Document Type
Article
Publication Date
1960
Publication Information
33 Temp. L.Q. 381 (1959-1960)
Abstract
The present statutory language—"the usual common law rules"—is based upon the Status Quo Resolution of 1948. The relevant part of that Resolution provided that the term "employee" in the social security laws should not include "(1) any individual who, under the usual common-law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an independent contractor or (2) any individual (except an officer of a corporation) who is not an employee under such common-law rules." To understand the meaning of the present statutory language one must study the governmental battle from which the Status Quo Resolution emerged. This battle pitted the Congress against the Executive-particularly the Bureau of Internal Revenue and the Treasury Department. Congress fought as guardian of the common law and defender against bureaucratic tyranny, symbols capable of stirring emotions and inflaming passions. The Executive did battle as champion of the Supreme Court and protector of the public interest, equally gallant causes. The central issue was often shrouded in a cloud of exaggerated advocacy. Two facts, essential to an understanding of the subject, often became lost in the imbroglio. The first fact is that there is not and never was a single, simple, clear-cut common law definition of the employer-employee relationship. The second is that the Congress, the Executive and the Supreme Court were in basic agreement as to the classification of all but a small fraction of the working force in America. It was the borderline occupations which were at issue in the battle. Too often these basic facts were all but forgotten in the melee.
Recommended Citation
Thomas F. Broden,
General Rules Determining the Employment Relationship under Social Security Laws: After Twenty Years an Unsolved Problem,
33 Temp. L.Q. 381 (1959-1960).
Available at:
https://scholarship.law.nd.edu/law_faculty_scholarship/601
Comments
Reprinted with permission of Temple Law Review (previously Temple Law Quarterly).