independent contractor" category, do 
not have employers and were excluded from our analysis of employer- 
provided health insurance. 

[20] In 2005, 49 percent of contingent workers with low family incomes 
received health insurance from any source, as compared to 73 percent of 
contingent workers of all income levels. Similarly, 9 percent of 
contingent workers with low family incomes received employer-provided 
health insurance, as compared to 13 percent of contingent workers of 
all income levels. 

[21] The CPS classifications regarding access to employer-provided 
pensions are sometimes described in different terms. For example, the 
CPS questionnaire asks workers if their employer "offers" a pension 
plan to any of its employees, and if they are "included" in this plan. 
In a past GAO report, GAO has used other terms to describe access to 
employer-provided pensions. For example, GAO has indicated that 
employers can "sponsor" a pension plan (similar to "offering" a plan) 
and workers can be "covered" by a plan (similar to being "included" in 
a plan). See GAO, Pension Plans: Characteristics of Persons in the 
Labor Force without Pension Coverage, GAO/HEHS-00-131 (Washington, 
D.C.: Aug. 22, 2000). 

[22] Most workers in the self-employed and independent contractor 
categories do not have employers and were excluded from our analysis of 
employer-provided pensions. 

[23] Most workers in the independent contractor category were self- 
employed. 

[24] All of the key laws designed to protect workers have some 
exclusions, such as exclusions for small businesses, that apply to both 
contingent workers and standard full-time workers. We did not, however, 
examine whether contingent workers are disproportionately affected by 
these exclusions. 

[25] Applicants are generally disqualified from receiving benefits when 
job loss is due to voluntary separation without good cause, although 
the definition of "good cause" varies from state to state. 

[26] According to a report by the National Employment Law Project 
("Part Time Workers and Unemployment Insurance," March 2004), 
unemployed workers who limit their search for new work to only part- 
time jobs are denied unemployment benefits in many states because 
workers are not available for full-time employment. Since 2001, 24 
states and the U.S. Virgin Islands maintain restrictive rules regarding 
part-time unemployment insurance eligibility. 

[27] A "sufficient community of interest" includes factors such as 
common supervision, working conditions, and interest in the unit's 
wages, hours, and conditions of employment. 

[28] M.B. Sturgis, 331 NLRB 1298 (2000) and H.S. Care L.L.C., 343 NLRB 
No.76 (2004). 

[29] See app. IV for descriptions of the tests used under each law. 

[30] Complaints are a key component of DOL enforcement efforts under 
FLSA. DOL enforcement of FLSA generally relies on two types of 
information to identify potential violations: (1) complaints from 
individuals who believe they may have suffered a violation and (2) 
analysis of data to specifically target problematic industries or work 
sites. 

[31] In 2005, DOL began an "Off-the-Clock" initiative to identify 
employers who do not compensate workers for all the hours that they 
work and who may not keep accurate wage and employment records for 
their workers (also referred to as "off the books"). Although the focus 
is off-the-clock work, this effort may help detect employee 
misclassification. This initiative includes training, outreach, and 
investigation. The investigator training includes a section on 
employment relationship, with questions and scenarios about how to 
determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or an employee. 

[32] According to DOL officials, in some cases, misclassification may 
be considered an FLSA record-keeping violation, but there are no 
penalties for record-keeping violations under FLSA. 

[33] DOL's Wage and Hour Division prescribes the content of the FLSA 
workplace poster (WH Publication 1088). 

[34] Beginning in 2005, DOL's Employment & Training Administration 
(ETA) has been involved in efforts to coordinate with other agencies 
about misclassification: (1) ETA has coordinated with IRS to assist 
states in obtaining IRS 1099 information to identify misclassification 
in state unemployment insurance tax audits and (2) ETA is participating 
on an interagency Questionable Employment Tax Practices team with IRS, 
federal tax administrators, and state workforce agencies to develop a 
memo of understanding, share information, and coordinate compliance 
activities. The team is planning to address several issues, including 
misclassification. 

[35] The IRS officials we contacted about this could not comment on the 
specifics of referrals at the district level. 

[36] Also, some districts have made referrals and conducted general 
outreach to IRS when DOL has identified that employers are paying 
workers in cash, and most likely are not paying taxes. However, this 
practice is not necessarily employee misclassification. 

[37] One district has coordinated with state agencies that enforce tax, 
workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, and Social Security laws 
about workers paid in cash and probably not paying taxes. However, this 
practice is not employee misclassification. 

[38] GAO, Contingent Workers: Incomes and Benefits Lag Behind Those of 
Rest of Workforce, GAO/HEHS-00-76 (Washington, D.C.: June 30, 2000). 

[39] The years 1995, 1999, and 2005 were selected to examine changes in 
the size of the contingent workforce over the past decade in order to 
reflect the changes that occurred during the time period covered in our 
2000 review of contingent workers (1995-1999) as well as those 
occurring since that time (1999-2005). 

