![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
eftychia at 02:41pm on 2004-08-07I posted this as a comment to an
entry in ![[livejournal.com profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/external/lj-userinfo.gif){kind=small}
vvalkyri's journal, and she suggested I make
it its own entry. So here 'tis. Note that voltbang
disagrees with me, so there's already at least one comment to
check out over there in response to this. (Or if you want to check
out the context...) If I am in fact completely
off base, at least one lawyer reads my journal, so perhaps the most
glaring errors will get pointed out...
Actually, though we may be a pretty small step away, we don't have universal ID.
First, we don't have national ID, which I mention just to get that out of the way (acknowledging that it's not quite what you said).
More significantly, none of the state IDs are universal within a state. Non-drivers may get a state-issued ID for their convenience, but are not required to if they're willing to put up with certain hassles at banks and such. And equally importantly, although nearly all drivers carry their driver's licenses with them all the time, even someone who has one isn't required to carry it unless he or she is driving at the time. (In fact, while I may be wrong about this, I had assumed that the reason the police waited until I started to drive off to stop me and detain me for taking photographs of the tourist part of Baltimore in the fog instead of approaching me while I had the tripod out, was so that I would be driving and thus required to show them my license. But I may be crediting them with too much thought, I dunno.)
Note that in the absence of a state-issued ID (driver's license or "non-driver's ID"), there are various other documents that can be used as identification in certain situations. Sometimes a copy of one's birth certificate will work (for example, when applying for a driver's license), but most of the time folks will say, "that only proves someone with that name was born, not that you are that person," so a birth certificate can't be called a universal ID.
As far as I know the only ID required to be universally accepted within the US is a US passport. (Note that I could be mistaken as to whether it must be accepted as ID by places requiring ID.) But citizens are not required to carry them and most people don't have them. So it's not a universal ID.
Even a driver's license is not universally accepted -- I don't know whether the FF&C clause means that other states (and the feds) have to accept a state-issued license, but I'm pretty sure the liquor store on the corner isn't legally required to accept an out-of-state license when deciding whether to accept your check. And if we did have "universal ID", we wouldn't have places asking for "two forms of ID" (or three).
Most significant point: even if it's difficult for American's to wind up not having any ID, we are not required to carry it unless we're doing certain things. What he have is ubiquitous ID, not universal, and a culture that assumes one has ID because of that and gets cranky when one doesn't, but we're not quite to universal ID.
At least not yet.
And yeah, I'm one of the people a little spooked by the idea of national/universal ID.
I *heart* my passport.
I'm not particularly paranoid about Universal ID, assuming of course that the Privacy Commissioner is doing his job. If he's not, well, that's the difference between Nervous and Panic. (Then again, I don't have to worry about Ridge's geeks unless I'm visiting, so we're talking about a different paradigm.)
(no subject)
The best one had to be the environmental org that did not hire me, partly because a non-advertsed task required a car. They just assumed anyone who wanted to work there would drive. I have no idea why they would not realize some environmentalists MIGHT not drive.
Ok, so I got a bit off the point of IDs. I like the Lazarus Long quote: 'when a place gets to the point of requiring IDs it is time to leave'.
BTW, I seem to remember that here in VA the law says all adults have to cary a state ID (either driver's or non-driver's) all the time. Scary.
(no subject)
Eww.
There must be some slack in their definition of "carry", since Virginia does have beaches and swimming pools. And that's got me wondering about the details. Hmm.
(no subject)
I also have an Irish passport, which (because it was issued by the local consulate and not the central passport agency) is actually hand-written. Unlike my US passport or most other passports these days, it doesn't have the OCR-able front page...and it doesn't expire until 2008.
(no subject)
Getting a Job (the I-9)
So, yeah, I think it's universal within the country.
It's why I have a state ID (I don't drive, and have no driver's license).
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9)
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9)
Download the PDF and look at the list of acceptible documentation yourself. The SS card (under "documents that establish employment eligibility") only works presented in conjunction with one of the "documents that establish identity" -- e.g. state issued ID.
There are documents which establish both: Passports, for instance, and Permanent Resident Cards.
Not only is this the law now, it was the law 15 years ago when I started temping.
Oh, yeah, since I spent 11 years regularly getting new jobs, I carried the necessary I-9 documentation on my person at all times.
