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

81–90 of 260 posts

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

#81

Post by rdiddly »

gnicholas wrote: post #75
hardwaresofton wrote: post #34

Here is the new test (the ABC test if you're into unnecessary pet names for things): > If A, B, or C isn’t present, the worker is considered an employee. > A. Freedom from control over how to perform the service > B. Service is outside the business' normal variety or workplace > C. Worker is engaged in independently established role So if any one of those conditions isn't the case, you are an employee under the law.…

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

Also the drivers aren't supplying a service "outside the business's normal variety." They're supplying the core Uber service.

EDIT: They might be able to redefine themselves as purely a software company for the drivers to remain contractors.

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

#82

Post by tingletech »

PhasmaFelis wrote: post #61
volkfish55 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I think you're using a very overspecific definition of "contractor". At least half of my contract work has been doing the same job in the same office as the full-time employees, just for less pay and less job security. (And I did get health insurance, through the contracting agency.) A couple of those gigs even came with a company laptop.

Were you 1099'ed by the employer, or W2'ed by the agency?

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

#83

Post by hardwaresofton »

gnicholas wrote: post #75
hardwaresofton wrote: post #34

Here is the new test (the ABC test if you're into unnecessary pet names for things): > If A, B, or C isn’t present, the worker is considered an employee. > A. Freedom from control over how to perform the service > B. Service is outside the business' normal variety or workplace > C. Worker is engaged in independently established role So if any one of those conditions isn't the case, you are an employee under the law.…

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

I agree with your assessment (you failed to mention leeway with which rides to take, but maybe it doesn't matter) -- Uber/Lyft would definitely not want to lose control on how their drivers perform their services since it's directly counter to part of their value proposition/brand.

I pessimistically assume, however, is that assuming the A/B fight is a lost battle for gig economy compnaies, the next step is to limit these employees to being part-time with some kind of Background: I am a spitballing layman

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

#84

Post by icebraining »

rdiddly wrote: post #81
gnicholas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

Also the drivers aren't supplying a service "outside the business's normal variety." They're supplying the core Uber service. EDIT: They might be able to redefine themselves as purely a software company for the drivers to remain contractors.

It says "... or workplace". Uber drivers don't work in Uber's buildings.

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

#85

Post by apendleton »

rdiddly wrote: post #81
gnicholas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

Also the drivers aren't supplying a service "outside the business's normal variety." They're supplying the core Uber service. EDIT: They might be able to redefine themselves as purely a software company for the drivers to remain contractors.

Well, I suppose Uber would argue that their service isn't the providing if rides, but rather, the matchmaking of independent ride providers to prospective customers, and facilitation of payment. (Not that we should believe them.)

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

#86

Post by icebraining »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #80
twblalock wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Of course companies are going to act in their best interest. But this ruling does not change that, because companies have been acting in their best interest all along. If anything, this makes it easier for contractors to prove they ought to be employees.

Well, you've rehashed what I said -- That was meant to be to all the people wondering how this ruling would affect companies like Uber/Lyft/other gig economy companies. The answer is it won't affect them, because they'll do what it takes legally to act in their best interest, like they have always done (and have had way more resources than the average worker to do). So nothing will change, outside of a likely reducti…

The answer is it won't affect them, because they'll do what it takes legally to act in their best interest

But how does that follow? You're essentially saying that no law can ever affect them, since they'll always "do what it takes legally to act in their best interest".

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

#87

Post by gnicholas »

hardwaresofton wrote: post #83
gnicholas wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

I agree with your assessment (you failed to mention leeway with which rides to take, but maybe it doesn't matter) -- Uber/Lyft would definitely not want to lose control on how their drivers perform their services since it's directly counter to part of their value proposition/brand. I pessimistically assume, however, is that assuming the A/B fight is a lost battle for gig economy compnaies, the next step is to limit t…

> I pessimistically assume, however, is that assuming the A/B fight is a lost battle for gig economy companies, the next step is to limit these employees to being part-time with some kind of

How does 20 hrs/week factor in here? I didn't see a reference in the Bloomberg article. Though this is actually a good point — if time spent working isn't a factor, then someone who works for Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, and Google Express could end up as en employee of all of these companies. That seems like kind of a weird result.

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

#88

Post by icebraining »

jMyles wrote: post #14

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.

Can you give an example? The standard seems to be a bit more complex than the three statements they present, so those gigs might still be excluded.

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

#89

Post by tlrobinson »

gnicholas wrote: post #75
hardwaresofton wrote: post #34

Here is the new test (the ABC test if you're into unnecessary pet names for things): > If A, B, or C isn’t present, the worker is considered an employee. > A. Freedom from control over how to perform the service > B. Service is outside the business' normal variety or workplace > C. Worker is engaged in independently established role So if any one of those conditions isn't the case, you are an employee under the law.…

I think A and B present a difficult challenge for Uber/Lyft. Drivers do not have the freedom to control how to perform their services. They do have some leeway in route, but not total leeway. And there are many guidelines they have to abide regarding the condition of their vehicle and treatment of passengers. Element B is a little less clear, but I think it would be difficult for Uber/Lyft to overcome. Drivers would…

Not a lawyer, but I would think they could require drivers follow a reasonably direct route but not require the specific route offered by the driver’s app.

And in general quality issues can be handled by ratings. If a driver takes bad routes or has a dirty car they’re going to get complaints / bad ratings.

I’d be surprised if they couldn’t offer drivers “suggestions” on how to receive good ratings.

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

#90

Post by AstralStorm »

icebraining wrote: post #84
rdiddly wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also the drivers aren't supplying a service "outside the business's normal variety." They're supplying the core Uber service. EDIT: They might be able to redefine themselves as purely a software company for the drivers to remain contractors.

It says "... or workplace". Uber drivers don't work in Uber's buildings.

This is not quite an exclusive or.

The service is not outside of business standard variety. Other cab companies have client driven matchmaking systems too now... They also employ office workers. The workplace for a cab driver is his car.

Therefore, what Uber does would make them a cab company that abuses contractors instead of employing employees.

However, the key point here is the test A. If Uber is specifically telling the drivers to pick up specific fares or otherwise forcing them to pick up fares beyond the number and/or time, they are actually employees not contractors. Fudging with scoring system to fire those who do not follow such orders indirectly could be construed as such as well.

Post reply on HN