[40] See Technical Paper 63RV: "Current Population Survey--Design and 
Methodology," issued March 2002. 

[41] See Anne E. Polivka, "Contingent and Alternative Work 
Arrangements, Defined," Monthly Labor Review (Oct.1996), pp. 3-9 for a 
description of how BLS defines and estimates the contingent workforce. 

[42] Current Population Survey, February 2005: Contingent Work 
Supplement File Technical Documentation CPS-05. 

[43] For example, an estimated 30.6 percent of the 2005 workforce are 
contingent workers; 
the 95 percent confidence interval for this estimate would be within 
29.6 and 31.6 percent. 

[44] See Susan N. Houseman, Flexible Staffing Arrangements, August 
1999, and Anne E. Polivka, Sharon R. Cohany, and Steven Hipple, 
"Definition, Composition, and Economic Consequences of the Nonstandard 
Workforce," in Nonstandard Work: The Nature and Challenges of Changing 
Employment Arrangements, Industrial Relations Research Association 
Series 2000, edited by Francoise Carre, Marianne A. Ferber, Lonnie 
Goldman, and Stephen A. Herzenberg, for examples of the research used 
to model the different categories of contingent workers. 

[45] The category of direct-hire temps was constructed using several 
questions from the supplement. We included workers who indicated that 
although they did not work for a temporary employment agency, their job 
was temporary or they could not stay in their jobs as long as they 
wished for one of the following reasons: (1) they were working only 
until a specific project was completed, (2) they were temporarily 
replacing another worker, (3) they were hired for a fixed period of 
time, (4) their job was seasonal, or (5) they expected to work for less 
than a year because their job was temporary. 

[46] 29 U.S.C. 201 et. seq. 

[47] FLSA also includes record-keeping and child labor provisions. 

[48] Rutherford Food Corp. v. McComb, 331 U.S. 722, 730 (1947). 

[49] Ansoumana v. Gristede's Operating Corp., 255 F. Supp. 184 (2003). 

[50] Herman v. Mid-Atlantic Installation Services, Inc., 164 F.Supp2d 
667 (2000). 

[51] Vizcaino v. Microsoft Corp., 97 F.3d 1187 (9th Cir. 1996). 

[52] Wolf v. Coca Cola, 200 F.3d 1337 (11th Cir.2000); 
Bronk v. Mountain States Tel. & Tel., Inc., 140 F. 3d 1335 (10th 
Cir.1998); 
Abraham v. Exxon Corp., 85 F.3d 1126 (5th Cir.1996). 

[53] The IRS issued an unnumbered Technical Advice Memorandum on July 
28, 1999, approving a clause excluding from participation in the plan 
individuals whom the employer had engaged and treated as independent 
contractors, even if they were later found to be employees. 

GAO's Mission: 

The Government Accountability Office, the investigative arm of 
Congress, exists to support Congress in meeting its constitutional 
responsibilities and to help improve the performance and accountability 
of the federal government for the American people. GAO examines the use 
of public funds; 
evaluates federal programs and policies; 
and provides analyses, recommendations, and other assistance to help 
Congress make informed oversight, policy, and funding decisions. GAO's 
commitment to good government is reflected in its core values of 
accountability, integrity, and reliability. 

Obtaining Copies of GAO Reports and Testimony: 

The fastest and easiest way to obtain copies of GAO documents at no 
cost is through the Internet. GAO's Web site ( www.gao.gov ) contains 
abstracts and full-text files of current reports and testimony and an 
expanding archive of older products. The Web site features a search 
engine to help you locate documents using key words and phrases. You 
can print these documents in their entirety, including charts and other 
graphics. 

Each day, GAO issues a list of newly released reports, testimony, and 
correspondence. GAO posts this list, known as "Today's Reports," on its 
Web site daily. The list contains links to the full-text document 
files. To have GAO e-mail this list to you every afternoon, go to 
www.gao.gov and select "Subscribe to e-mail alerts" under the "Order 
GAO Products" heading. 

Order by Mail or Phone: 

The first copy of each printed report is free. Additional copies are $2 
each. A check or money order should be made out to the Superintendent 
of Documents. GAO also accepts VISA and Mastercard. Orders for 100 or 
more copies mailed to a single address are discounted 25 percent. 
Orders should be sent to: 

U.S. Government Accountability Office 

441 G Street NW, Room LM 

Washington, D.C. 20548: 

To order by Phone: 

Voice: (202) 512-6000: 

TDD: (202) 512-2537: 

Fax: (202) 512-6061: 

To Report Fraud, Waste, and Abuse in Federal Programs: 

Contact: 

Web site: www.gao.gov/fraudnet/fraudnet.htm 

E-mail: fraudnet@gao.gov 

Automated answering system: (800) 424-5454 or (202) 512-7470: 

Public Affairs: 

Jeff Nelligan, managing director, 

NelliganJ@gao.gov 

(202) 512-4800 

U.S. Government Accountability Office, 

441 G Street NW, Room 7149 

Washington, D.C. 20548: