California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by cat199 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:46 PM UTC

kkarakk wrote: post #216

Aeolun wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

yup it does, just like contractor employees at amazon/google/tech company of choice don't get any of the nice benefits or perks of working at the client company, these guys won't get anything. Those employees can't sue the client company, they can only sue contractor company - that suddenly goes poof and doesn't pay out anything when a dispute happens. Good luck forming a union coz then the company will go poof too I…

> Good luck forming a union coz then the company will go poof too

The answer to this is to form a bigger union so that only the bigger contracting companies can survive, and then have high-paid union executives who can negotiate large industry-wide contracts between employer and labor provider that provide some minimal level of protections but largely protect the status quo.

Then, those in the employer camp can donate to conservative causes complaining about unions and regulation, and those in the labor provider camp can donate to progressive causes complaining about evil corporations and lack of worker rights.

From here, the leaders in the two factions will variously ping pong and vacillate and make various and sundry unfruitful negotiations while taking the advice from various lobbyists about how they might improve the state of affairs and generally enrich themselves through back channel dealings with their benefactors from either camp.

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

#272

Post by neltnerb » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:48 PM UTC

dustinmoris wrote: post #252

whiddershins wrote: post #246

All these people making Uber money on the side ... the whole thing was possible in part due to the low friction in (and also complete disregard for) the regulatory environment. I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. So I just coil my own cables. And I don’t mentor people who want to learn some…

What do you expect from your studio assistant that you think might put you at risk of a number of lawsuits? Honestly, if you want to hire someone to do some work a few hours a week then you are basically hiring a part time employee. There's nothing dangerous around doing this and it's certainly not a minefield if you treat them with the respect that any employee deserves.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people.

I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my consulting company. Prior to that I just paid a contract CFO to deal with it because it's what you don't know you don't know that gets you sued. So either it's expensive to hire a CFO just for that, or expensive in your time to learn it all when your main goal is to actually get work done that produces revenue.

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

#273

Post by hfdehfddhs » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:51 PM UTC

magashna wrote: post #218

lr wrote: post #189

“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?

If they pledged that money to pay their employees properly, wouldn't it be a wash?

$90 million is peanuts compared to the potential cost of this bill.

That's why lobbying and buying propaganda works.

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

#274

Post by dd36 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:53 PM UTC

neltnerb wrote: post #272

dustinmoris wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect from your studio assistant that you think might put you at risk of a number of lawsuits? Honestly, if you want to hire someone to do some work a few hours a week then you are basically hiring a part time employee. There's nothing dangerous around doing this and it's certainly not a minefield if you treat them with the respect that any employee deserves.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my c…

Gusto will handle it all. Though I’m not a fan and we’re looking to switch. The never gave us our referral credits and while it’s NBD, it definitely left a bad taste.

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

#275

Post by sk5t » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

jeffasinger wrote: post #268

nickjj wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. To my understanding (not a lawyer / accountant) if you hire someone part time like that you're not obligated to pay for their insurance or anything like that. You just write off what you paid them as a business expense and send them a 1099 at the end of…

Also not an accountant or lawyer, but I think that if you're paying someone by the hour, and directing them as to how they should do they job, they need to be classified as an employee, not a contractor. This means a W2 instead of a 1099, plus you need to pay them on a fixed schedule, pay social security and medicare taxes (and likely other taxes depending on jurisdiction) on their wages, deduct income taxes, do an I…

> and directing them as to how they should do they job

This is, to me, a very puzzling take. If you hire a contractor, you don't direct how they do the job, only what the job output is like. Hourly contractors are certainly a thing.

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

#276

Post by donatj » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:54 PM UTC

neltnerb wrote: post #272

dustinmoris wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What do you expect from your studio assistant that you think might put you at risk of a number of lawsuits? Honestly, if you want to hire someone to do some work a few hours a week then you are basically hiring a part time employee. There's nothing dangerous around doing this and it's certainly not a minefield if you treat them with the respect that any employee deserves.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my c…

This, 100% this. It makes the move from a single person company to a 2 person company terrifyingly complex, particularly for those of us without a background in business.

It’s a literal chilling action on small business.

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

#277

Post by dsfyu404ed » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:55 PM UTC

whiddershins wrote: post #246

All these people making Uber money on the side ... the whole thing was possible in part due to the low friction in (and also complete disregard for) the regulatory environment. I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. So I just coil my own cables. And I don’t mentor people who want to learn some…

You could 1099 them but considering the likelihood of someone who's taking an entry level music job claiming the income on their taxes seems like a recipe for an audit for both parties.

