People seem to think this is going to hurt workers, but it was gig economy workers who pushed for this law. Workers know their own conditions better than you do.
California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
521–530 of 754 posts
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#522Earlier 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 might be reading it wrong... everything in law is in a grey area until further defined in court, but legal documents should typically be read with full boolean logic applied to all the words: "control and direction" - sure, they give you direction. But do they control what tools you use, when and how you do it? "connection with the performance of the work" - Are they controlling the final deliverable, or the perf…
Additionally on (A) this is massively beneficial to contractors. They cannot force you to work in an office or the hours you work which is key for a freelancer/contractor/creator/developer.
The items are already part of California's contract law well before this current gig economy bill.
California classifies 'independent contractor' as [1]:
1. Whether the person performing services is engaged in an occupation or business distinct from that of the principal;
2. Whether or not the work is a part of the regular business of the principal or alleged employer;
3. Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;
4. The alleged employee's investment in the equipment or materials required by his or her task or his or her employment of helpers;
5. Whether the service rendered requires a special skill;
6. The kind of occupation, with reference to whether, in the locality, the work is usually done under the direction of the principal or by a specialist without supervision;
7. The alleged employee's opportunity for profit or loss depending on his or her managerial skill;
8. The length of time for which the services are to be performed;
9. The degree of permanence of the working relationship;
10. The method of payment, whether by time or by the job; and
11. Whether or not the parties believe they are creating an employer-employee relationship may have some bearing on the question, but is not determinative since this is a question of law based on objective tests.
The key line for software developers who are independent contractors is "Whether the principal or the worker supplies the instrumentalities, tools, and the place for the person doing the work;"
Contractors that work in a home office, using their skills to bring to a company for a project, at their own place, time and tools, that is an independent contractor.
It could be argued that drivers that own their cars, that can choose to accept or deny a particular task, without it hurting their competitive rating, could be seen as an 'independent contractor'.
I think the gig economy bill from OP is targeting known companies that are taking advantage of this by wanting 'independent contractors' that they can schedule and dictate their day and use metrics against them when they aren't available at the time. They should pay people as employees if they need people available then have contractors fill in when needed. This will probably lead to some fulltime Uber/Lyft and the rest floaters that can be like the current gig setup.
[1] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#523Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
You can get a computer engineering PE, which would probably be appropriate for the vast majority of embedded software developers. There was a software PE for a few years, but my understanding is that it was dropped for lack of interest.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#524All 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…
The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…
> Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them.
This is a gross oversimplification. Two risks that immediately come to mind, increases to the Employer’s Disability Insurance and Unemployment Insurance either through fraud(speaking from experience), or, in the scenario mentioned by gp, when you lay the worker off at the end of the need.
My comment also is a gross oversimplification.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#525Earlier quoted context omitted.
The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…
> The US public does not want this That's far from clear. Polling fairly consistently shows that the US public favors at least some degree of it (particularly shifting the healthcare burden from employers to government, other benefits have less political salience), though any particular plan for the detailed mechanism may have trouble gaining majority support.
But it seems like an apathetic kind of want. There are degrees imo; if the people truly wanted something they would exert more effort than this showing. As it stands people may say they want it in polls but won't even vote for politicians that will make it a reality.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#526People seem to think this is going to hurt workers, but it was gig economy workers who pushed for this law. Workers know their own conditions better than you do.
That doesn't mean they know the law or can think through the consequences. Kind of a like a genie wish situation.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#527People seem to think this is going to hurt workers, but it was gig economy workers who pushed for this law. Workers know their own conditions better than you do.
People often vote against their own interests and the fact that there were gig economy workers pushing for this does not mean they as a group want it.
Gig economy workers are not a whole. Some of them really do just want a bit of extra income on the side. That is very incompatible with this new law.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#528Earlier quoted context omitted.
> A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour. No, it will probably exclude people who just want to work 2 hours some evenings whenever they have time to make some extra money, who'd make the full 10 dollars an hour like other drivers do in the time that they do work.
Frame it another way: You have 120 hours of shifts that you need covered at your job in a given week. You can hire 12 people who each work 10 hours, or 3 full-time employees. The "better" choice again comes down to your goal: More jobs or "better", full time jobs.
There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.
Consumers should also be considered. If casual drivers are excluded, the smaller pool of drivers will cause prices to rise. Some consumers who previously used ride sharing will go back to driving their own cars.
There's also the removal of a smooth transition driving as a career. If you can do it casually for a few hours you can discover if you enjoy it and want to quit your job and do it full time. If the only option is to be a full time employee, you have to go through the hiring process and take a risk of quitting your current job just to see if it's for you.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#529From the bill: (c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality. It really irks me that they can posit this in legislation without supporting data. It seems like a dubious claim, at best.
The misclassification of health insurance as a service employers should provide instead of government has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class.
I can throw out random assertions as well.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#530Earlier quoted context omitted.
Meh, as a freelance software engineer who sometimes works for California employers, I'll be happy to classify myself as an employee and decline health insurance in exchange for higher pay. While the law could have been written more simply, I think your concern for my well-being is misplaced.
It's not that simple. For a company, a contractor is much different than an employee, and it is much more regulated and costly to terminate an employee. For example, if you terminate an employee you have to have proper documentation to justify the termination. Even then, you are still vulnerable to a wrongful termination lawsuit...unless you offer them severance in exchange for signing away the right to sue. You are…
Wouldn't a way to "work around" this be to incorporate or form a sole proprietorship for your own services?