That's all good except the mso doesn't want to deal with single contractors. I would love it if they would but Uglyold is right. They want to deal with one point of contact and let them jump through the hoops of directing the work force. I am interested in this workmans comp thing and not paying on time. And the 'one' sided contract. I am thinking these companies think this contract is worth something. Any court will realize that a contract like that is signed only because the person wants work. I love the part that says you cannot sue them for money they didn't pay. Do they really think it is valid?? Anyone will say "I never agreed to the contract, I signed it under duress. I would not get the work unless I signed." They cannot think to have a valid case against some one who sues them for money they owe because that person signed a paper saying they wouldn't. That contract is basically giving the company the right to never pay for completed work. It will never hold up in court. On the workmans comp side they may not be able to charge you for it but they can require you to have it. If you don't they charge you for it. They have to pay for it, for you, by their insurance companies. What I don't care for is most of the time you don't cover your self if you are lone in your business. So you are giving the insurance company free money to cover no one just because the companies require it. This would be powerful insurance lobbyists to make people not covered pay for those who are.
This is CABL.com posting #220593. Tiny Link: cabl.co/m5x7