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9)
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9)
In any case, whether technically required or not, do people fill out an I-9 when hiring day labor for odd jobs? (And if not, are they courting Big Trouble by not doing so, or a minor "tsk tsk you shouldn'a done that" when they fail to create paper for an employee who works for one day and is paid in cash?)
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9)
I think I-9 only pertains to W-2, since, legally, 1099 is not for "employment", but for work of a one-off basis. But maybe it's is required and people (including me) are being sloppy.
In any case, whether technically required or not, do people fill out an I-9 when hiring day labor for odd jobs? (And if not, are they courting Big Trouble by not doing so, or a minor "tsk tsk you shouldn'a done that" when they fail to create paper for an employee who works for one day and is paid in cash?)
Hooboy. This is a bit complicated.
Short answer: Person-to-person odd jobs? No. In fact, most people neglect to file a 1099, which is pretty much the definition of working "under the table". Note, that if the IRS finds out that you, say, had a nanny and failed to file a 1099 for them, They Will Make You Very, Very Unhappy. However, when you call a temp agency and ask them to send a laborer? Yes, you'd better believe the temp agency filed the I-9. I speak from considerable experience.
Long answer:
First, it's important to understand the categories and why they exist. W-2 and 1099-Misc are not supposed to be freely interchangeable. From the government's standpoint, there's two sorts of labor:
- what people colloquially call "a job", meaning an on-going relationship with an employer (whether wage or salary) and
- one-off projects done on a "non-employee" basis.
From the government's standpoint, the difference is that W-2 is for "jobs" and 1099-Misc is for the selling of services. From the government's stand point, 1099-Misc work is not something you're "hired" by a "boss" to do, it something you're "selling" to the "customer".That is why I am under the impression that an I-9 is not required for 1099-Misc work.
HOWEVER, the government guards the parameters of 1099-Misc work VERY jealously. Note, that the form of "government" we are now discussing is not INS -- which is, comparatively, a pussycat -- but the IRS.
If the IRS thinks you're using a 1099-Misc when you're supposed to be using a W-2, the IRS will Ruin Your Day. This is not a slap on the wrist, this is Big Fucking Trouble And Let's Do A Complete Audit For Other Tax Irregularities While We're At It.
And they've started cracking down especially hard over the last 10 years.
The reason that the IRS cares so much is that employers are legally required to withhold income for income tax as well as pay taxes on an employee basis. Customers are not required to withhold payment for the income tax of their vendors. So some clever employers said, "Hey, let's declare our employees to be 'independent contractors', put them on 1099s, and save ourselve some money!" The IRS was Not Amused.
So, how does someone paying for labor tell if they're an employer or a customer?
The IRS is glad you asked. See http://www.irs.gov/faqs/faq12-2.html
For a more readable summary of the 20 point list of considerations, check out http://www.topechelon.com/recruiters/contracting/20point.htm
So, while you can dodge an I-9 by working on a 1099-misc basis, there is a completely non-I-9-related reason why doing so Courts Big Trouble for the employer, and that's the IRS' tight control on what gets classified as 1099-misc work.
For which reason, many employers are loathe to use a 1099 at all -- they don't want the headache. They'd rather use W-2 laborers, even for short term work, and prefer to go through a temp agency even despite the temp agency premium.
Still with me?
So, if you want to dodge needing an ID, you can do it if you are really-honest-to-goodness self-employed and a sole-proprietor of your business (am unclear if this trick can be pulled off with a joint venture or if you incorporate.)
(However, for all this, I believe you still need a SSN to file your taxes at all, interestingly enough.)
So that's the IRS. Now on to the INS.
[continued]
Re: Getting a Job (the I-9) [continued]
I know far less about the INS, but this I do know: how twitchy the INS in your area is about I-9s depends entirely on how bad the local illegal immigrant problem is. Here in MA, the I-9 is like no big deal (though no employer I've had failed to present it). In CA, it was rather different; back when I was out there, the INS was doing spot-checks on employers to find illegal immigrants, and to pressure employers to turn away illegal immigrants. Employers were pretty damn paranoid about it, and were taking no risks.
In such an environment -- in which day labor is precisely the most common form of work sought by illegal immigrants -- I'd be surprised if anyone who cares about not getting in Big Trouble wouldn't at a minimum check IDs even for day laborers.
May vary from place to place...
Re: May vary from place to place...
What happens if you're stopped getting off the bus on your way to the MVA (or do you call it DMV?) to get a new license after your old one has been stolen? That's a legitimate occasion to not be carrying ID, n'est-ce pas?
(no subject)