201–210 of 754 posts
Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Wow. You might be right about B. That could be interesting. (I don’t think A is any different than existing federal laws)
If I read this correctly then if a software house wants to hire software developers as contractors then they can't do that because building software is their main course of business. However companies like Airbnb (hospitality) and Uber (ride sharing) will be able to hire programmers as contractors because writing software is not main source of income for those firms.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
My reading is that it's similar to the UK's IR35 regulation? Do any UK contractors here have any additional experience of working in/out of IR35 to give some context?
Well, it's a different law, but IR35 often hinges on whether you're part of the chain of command in the business, and whether you could substitute another qualified person without the agreement of the client. HMRC provide this tool to determine employment status: https://www.gov.uk/guidance/check-employment-status-for-tax
It classifies the contractors who wrote the tool itself inside IR35 while HRMC (the people contracting them to write the tool) do not.
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.
If it works remotely similar to how fake self-employment works in germany then as a freelancer it's sufficient to show that you work for more than 1 company. If you exclusively work for 1 company, AND ONLY THAT COMPANY, as a freelancer in germany, you and the company you work for are at risk.
Will this affect freelance journalists?
Workers have no choice but to get W2 status to get health care insurance, retirement compensation, etc. And they fix it by simply moving them as FT employees, because to the State of California that's the easiest thing they can do. Single-payer free healthcare for all - which is the right thing to do is too much for the State. This is just how bad the State of California is being run.
California already has among the most generous state-level medical benefits in the country. Here, it's hard to be in a situation in which one simultaneously can't afford insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medi-Cal (California Medicaid). Singling out California for not taking the unprecedented step of rolling out single-payer alone--which is a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarant…
Given their political support of illegal immigration, I don't think it's bizarre at all.
They're among the richest, left-wing states in the country. Relative to other states, there's absolutely no shortage of political support or money. If they can't handle implementing their own utopian health care system, I don't know why any of us should trust that it can be done well at a federal level.
If this actually gets enforced, I predict we'll all be talking about the law of unintended consequences in a year's time.
“Some of the companies are not done fighting the bill. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have pledged to spend $90 million to support a ballot initiative that would essentially exempt them from the legislation.” And how may people who drive for these companies are not citizens and cannot vote?
Its possible to work around these, of course, but the numbers must be small.
Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...
Does it matter who the employees are employed by? All rules for an employer apply just as well for the employing company as they would for Amazon if they employed them directly.
Uber agrees to pay X rate currently to drivers. A law is passed that makes X rate even more unprofitable.
Uber then engages the services of an external company which provides labor at a lower rate, fires all of the current Uber drivers, and encourages them to work for the new external company.
The external company, if sued, does not have the resources that Uber has, and simply goes bankrupt. The drivers are encouraged to work for yet another new company.
This process continues for a while as ride quality and driver satisfaction all suffers. Uber gets to lengthen the runway a bit longer, and either a miracle happens and the company continues operations or some other competitor swallows the market.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If I read this correctly then if a software house wants to hire software developers as contractors then they can't do that because building software is their main course of business. However companies like Airbnb (hospitality) and Uber (ride sharing) will be able to hire programmers as contractors because writing software is not main source of income for those firms.
I guess that'd be decided in the courts. But Airbnb and Uber have to develop software in order to carry on their business, so I would come down on the other side of the argument.