Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

news.bloomberglaw.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 260 posts

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#11

Post by simcop2387 »

netheril96 wrote: post #7
taurath wrote: post #2

It’s interesting how even within companies a hard set social hierarchy has taken place between employees and contractors. The contractors tend to perform the exact same duties as employees, but are usually paid less, have worse future prospects (companies tend to like to hire from full time to full time), worse benefits and generally don’t get most of the perks of being an employee. For coders, is this because they’r…

Do companies whose primary employees are programmers also employ contractual programmers? According to my observation, computer technology companies may have contractual workers, but only for other roles.

Most companies that I've worked for have had them, usually for specific purposes (billing system related) but they've also had them as more general cases, for less than full time work usually (the people also contracted out to multiple companies). I don't know how common this is though since it's only a few companies and the people involved are all semi-related (Perl programming community).

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#12

Post by Trundle »

taurath wrote: post #2

It’s interesting how even within companies a hard set social hierarchy has taken place between employees and contractors. The contractors tend to perform the exact same duties as employees, but are usually paid less, have worse future prospects (companies tend to like to hire from full time to full time), worse benefits and generally don’t get most of the perks of being an employee. For coders, is this because they’r…

I think this can vary a lot. Contractors often charge very high rates, but then they're called a consultant even if theyre there to do/create rather than consult.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#13

Post by greglindahl »

derekp7 wrote: post #3

Does this affect "contract to hire" positions, where companies "try before you buy"? Further, can companies still get contractors through a contractor agency, assuming the workers are employees of that agency?

This does sound like it would affect "try before you buy", unless the contractor has significant other work.

Does anyone actually do "try before you buy" in California? It doesn't work in a hot job market, and the job market is currently hot.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#14

Post by jMyles »

Ouch. Some of my favorite gigs I've ever performed aren't possible under this standard. I question whether this will actually benefit contractors, but I have no doubt that it will benefit bigger, established players who already have full-time cadres.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#15

Post by justboxing »

greglindahl wrote: post #13
derekp7 wrote: post #3

Does this affect "contract to hire" positions, where companies "try before you buy"? Further, can companies still get contractors through a contractor agency, assuming the workers are employees of that agency?

This does sound like it would affect "try before you buy", unless the contractor has significant other work. Does anyone actually do "try before you buy" in California? It doesn't work in a hot job market, and the job market is currently hot.

> Does anyone actually do "try before you buy" in California?

Yes. It's called C2H - Contract to Hire.

Over 2,000 Tech Jobs in CA that are C2H on Dice.com https://www.dice.com/jobs/advancedResult.html?for_one=&for_a...

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#16

Post by noobermin »

Trundle wrote: post #12
taurath wrote: post #2

It’s interesting how even within companies a hard set social hierarchy has taken place between employees and contractors. The contractors tend to perform the exact same duties as employees, but are usually paid less, have worse future prospects (companies tend to like to hire from full time to full time), worse benefits and generally don’t get most of the perks of being an employee. For coders, is this because they’r…

I think this can vary a lot. Contractors often charge very high rates, but then they're called a consultant even if theyre there to do/create rather than consult.

That would seem NOT to be to whom this ABC criteria applies, specifically on the "independently established role." This seems to most address those who have less power in the employer-contractor relationship.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#17

Post by derekp7 »

r00fus wrote: post #8
derekp7 wrote: post #3

Does this affect "contract to hire" positions, where companies "try before you buy"? Further, can companies still get contractors through a contractor agency, assuming the workers are employees of that agency?

This is how my wife joined her current (mega corp) employer with whom she's been with for years. In her case she was on an educational visa (with employment rights ) at the time of the contract to hire. She had sought employment for months after completing her degree so was really not in the best position to negotiate.

Similar store with me, except I was 4 months into a layoff when I took a 6 month contract-to-hire position. They made me permanent after about 3 weeks (it is amazing how easy it is to impress an employer when you've had a 4 month forced vacation), and been there 8 years. Never would have applied if I had been working full time somewhere else though.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#18

Post by volkfish55 »

taurath wrote: post #2

It’s interesting how even within companies a hard set social hierarchy has taken place between employees and contractors. The contractors tend to perform the exact same duties as employees, but are usually paid less, have worse future prospects (companies tend to like to hire from full time to full time), worse benefits and generally don’t get most of the perks of being an employee. For coders, is this because they’r…

Contractor are paid more, since they have to factor in the health insurance, taxes, unpaid vacation, perks, their own laptops, no need for office space, no 401k match. There is no reason they would ever get paid less. Maybe those with H1B visas who can get taken advantage of or outsourced contractors in Ukraine? Those contractors definitely get paid a fraction of US salary.

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#19

Post by scrumbledober »

greglindahl wrote: post #13
derekp7 wrote: post #3

Does this affect "contract to hire" positions, where companies "try before you buy"? Further, can companies still get contractors through a contractor agency, assuming the workers are employees of that agency?

This does sound like it would affect "try before you buy", unless the contractor has significant other work. Does anyone actually do "try before you buy" in California? It doesn't work in a hot job market, and the job market is currently hot.

I'm currently working as a contract to hire in SF

Re: California Supreme Court Transforms the Test for Who Is an Employee

#20

Post by ereyes01 »

netheril96 wrote: post #7
taurath wrote: post #2

It’s interesting how even within companies a hard set social hierarchy has taken place between employees and contractors. The contractors tend to perform the exact same duties as employees, but are usually paid less, have worse future prospects (companies tend to like to hire from full time to full time), worse benefits and generally don’t get most of the perks of being an employee. For coders, is this because they’r…

Do companies whose primary employees are programmers also employ contractual programmers? According to my observation, computer technology companies may have contractual workers, but only for other roles.

From personal experience (and admittedly stale by some 8 years), IBM had lots of contractors doing software development alongside full-timers. It was a pretty insecure position to be in because they would take the brunt of layoffs, and many I knew were gone by the time I left, with a couple of exceptions. Many were ex-employess who had been previously let go or were retired. Some were not, and all were basically indistinguishable from regular developers... they just happened to fill a req that merely funded a contractor instead of a full-time employee, depending on how the money was handed out to departments.
Post reply on HN