Potential employer is asking employee to provide equipment, is this right?

[jen_r1]

<p>Hi everyone,<br>

An opportunity for a full-time salaried "employee/staff" photography position has come my way. So far I've only spoke with a recruiter about it, but one of the stipulations that has me concerned is they are asking that the employee provide their own equipment even though they are to work on-site. This includes camera/lenses & computer suitable for editing. They have a studio on-site although I neglected to ask if lighting equipment was also something I'd also have to be responsible for. Off the bat I did tell the recruiter that as far as the computer goes, I don't have a laptop and obviously bringing my home desktop wouldn't be an option. He said that wouldn't be a deal breaker so I'm hoping this can be negotiated.<br>

This seems like a great opportunity however it just doesn't sit well with me that they would ask this of an employee.<br>

Has anyone else experienced a request like this with a staff position? Before I attempt to bring up my concern / negotiate with them I'm just curious if this is common or not? Or as an employer are they legally obligated to provide it? I've read up a bit on work-for-hire but this seems hazy. If I do agree to it, should I request additional compensation? The company is not a magazine or newspaper & I'm living in Ontario, Canada.<br>

Advice please!?</p>

[Mike Howard]

<p>Well, I see no reason why an employer can't require an employee to provide their own tools. It is very common in industry for maintenance people to provide at least some of their own tools, as well as in construction. As a keen negotiator, if you feel you are in a position of power, you should be able to negotiate an up front amount for "upgrades". It really all depends on the position, your skill level, and their overall need for you or someone like you.</p>

<p>Are they actively recruiting you or are you "a name in a bucket"? This will determine your negotiation stance. Good luck to you in your interview process and negotiations. Remember, if you make yourself invaluable, they will be open to many possibilities. Always try to make it a "they need you more than you need them" scenario.</p>

[richardsperry]

Every shutter click on your digital camera decreases its value.

 

I suppose it comes down to if you need the job and if the compensation is agreeable to you. If you don't take it someone

else will. The long term financial stability of such a company would be a question in my mind certainly.

 

As an employee of a contractor, a small set of tools can be required by the company(in my state). But all the main

equipment to do the work must be provided by the employer. A roofing company can require you to provide the belt, tape, and hammer but they would be required to provide the nail gun and compressor.

 

My employer now is requiring workers to buy their own pens. And I bitch enough about that, I suppose. But they provide

the computers at least.

[Rick Helmke]

<p>Requiring you to provide your own equipment is common enough in this business though by no means universal. I've done both. More and more they seem to be insisting you provide your own computer as well as cameras, lenses, flashes. It's quite common to require tradesmen such as mechanics to provide their own tools and that can run into many thousands of dollars. Photographers are by no means the only class of gearheads. I wouldn't be put off by that alone. As for killing the value of your equipment by using it, depreciation on digital gear happens so quickly anyway I wouldn't worry too much about it.</p>

<p>Rick H.</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Jen,<br /> Employers do this as it makes the employee responsible for breakage, etc, of high value small tools.<br /> You want to read up on this link about Canadian tax deduction on tools.</p>

<p>http://www.cra-arc.gc.ca/tx/ndvdls/tpcs/ncm-tx/rtrn/cmpltng/ddctns/lns206-236/229/trds/menu-eng.html</p>

<p>Just make sure the employer's insurance covers the equipment for fire, theft, etc if you have to leave it on the premises. Talk to your insurance broker about this as well.</p>

<p> </p>

[jen_r1]

<p>Thanks everyone for your replies. I guess I feel a little better about it now. The recruiter sent them my info and I was told there are a few others are also being considered the job. I'll find out if I get an interview next week. *fingers crossed*<br>

Bob - thanks for the link. Seems kind of bogus that you can only deduct up to $500 but that's the gov't for ya. I'll be sure to ask about insurance if I get the interview, good tip thanks!</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>Actually the whole thing sounds fishy, don't be surprised if they want you to front $10k for equipment and software, and not pay you enough on your salary to cover the replacement costs in three years, which would amount to approx 50% of the equipment costs in before tax income for every year of employment. As an employee, you can't depreciate the costs as you can when you are self employed.</p>

<p> </p>

[jen_r1]

<p>If that's the case then I definitely won't be taking the job.</p>

<p>Salary range they are offering is between 30 - 40K and it's a private college in Toronto. Admittedly when I first heard the figures I was disappointed (was kinda hoping/assuming it'd be more in the 45/50K range), but to be honest I'm not even sure what market value for a staff photography job would be. They are so far & few between.</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Jen:</p>

<p>I've never had a job as a staff photographer. They're not that common. If it's what you want to do, you're probably in competition against people who are willing to provide their own equipment and work for less. Gotta spend money to make money. :) That said, make sure your insurance will cover professional use.</p>

<p>If you have to use your own vehicle, make sure that insurance is for professional use, too. I pay more for my auto insurance, but I'm covered on the way to or from a gig. If I were in an accident without having designated that with my car insurance company, I might not be covered. </p>

<p>Eric</p>

[eric merrill]

<p>Jen:</p>

<p>Not sure what resource to look for in Canada, but here's a US site:</p>

<p><a href="http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes274021.htm">http://www.bls.gov/oes/current/oes274021.htm</a></p>

<p>The mean wage here for photographers is $36,000.</p>

<p>Eric</p>

[bob_sunley]

<p>$14 to $20 per hour based on 40 hr work week, whats minimum wage there, $10 hr? McD's probably will equal that pay scale after a year. </p>

 

[bobbollinger]

<p>You should inquire about coverage for on the job injuries too. They are setting you up to be an "independent contractor" rather than an employee, so make sure they are going to cover you if you fall off a ladder and get hurt. In most workers' comp setups, only employees are covered for on the job accidents. </p>

