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.
for a bad job. It's better to not have a job than one that doesn't pay a living wage.
Here is what they should do:
You are an employee if ANY of the following are true:
* They have any control over your clothing, besides requiring safety equipment
* They control your hours, rather than give deadlines.
* They can require you to do things using their method, rather than accepting any method.
* They make any attempt to find out if you are working for other people, let alone prevent you from doing this.
* They decide which sub-contractor does the work, rather than the head contractor.
excitingthingstodo.blogspot.com
potentially upending their business models
Good.
A company's business model should not be based on exploiting people who are desperate for work.
Pay decent wages and benefits, or, GTFO.
Half of the gig economy is companies trying to cheap out on traditional worker benefits. Uber is one of them, and they can suck it up.
A worker-centric gig economy isn't managed by the platform: the workers should decide whether/how they deliver the goods or services, have some meaningful control over prices/profits, and be able to accrue a meaningful reputation.
If the gig platform forces its workers to behave 90% like employees, then yeah, round that number up and call them employees.
---
According to the latest ruleset, this post should be modded as Vorpal Flamebait +5.
Having more people on the dole means more control so the government can take better caer of the people.
Save it the Libertarian/Conservative fairy tale shit.
The housing market has broken from the labor market. In the olden days, housing prices were limited by people's incomes.
No more. Thanks to cheap money for the last decade, hedge funds looking for returns, they have used that cheap money to buy housing; which subsequently pushed housing prices out of the reach of many people.
All over the country.
However, the market for labor - all up and down the food chain - hasn't kept up because unlike housing (and land), you can offshore labor one way or another (H1-bs, anyone?)
That's why in Silly Valley you can make what would be awesome money in most parts of the country and yet live pay check to pay check.
And that's why we're becoming a renters society.
I am just wondering what business model that employs any significant number of people you think is NOT based on exploiting people desperate for work?
Of course, there is desperate and there is desperate, but that is pretty much why it is called work, not fun, and its not easy to be paid to have fun.
Of course the translation of what you are saying is actually:
'I am set up enough to have a solid job with prospects, and I see no reason why people who are not should have a job, because they cannot earn enough to make it worthwhile in my view'
And that is pretty god damn bad.
So the right wing generally wants to improve things for the middle classes and try to life people into the middle classes.
Citation sorely fucking needed.
It seems it's more akin to:
left: you have yours, we're going to take it from you and give to someone else.
right: i have mine, fuck you.
Will this change also affect contractors that were independent contractors long before this new gig economy trend? For example, if a family owned rug store offers to tell rug installing contractors about sales done that day (with the approval of the customer), are those contractors now under threat of becoming employees? What if the store offers to arrange the timing of the appointment for installation?
Your characterization doesn't hold. The right is also full of people who are dirt poor but still think their ship will come in. Meanwhile, there's some crazy wealthy people leaning left out there. Also a lot of people who work for a living that couldn't be called unsuccessful.
Most of the trap aspect of the safety net is the result of the right trying to push people out of the net before they're quite able to land on their feet.
Yeah....that seems to be a stickler in this country: many folks base a person's value on their ability to produce, IQ, and wealth (hence why Eric Trump is "worth" more than those school teachers in ....well, everywhere.)
Zuckerberg gets his ass kissed for pimping out people's data (and he'll never stop) while others get kicked in the ass for caring about the little things in life and the little people.
We have a segment of society that will literally kill to protect the unborn but when it comes to a living child's well-being, it's dog eat dog.
What a twisted fucked up society we live in.
Don't mind me; I have a great inheritance from a father that invested in defense stocks. Every time a POTUS says "bomb", I make enough to buy a low end BMW. And people kiss my ass because I got money from choosing my parents well.
I'd laugh if it weren't so pathetic.
The Right is more along the lines of, "I earned mine, you go earn yours".
What, the Republican Party? Really? Do you mean the people who enthusiastically shovel tax money at whichever industry happens to be funding their reelection campaign?
