Man, I wouldn't have thought I would have to do so much clarifying as to what I'm actually asking. Perhaps that's a bit on me, (although I would say I'm also getting some lecturing on stuff that is just contracting 101, which I already know, but is not actually relevant).
So to clarify...
For the employee part of the question, we'd be talking about a project that would involve only an employee or employees doing work that they normally do and are totally qualified to do for the company that regularly employs them. No subcontractors, no GC stuff, no house building or flipping, no multiple trades. (Is this forum focused on GCs and house flipping? I didn't think so.)
Workers comp shouldn't cover this at all, unless you actually paid your employee to wire his own house. Most the time they are doing it on their own time though.
That's sort of exactly it. Say the employer pays the employee to wire his own house, and possibly also some of his regular crewmates, and then the
employee pays employer an agreed upon contract price for it. Although it mostly amounts to reimbursment, on paper it looks mostly like any other contract, and employee gets all insurance benefits of the company. Please allow me to simply posit that financially the employee and employer can come to agreeable terms on the cost, including covering insurance cost and risk. Is there anything illegal, unethical, or otherwise just stupid about that?
And if you're wondering how this can be and what other ulterior motive there might be, okay, I'll be up front: Solar tax credit. By (re)paying his employer for his own work, employee gets to take 30% on a cost that otherwise doesn't exist. Illegal? Unethical?
I think that even without that, employee might still find it worth it to pay his employer's cost for the use of the company's insurance for him and his crewmates. Easier than setting up your own, or spending time trying to be certain you're covered.
It's not clear if you are proposing work you do yourself or work you will hire out.
... The lady who would not use her license likely was not performing the work personally herself and hiring it out. She was partitioning or isolating her risk. Any problem with the house or contractors should not also come with a one two blow and also cost her the professional position at work. It's the same reason you don't put your retirement money all into your employer's company stock. The risk of losing both the job and the equity.
You're probably right that she was going to hire it out. That's not the kind of project I have in mind. Your comments helped clear that up for me a bit though, thanks.
