Live data from Hacker News

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

81–90 of 754 posts

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#81
I wonder if this is doing more harm than good...

Some people want to do these types of gigs for extra income, but now if your an employee then probably companies will want you to be on a schedule and a minimum number of hours.

I forget where but seen a story where someone was told by one of their clients that they were letting them go because of this new law. Happened to be their biggest client too, but they were doing remote work and lived in California...

So now I guess some companies might want to let go of people from California and contract with residents of Texas or any other state instead.

Kinda reminds me of when states started changing their sales tax nexus laws, I was doing affiliate marketing but didn't have any success as still starting out.

But my state changed their law to try to collect from remote sellers and changed it to count affiliate sales too. So I got a notice kicking me out of the program on a short notice... If I had built up landing pages and traffic, I'd be left holding the bag... or adjust them to aim at another company but would have been a huge setback.

You could go from making a comfy living online to making zero. I know gurus tell people to build up multiple streams of income, but in this case, all companies could do the same. Look at affiliate sales from the state, look at compliance costs... If making enough sales to justify then comply or just ban residents of the said state from the program and move on. So by trying to tax companies, they could have ended up hurting their residents instead. So by trying to get sales tax, they ended up with neither, losing out on both sales tax along with the income tax on the commissions since companies just decided to pull out completely from letting those residents be affiliates, so they were longer eligible to earned any commissions.

"We regret to inform you that Nexus state tax regulations in Ohio were just passed July 1st of this year. Unfortunately, we are unable to work with any Ohio based affiliates, due to the Nexus Tax Laws currently under enforcement in the state."

This was back in 2015. I think more than a few states changed their laws on this, I believe they are referred to as a cookie nexus. and some programs have a minimum threshold to cash out too. So I guess they can kick you out and keep your money... Lucky I didn't have any in my account as was recently dabbling in this area.

So kinda sad that you could lose out on income just because of the state you are domiciled in. Wouldn't surprise me if other companies outside of California is going to end contracts with people just because they live in California. Kinda feels like discrimination in a way.

However maybe setting up a corporation instead of being a sole proprietorship that could be a workaround. Don't deal with California individuals, deal with California companies instead even if it's just only a company size of 1. So ride sharing apps could require drivers to set up an LLC and pay that instead of paying them directly maybe. But then California has high taxes and franchise fees already, so maybe it's just not worth it. There's already a mass exodus from California, so wouldn't surprise me if this makes even more people question if they should leave the state also. Move somewhere cheaper and get to keep your clients too if you are a freelancer.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#82
post #25

They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to…

As an American living in Ontario, Canada for a time, I literally COULD NOT BELIEVE the gig economy there. It is what the US aspires to: a guy owns a snow plow business, employs 30 other gig workers 6mos a year. A woman does city/house hunting tours. Contractors are consistently self-employed. On and on. These folks, earning enough to live, and (to another commentor’s point) without fear of medical bills/issues. That really is it: that’s the difference. And it makes all the difference.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#83

If this actually gets enforced, I predict we'll all be talking about the law of unintended consequences in a year's time.

don't know why this is getting down voted, all of you folks using lyft/uber.. get ready for the prices to double or triple.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#84
post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so guessing hours would be capped at 30 max per week. I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.

not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers. almost every driver drives for both companies. the drivers are going to get shafted here in total earnings. they will work fewer hours and make more per hour, but won't be able to drive crazy hours on both apps any more.

> not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers.

Citation needed.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#85
post #25

They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to…

Your case seems to be a consequence of how healthcare works in America (insurance). For those of us lucky enough to be in good health, the "Gig economy" as-described would be just fine.

And good drivers can save lots of cash and worries by simply not getting car insurance.

Health insurance’s main alleged draw is that shit happens when you least expect it, and you can avoid the massive costs when the unexpected happens (accidents, cancer, botulism, whatever). Unfortunately, someone in America found out you can charge monthly fees for health insurance while still making the person pay massive amounts themselves. Just promise they’ll pay a slightly less massive amount.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#86

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can bet your bottom dollar that as employees drivers will be afforded no freedom to double dip. The only reason they are able to at the moment is because companies held back on initiatives that they feared would classify drivers into employees. Now they will have no such fear and gig work will be strictly controlled. Prices will go up simply due to the loss of efficiency from multiplexing gain that gig work provi…

Prices up, sorry consumers. total earnings down, sorry full time drivers. hourly earnings up, yay part time drivers.

Why hire part-time drivers at all? The marginal costs don't make sense if they can't get all the hours they can.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#87
post #25

They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to…

Post-obamacare, getting healthcare isn't hard, especially if you're making almost half a million a year as you must have been.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#88
post #25

They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to…

As an American living in Ontario, Canada for a time, I literally COULD NOT BELIEVE the gig economy there. It is what the US aspires to: a guy owns a snow plow business, employs 30 other gig workers 6mos a year. A woman does city/house hunting tours. Contractors are consistently self-employed. On and on. These folks, earning enough to live, and (to another commentor’s point) without fear of medical bills/issues. That…

I often wonder about this cost to the US economy due to a lack of universal health care: how much productivity is lost due to people staying in jobs just for health care, how many businesses not started, etc.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#89
post #71

Can anybody here with proper experience break down the "ABC" test for me? It seems to me like the "C" part (that the work is "part of a company’s regular business") applies to literally any company who would hire a freelancer to work on their product or service.

Just read through the text of the bill, looks like the work you describe is explicitly exempted from the bill https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#90

This is more about the state collecting more taxes than actually helping workers, especially with ride-sharing drivers used as bait. People can already be full-time drivers if they wanted. Those jobs have existed for a century. In reality, the vast majority of Uber/lyft drivers already have a FT job and drive for secondary income with the time and location of their choosing. Retirees, students, fixed income, disabled…

Could you explain how taxes are involved? What about reclassification causes the state to see more taxes raised?
Post reply on HN