Read the rules and you will see there are a few tests that differentiate between an independent contractor and an employee.
Now, make sure the way you and your Trainee interact does not fall under the Employer/Employee rules.
No formal hours, instead:
"Timmy Trainee, I'm going to see 137 Muddy Way at 9:15, do you want to do this job? Ok, you want to go with me?"
--You did not control his hours--
etc
etc
etc
Unfortunately, that suggestion does not work with a trainee if:
A. The trainee is working under the supervision of someone else (in this case, a Certified License Holder), and
B. The Supervisor is certifying that he/she is training/supervising them.
There is no wiggle-room for a trainee-supervisor relationship and trying to call it an independent contractor-relationship.
Trust me. :new_smile-l:
Pay the trainee as an employee. When they upgrade, take specific steps to change the relationship. And, its more than just a wink-wink/nod-nod agreement. Read the 20-item criteria I suggested. You only have to trigger one of those items to have the jurisdiction consider the relationship an employee-employer relationship.
Again, trust me: I went through an audit last year; they examined my records for three years and contacted 14 former employees.
Those that were employees, I paid as employees.
The appraisers (none of them were trainees) were ultimately classified as independent contractors. I knew the rules and followed the regulations. I had my system set-up so there was no question that the appraisers were independent... yet, the state still investigated and their concurrence wasn't "automatic" even though I followed the rules.
I discussed the situation in detail with the investigator. I thought that maybe he didn't understand the "nuance" of the appraisal profession, our licensing requirements, etc., etc.
He knew how fee shops worked as well as I did. He said the reason that the appraisers who worked for me were classified as independent contractors was because (the main items) (a) they were not trainee-licensees, (b) they all had the own clients (which I always encouraged), (c) they worked primarily out of their own home offices, (d) they could reject a job at will, and were under no compulsion to finish a job if they decided not to (obviously, they wouldn't get paid), they set their own appointments, and the only thing they agreed to was a turn-time, which was flexible if the situation changed.
There were a number of other things as well, but those were the big items.
And, remember, the investigator not only interviewed me, but then went out and interviewed the appraisers; some of whom I hadn't seen in several years (the audit was from 2007-2010, or something like that).
I was confident through the process (which lasted about 2-months) that there would be no issues, but it was a bit nerve-racking nonetheless.
And, the audit was triggered not because of complaint against me, but because an argument between one of the appraisers and the appraiser's ex-spouse over alimony; the ex-spouse demanded the W-2s, and the appraiser stated there were no W-2's because the appraiser was an independent contractor. The ex called the state and said that the appraiser was cooking the books to hide income and I was in cahoots.
About 15-years ago, with one of the first trainees I ever took on (and paid her as an employee), she was a lousy appraiser and didn't know the basics. I told her she needed to re-take the basic courses: I could teach her the field-application of the appraisal process, but she needed to get re-educated by a certified course provider because she didn't "get" the fundamentals (and I was in no position to adequately teach her then).
She filed for unemployment; had I not paid her as an employee, my goose would have been cooked.
Trust me: If you are supervising a "trainee", that person is an employee. The consequence of not properly categorizing the status of such an employment-relationship is so punitive, it is simply not worth it.
Good luck.
