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

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 754 posts

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

#331

Post by PorterDuff »

pishpash wrote: post #226
edouard-harris wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bill makes an exception for engineers, among other professions: > An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

Software "engineer" is not a (licensed) engineer, for the hundredth time.

It's a shame that doesn't exist. I've always thought you could make an especially strong argument for licensing for embedded software people, for many of the same reasons that a PE is licensed.

It wouldn't be a requirement for a job necessarily, but not a bad thing to have.

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

#332

Post by throwaway_law »

csunbird wrote: post #308
throwaway_law wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That would not apply to software developers, even if they call themselves engineers, software developers are not licensed professional engineers (i.e. civil engineers). For example a Software Developer can't start a professional corporation in California like a lawyer, architect, civil engineer, accountant etc...

unless they have a college degree

a College degree != a professional license

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

#333

Post by scardine »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #209
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.

It does matter. Here's why: 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 bankrup…

Interesting, in Brazil all the companies in the chain are liable in a labor-related law suit. Before the 2017 Labor Reform[1], frivolous law suits by former employees were a billionaire market because it used to be a risk-free gamble - after the reform the litigant is liable for exaggerated claims and there was a 46% drop in labor cases[2].

When I look at any market where the labor code is excessively protective, I see high unemployment rates specially among the young - Brazil, Spain, France[3]... I don't know about causation but clearly there is a correlation between employee over-protection and unemployment rates. I think it is the law of unintended consequences[4] in action: the legislator intention was good (protecting employee) but the net result is negative.

[1] https://www.jonesday.com/en/insights/2017/12/brazilian-labor...

[2] https://www.capital-ges.com/an-insider-view-of-the-brazilian...

[3] https://countryeconomy.com/unemployment

[4] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unintended_consequences

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

#334

Post by galangalalgol »

dustinmoris wrote: post #291
neltnerb wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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. This attitute is exactly why those laws are needed. As a business owner if you want to hire some other human being to work for your company then it should be your natural instinct that wants you to learn everything that makes the life of that other h…

Wow! He just spoke of how what he actually misses is the relationships and th mentoring. He clearly is thinkin of the potential employees as people first. Your attacks seem emotionally motivated. Not all jobs are slave and master relationships. I cant imagine anyone is motivated to learn and keep up to date on the current labor laws regardless of their level of compassion for those they employ. At the small end of the business spectrum hiring events are much more often "my sister knows a guy who could do this for you and he needs a job right now, wouldn't you like to work 50hrs a week instead of 70?"

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

#335

Post by streb-lo »

donatj wrote: post #276
neltnerb wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Terrifyingly complex?

We're talking about a Google search and a few forms...

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

#336

Post by CodeCube »

buildzr wrote: post #317
dustinmoris wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. This attitute is exactly why those laws are needed. As a business owner if you want to hire some other human being to work for your company then it should be your natural instinct that wants you to learn everything that makes the life of that other h…

And that attitude is the reason we have so much overhead and useless garbage being produced instead of valuable labor. Just because I don't want to learn the intricacies of labor and tax law doesn't mean I won't pay my employees well and do right by them.

Just because you say you will pay your employees and do right by them, doesn't mean someone else will do the same ... for every one of you, there's someone who will happily exploit someone else, and whether it can be attributed to malice, or ignorance is irrelevant.

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

#337

Post by gamblor956 »

swalsh wrote: post #190
mikekchar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

In 2019, it's probably not too out of scope for nearly any business to argue software is a core part of their daily activities. The digital transformation is basically done, if in the last 10 years you didn't turn your company into a quasi-tech company your competitors did and you died. I'd make the guess that one could go into finer detail on what specific type of software development falls in-line with the daily ac…

When they say "usual course of business" they mean the revenue generating activity, not essential support functions.

I.e., Uber could not outsource driving if it calls itself a transportation company, but it could outsource accounting functions.

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

#338

Post by quaquaqua1 »

gamblor956 wrote: post #328
quaquaqua1 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does matter. Here's why: 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 bankrup…

The law allows for veil piercing in situations like that, meaning they could skip the temporary intermediaries and just treat Uber as the employer. Believe it or not, they did think of issues like this when drafting the law. Especially since almost all of these other issues brought up in the comments are decades old and already addressed by existing labor laws.

That was not immediately known to me, because in New York where my family member is a lawyer, something like the following will happen:

Company X owns Company Y. Company Y builds an apartment building of low quality and hides the defects. They sell the apartments to individual buyers.

The individual buyers sue Company X years later upon finding the defects. The judge throws out the lawsuit and says "you can only sue Company Y, because that is the legal entity who built the building."

The only issue is that Company Y is several million dollars in debt to Company X and has absolutely no way of repaying anyone who sues Company Y.

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

#339

Post by infosec4life »

miracle2k wrote: post #327
Quanttek wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "flexibility" means precarity as the majority of gig employees do this full-time: >In California, the legislation will affect at least one million workers who have been on the receiving end of a decades-long trend of outsourcing and franchising work, making employer-worker relationships more arm’s-length. Many people have been pushed into contractor status with no access to basic protections like a minimum wage…

Of course they don't have to schedule them. But if Uber has to take them on as employees, then Uber might reasonably want to take advantage of their right as an employer to force them to work certain shifts.

Makes sense. I agree with you

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

#340

Post by strictnein »

Donald wrote: post #165
mikekchar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

You can still form an LLC and hire yourself as a w-2 employee.

IANAL, but don't you need an s-corp for that?

This seems to be saying the same thing: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/true-owner-llc-cannot-w2-inc...

Post reply on HN