Slashdot Mirror
Gig Economy Business Model Dealt a Blow in California Ruling (nytimes.com)
In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees. The New York Times: The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models. Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work. "It's a massive thing -- definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips. The court essentially scrapped the existing test for determining employee status, which was used to assess the degree of control over the worker. That test hinged on roughly 10 factors, like the amount of supervision and whether the worker could be fired without cause.
That is mostly because they want voters.
Many people have lost tough with one base truism of the right/left wing political process.
'Successful' people, especially those who made their own way to success, are generally right wing voters, to try and protect what they have.
'Unsuccessful' people are generally left wing voters, because they want more 'give me'.
Both sides want more voters.
So the right wing generally wants to improve things for the middle classes and try to life people into the middle classes.
The left wing generally wants more people on state support, so does their best to force and trap people down to that level.
This is completely sensible from a power point of view, as it gives the two sides more support, more votes, and more chance at power.
THIS folks is the big picture. Politicians care about little else than votes, and while they tend to be rather short sighted, their parties often play
the longer game, and do realise this.
A *LOT* of policy makes much more sense when you look at the reality of the voter pools.