
Ask HN: Should Clients or Contractors Pay for tools/licenses to do their job? - HiddenCanary
I&#x27;ve seen tech contractors asking the client to pay for common tools that they may need to do their job. This seems odd to me, given that in construction, a client would expect the contractors to bring their own construction tools.
======
SavageBeast
When we talk about "contractors" I'm presuming the tax term is the important
differentiator here. Simply put, if you're a 1099 contractor or corp-to-corp
(you are more or less your own employer but as a corp, not your self
personally) then you are a value add service and you come complete with all
the tools and licenses necessary to perform your function. You naturally write
these expenses off as the cost of doing business and reduce your tax burden to
some small degree. You charge the client for these items make no mistake, but
you hide those charges by averaging them into your hourly bill rate.

Alternatively if you are a W2 "contractor" \- the fake way of hiring a full
time person through an intermediary agency and not giving them any benefits,
well thats a different story. They may call you a "contractor" but you're
actually a regular ole employee (you likely don't meet the IRS test for
"contractor" in this case even). In this case you collect paychecks and pay
out of your own pocket for absolutely no-thing. If you do buy anything you
expense it back to your employer for full reimbursement.

Still yet different, a real 1099 "contractor" who works on a time+materials
basis can very rightly bill hours AND ask for reimbursement on expenses
directly related to performing the paid task. Just the same way that a plumber
comes to your house and charges you both for his time and the
materials/supplies he consumes to do your job.

So in short, its not uncommon at all but it depends on the terms of the
"contract" engagement as to whether or not is applicable in a certain case. If
it was negotiated up front then its all good - otherwise it may be looked upon
less kindly as a surprise later.

------
chrisbennet
For _tools_ I charge enough that I just buy my own ($150-$200/hr). Sometimes I
can use them for multiple clients.

For _libraries_ , I buy a license for myself and tell the client where they
can buy their own. If I waited for the client to buy the library it would take
forever.

Hypothetically, if the client didn't pay much [1], and the contract was long,
I might expect the employer to pay.

[1] I wouldn't work for them.

------
Spooky23
In construction, the tradesman owns his truck and tools and delivers the
output required.

If you’re a consultant working on your own computer on your own network
delivering output of your labor, than you should buy your own stuff — actually
you have to in many instances.

But if you are expected to work on the customers equipment or be connected to
the customers network like an employee, they need to provide the gear. If they
don’t, you’re in a bad place, for example violating a license agreement for
using their Microsoft stuff.

------
brudgers
Construction contractors cover the costs of tools in their bids. Either
directly as a line item or indirectly in per unit costs or in worst case in
the overhead line item. At the high bit, construction contractors own few
tools and rent everything with line item markups for overhead and profit and
backend discounts and rebates.

Or to put it another way,

    
    
      Contractor: the change will cost
      $10,000
      Client: Who is going to pay
      for that.
      Architect: You will. The client 
      pays for everything.

------
sloaken
When we hire IT contractors who work in house, then we supply everything. I am
not letting you plug your computer into my network. You use our software, so
when the contract is over, and the next person has to maintain it, it is
easier.

I have worked a remote contract where I was supplied everything. Laptop / SW /
libraries. When the contract ended I returned everything. When the contract
restarted 5 months later, guess what I received in the mail.

In IT, so much is 'unique version' that having contractor provided items
causes a version control nightmare.

Construction uses more standard items. Although an individual might not own a
XYZZY the contracting company should. And if not, they can usually rent it for
a day or two. With SaaS this might become more of the case with IT.

~~~
giobox
In my experience, this is more for data protection reasons than anything else.
Companies are simply paranoid now about any computer on the network for fear
customer data leaves. At my company, when we have worked with third parties
who demand this (which is common), this is the reason. All the other issues
you cite can be solved by dictating a tech stack to your contractor - they
will follow, as can of course be sued if they do not. Non-functional
requirements like these are relatively easy to gather.

------
alt_f4
> given that in construction, a client would expect the contractors to bring
> their own construction tools.

In construction, the contractor does not have to leave his drill to you so
your house continues functioning.

Many software licenses are billed per project/per site. You can't expect the
contractor to cover these for you for free.

