Training a worker by requiring an experienced employee to work with the worker, by corresponding with the worker, by requiring the worker to attend meetings, or by using other methods indicates that the entity for whom the services are performed wants the services performed in a particular method or manner. 

Integration of the worker's services into the business operations typically shows that the worker is subject to direction and control. When the success or continuation of a business depends to an appreciable degree upon the performance of certain services, the workers who perform those services must necessarily be subject to a certain amount of control by the entity/business. 

If the services must be rendered personally, presumably the entity for which the services are performed is interested in the methods used to accomplish the work as well as in the results. 

If the entity for which the services are performed hires, supervises, and pays assistants, these factors generally show control over the workers on the job. However, if one worker hires, supervises, and pays the other assistants pursuant to a contract under which the worker agrees to provide materials and labor and under which the worker is responsible only for the attainment of a result, this factor indicates an independent contractor status.

A continuing relationship between the worker and the entity for which the services are performed indicates that an employer-employee relationship exists. A continuing relationship may exist where work is performed at frequently recurring, although irregular intervals.

The establishment of set hours of work by the entity for which the services are performed is a factor indicating control.

If the worker must devote substantially full time to the business of the entity for which the services are performed, such entity has control over the amount of time the worker spends working and impliedly restricts the worker from doing other gainful work. An independent contractor on the other hand, is free to work when and for whom he or she chooses.

If the work is performed on the premises of the entity for which the services are to be performed, suggests control over the worker, especially if the work could be done elsewhere. Work done off the premises of the entity receiving the services, such as at the office of the worker, indicates some freedom from control. However, this fact by itself does not mean that the worker is not an employee. The importance of this factor depends on the nature of the service involved and the extent to which an employer generally would require that employees perform such services on the employer's premises. Control over the place of work is indicated when the entity for which the services are performed has the right to compel the worker to travel a designated route, to canvass a territory within a certain time, or to work at specific places as required.

If a worker must perform services in the order or sequence set by the entity for which the services are performed, shows that the worker is not free to follow the worker's own pattern of work but must follow the established routines and schedules of the entity for which the services are performed. Often, because of the nature of an occupation, the entity for which the services are performed does not set the order of the services or sets the order infrequently. It is sufficient to show control, however, if such entity retains the right to do so.

A requirement that the worker submit regular or written reports to the entity for which the services are performed indicates a degree of control on the part of the entity.

Payment by the hour, week, or month generally points to an employer-employee relationship, provided that this method of payment is not just a convenient way of paying a lump sum agreed upon as the cost of a job. Payment made by the job or on straight commission generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor.

If the entity for which the services are performed typically pays the worker's business and/or traveling expenses, the worker is typically an employee. An employer, to be able to control expenses, generally retains the right to regulate and direct the worker's business activities.

The fact that the entity for which the services are performed furnishes significant tools, materials, and other equipment tends to show the existence of an employer-employee relationship.

If the worker invests in facilities that are used by the worker in performing services and are not typically maintained by employees (such as the maintenance of an office rented at fair value from an unrelated party), that factor tends to indicate that the worker is an independent contractor. On the other hand, lack of investment in facilities indicates dependence on the entity for which the services are performed for such facilities and, accordingly, the existence of an employer-employee relationship. Special examination is required with respect to certain types of facilities, such as home offices.

A worker who can realize a profit or suffer a loss as a result of the worker's services (in addition to the profit or loss ordinarily realized by employees) is generally an independent contractor, but the worker who cannot is an employee. For example, if the worker is subject to a real risk of economic loss due to significant investments or a bona fide liability for expenses, such as salary payments to unrelated employees, indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. The risk that a worker will not receive payment for his or her services, however, is common to both independent contractors and employees and thus does not constitute a sufficient economic risk to support treatment as an independent contractor.

If a worker performs services for a multiple of unrelated entities at the same time generally indicates that the worker is an independent contractor. However, a worker who performs services for more than one entity may be an employee of each of the entities, especially where such entities are part of the same service arrangement.

The fact that a worker makes his or her services available to the general public on a regular and consistent basis indicates an independent contractor relationship

The right to discharge a worker is a factor indicating that the worker is an employee and the entity possessing the right is an employer. An employer exercises control through the threat of dismissal, which causes the worker to obey the employer's instructions. An independent contractor, on the other hand, cannot be fired so long as the independent contractor produces a result that meets the contract specifications.

If the worker has the right to end his or her relationship at any time he or she wishes, without incurring liability from the entity for which the services are performed, indicates an employer-employee relationship.