[george_ghio]

<p>First thought - SCAM</p>

<p>Second choice - Tight arsed bugger that wants all the money in his pocket and all the expenses from your pocket.</p>

<p>As Bob said, it seems that they want you as a contractor. I do a lot of work that way in various areas from editing, welding, solar power and photography to name a few. I am registered as a business. Everything that I can legally claim on taxes, I do claim. Every claim is backed up with a piece of paper.Straight up $45/ hr based on twenty billable hours a week, that includes travel. l or I don't do it.</p>

<p>Am I getting rich? Nope.</p>

<p>Am I stressed? Nope.</p>

<p>The other side of the question is how much are you willing to invest in a learning experience. I did a year as a contractor with a news paper writing property reviews (this means advertising houses). Honestly, the pay was crap. I barely broke even what with expenses, fuel etc. But, the experience was worth it. I learned a lot about writing for the market and about photographing homes.</p>

<p>If you can't see the positive side clearly, then there is probably no advantage to you.</p>

<p>So the real question is - WHAT'S IN IT FOR YOU? And is it worth it?</p>

[craig_shearman1]

<p>Every newspaper I ever worked at required photographers to provide their own equipment. Some provided equipment allowances -- an extra amount per month or year to go toward maintenance, replacement or new gear -- and some had a pool of things like long fast lenses for sports or motor drives or ultra wides. But the photographers always owned their own gear.</p>

[robertbanks]

<p>A report from the BBC on the increase in "BYOD" - Bring Your Own Device.</p>

<p>Also London News Pictures is advertising a position for a photo journalist currently and applicants must have their own camera and 3G laptop...</p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>Another "Babe in the Woods"?</p>

<p>Yes you have to use your camera gear, and why the hell wouldn't you want to? If an employer handed you a Nikon system and you owned Canon, would you make the switch effortlessly knowing what every button or switch was on the Nikons? Or would you want to use what you're comfortable & creative with, so you wouldn't screw the pooch and get fired?</p>

<p>If I'm the employer and I hand you medium or large format, would you know where the film goes?</p>

<p>And if you get the Canadian equiv. of a W-2 for a full-time job, instead of a "1099" or what ever Canada has, you're a staff photog, not a contractor.</p>

[zensphoto]

<p>Perhaps the employer thinks you will be able to provide better photographs with equipment you already know how to use?</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Perhaps the employer thinks you will be able to provide better photographs with equipment you already know how to use?</p>

</blockquote>

 

<p>

 

This would be the case if a beginner was being intentionally hired, but a photographer is expected to master the equipment, not vice-versa. The staff photographers I know who have been given equipment were given equipment, period, and had to do the job.</P>

 

<p><a name="pagebottom"></a></p>

[david_rosenthal1]

<p>Jeff,</p>

<p>I'm with you on this, and have first-hand knowledge of it. I can't believe all of the responses of folks here calling "SCAM" and other BS. If I got handed a Speed Graphic, I could use it. If you handed me a Leica, I could use it. Ditto with a digital system. Problem is today's "Photographers" don't have experience with multiple formats. If she was handed a Hassy SWC/M would she remember to take the lens cap off or know how to pull the dark slide?</p>

<p>This Business Forum ought to be for business, not for so-called experts who possibly never shot a roll of film, or for Trolls. The idea that a thread like this even exists is disgusting to me. You mean to say that a pro Photog has to supply their own equipment! What's next? Her own pens & paper & phone? OMG!</p>

[jen_r1]

<p>Ok, so turns out there was a miscommunication between the recruiter & employer - only camera needs to be provided. This I totally do understand and prefer for many of the reasons mentioned above. I guess I should have specified that I was most concerned with having to buy a computer that would remain on site with them. Just found it a bit odd that they wouldn't provide it. Also figured this would be a different scenario as it was not a photojournalist position, where you would be off-site a lot and need the portability of a laptop.</p>

<p>David - That's great that you know everything! Good for you :) If you think back to when you were getting started however you might remember that even you didn't know everything at one time and had to start somewhere.</p>

<p>Seeing as staff photographer positions are near non-existent, no I don't have experience or hear much about them and just wanted to ask the opinion of you kind folks before diving in blindly.</p>

<p>Anyway, thanks again to those who kindly offered their insight! I really appreciate it.</p>

<p>-J</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>David, why so touchy. Scams are a common pitfall in business ads and one should be aware of this if they live in the real world.<br>

It is also sad but true that there are business people out there that will try anything to take advantage of others to gain a personal financial advantage.<br>

Then there are your assumptions that:</p>

<p><strong>1) Problem is today's "Photographers" don't have experience with multiple formats.</strong><br>

<strong></strong>I took my first photo at around six years of age with a well worn box brownie and I am sure that a large number of PN's members also started early. So your blanket statement is, well, absurd. </p>

<p><strong>2) This Business Forum ought to be for business, not for so-called experts who possibly never shot a roll of film, or for Trolls.</strong><br>

Another rather inflammatory blanket statement that is, given the number of PN's membership, is surely inaccurate.</p>

<p>Slow down, life's too short to waste any of it on what is in the end just other peoples opinions.</p>

[Spearhead]

<blockquote>

<p>Scams are a common pitfall in business ads</p>

</blockquote>

<p><br />What does that have to do with this post? It's at a college, she's spoken with someone.</p>

[george_ghio]

<p>Ok, I'll rephrase it.<br>

Scams are a common pitfall for people looking for work.<br>

Scams come in all sizes and all places. From millions to small change, from Nigeria to your local back yard mechanic. I might be the worlds biggest pessimist but I have yet to be burned by a scam. </p>