Realistically you should probably do what everyone else does in this situations and pay under the table. Think of the lost taxes as billing the government for making stupid laws that can't reasonably be followed even when you want to follow them.

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

#278

Post by nickjj » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

jeffasinger wrote: post #268

nickjj wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. To my understanding (not a lawyer / accountant) if you hire someone part time like that you're not obligated to pay for their insurance or anything like that. You just write off what you paid them as a business expense and send them a 1099 at the end of…

Also not an accountant or lawyer, but I think that if you're paying someone by the hour, and directing them as to how they should do they job, they need to be classified as an employee, not a contractor. This means a W2 instead of a 1099, plus you need to pay them on a fixed schedule, pay social security and medicare taxes (and likely other taxes depending on jurisdiction) on their wages, deduct income taxes, do an I…

> Also not an accountant or lawyer, but I think that if you're paying someone by the hour, and directing them as to how they should do they job, they need to be classified as an employee, not a contractor.

> This means a W2 instead of a 1099 [...]

I'm a freelance developer in NY and this isn't the case. When someone requests me to do work for them they tell me what they want done, we scope out the project and then I either bill them by the hour or by the project depending on what's going on. Sometimes I work 50 hours a week on that project, sometimes 5.

But in all cases, they send me a 1099 at the end of the year. I might be considered some type of contractor in their software since most of the companies I work for auto-bill me through some software but in no case have I ever been declared as a W2 employee. Everything you wrote is true if they were a W2 employee, but that means being officially hired and defined as a full time employee.

Also I've paid out a lot of people for contract work as a freelancer and my accountant said it's no problem. I just give the numbers and he provides me the 1099 to send out. It's been working like this without issues for years.

This is partly why freelance or contract workers need to and can get away with charging more per hour. They get no perks of being an employee. Health care is super expensive and we essentially pay double the social security taxes since we're both our own employer and employee. There's also no free lunches or other employee status perks like matching retirement funds, etc..

But on the flip side, getting hired as a freelancer is a huge win for business owners because now they don't mind paying higher rates for a freelancer since they are off the hook to provide all of those W2 benefits and also avoid paying a consistent salary even if there's not much work to do (typical scenario where you're clocking 8 hours a day but only 2 of those hours are productive things). A freelancer might get 5 productive hours in for that day, charge for 5 hours and after a week they clocked 25 hours but a salary worker would have clocked 40 and was productive for less than half (not due to laziness but there's just not enough "real" work to do).

After factoring in everything, if the freelancer is technically 4x or even 5x the salary worker's hourly rate the business still comes out ahead.

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

#279

Post by moate » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:56 PM UTC

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47

toomuchtodo wrote: post #39

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Maybe! In the interim, burn rates of already unprofitable companies are going to increase drastically. Does it matter if you overturn the law if you’ve already ceased operations?

Uber ride share is actually profitable in California (and most of the USA), they are burning lots of cash on UberEats however. If this law is applied fairly, it affects taxi and limo operators as well, so everyone will be in the same boat at least, fares will surge but they will still be in business.

>>If this law is applied fairly, it affects taxi and limo operators as well

Many of those people are already employees or owner/operators. That's why Uber, etc. was able to undercut their fare rates.

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

#280

Post by ovulator » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 1:59 PM UTC

badpun wrote: post #227

fuzz4lyfe wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>One medical emergency will end it all. One medical emergency and your credit will be ruined. Wait a seven years without contracting the debt collector and the debt becomes uncollectible. After three years roughly three quarters of the effect on your credit will evaporate. That's what actually happens beyond the hyperbolic political grandstanding. Remember kids, if you get a bill that you can't possibly pay. Don't pa…

Don't the debt collectors start with taking everything you own (money in bank, house, car etc.) first? And after that, they'll take most of your salary, leaving you only enough to physically survive. That's how it works in Poland, by law. The only available loophole is to work illegally till the end your life, so that the collectors can't get their hands on that money.

That depends on who you owe the debt too, do you owe the debt to the IRS or another government agency? Yes, they can take your stuff and garnish your wages.

Do you owe the debt to American Express? It depends on the state in the US, they can sue you, and try to garnish wages and take assets that way. But some states have laws against things like wage garnishing, it also costs money to sue some one. So if $costToSue > $expectedDebtRecovery they aren't going to sue. They usually just sell the debt to a collections agency who just calls you relentlessly trying to get you to pay, and since the collection agency bought the debt so cheap, they aren't going to throw more costs to collect the money by suing. If they can get any money out of you just by calling, it's a win for them.