Sorry, I did not. Your the one that inferred there, not me.
OK, since you clearly don't get it, in your original post you cited the example using a "contractor." so for clarity that contractor by inference is Williams correct?
You go on to infer that the situation in your "example" applies to an organization in which everyone is an independent contractor, correct? (It doesn't)
You then by inference talk about how that "contractor" (Williams) has been paid correct?
Now if you disavow the connection between your "example" and the situation as it truly is, then that too, renders your whole attempt moot.