Or maybe you mean the Democrats who basically do the same thing.
Please don't pretend there's any left wing in US politics, because there is not.
The basic crux of the problem here is part-time employment. It's been abused and misused to an extreme that is just unimaginable.
What used to be a rare sight, a fluke, a unicorn in the overall job market, the part-time job. The paper-boy route for the aspiring teenager. Or the babysitting gig for the stay-at-home mom.
Someone took this and ran into hell with in it and dragged us all along for a painful experience that we're currently living through. Part-time was never supposed to be a career choice. It was never supposed to be the only thing you could find. It was a stop-gap, a place for the teenager or young adult. Now it's become THE JOB MARKET. Fulltime employment is hard to come by now.
Why? Well, because part-time employees are cheaper. You don't have to pay benefits, or retirement plans for part-time employees. It's supposed to be a temporary job after all, not your career. But now, it is. The part-time job has metamorphosed into the mechanism by which the employer is abusing the employee. When they realized the gold-mine of cheap labor they had with the part-time employee, they did any good business person would do. They got rid of the expensive full-time employees and just hired a few more part-timers to fill the gaps.
Now employers are taking it a step further. Our employees, they're not employees at all. At least on paper. We pay them as contractors and as such, we're not subject to ANY employer/employee rules at all. Even cheaper. Nice. Another win for the top. Yay?
The race to the bottom is making no winners except for those at the very top. And you jerkoffs who come in here and scream personal rights about part-time or 'gig employment', you can just go take a flying leap. Your kind landed us in this awful situation, and I don't think you have any right to say anything anymore. The part-time job needs to be restored to a temporary thing, not the new normal. An awful lot of people died, spent time in jails, or detention camps, to win the rights we have as employees and I think it's pretty fucking selfish for some of our population to sell that out for their own selfish reasons.
I do contract work for many companies and my work is core to what they do. I set my own hours, use almost all my own equipment, work in my own office, subcontract out some QA and repairs, I even bill in 15 minute intervals - I don't see how I'm different from an Uber driver. The existing test of control made perfect sense.
Question - will I now have to be an employee of the American companies I'm currently doing contract work for? or just companies in California?
The most likely answer is the same way they deal with an increase in fuel/food/other costs. They pass it on to the customer. You don't think an increase in minimum wage is the first time a business has ever had to deal with a rising cost of business, do you?
Of course, that can (and often does) lead to a virtuous cycle. The employees have more money, so they can afford to buy things, so businesses have more money. At the same time, less demand for SNAP and other safety net services means we don't have that coming out of our pockets anymore. That also means more people with more to spend.
As a nice bonus, since low wage payers are forced to stop dipping into our pockets through subsidized payroll, they get our money based on merit, just like the market intended :-)
potentially upending their business models
Their "business model", if you want to call it that, was precisely to circumvent those regulations. It's a bit like basing a business on not paying taxes and then crying when the IRS comes knocking.
Really? Your business doesn't function anymore when you have to run it like a proper business? Maybe there's a problem with your business model in such case?
Assorted stuff I do sometimes: Lemuria.org
A big issue with the safety net is having it done so horribly that in order to have the net you basically have to throw everything away. To be on food stamps you cannot have ANY savings. Having just a little in your account gets you kicked off food stamps, you can lose housing assistance, etc. Why are the poor underbanked? Because of this.
How do you dig yourself out of being on welfare, by saving money. But when having $500 in the bank* means you lose the $500 of food stamps for your family of 5, how can anyone ever save themselves out of poverty? If they were putting aside $100/mo for 5 months, then lose $500 of benefits for having the audacity to save money you create an unpenetrable barrier for the poor to pass through, with the only possible way to find a job that increases your income by more than the benefits you lose.
With this method there is no way for them to have an emergency fund, no way to pay for car repairs, or to buy a nice pair of shoes that will last a year rather than a few months. It gets expensive to be poor, taking out payday loans, or suffering from the repeating late fees that are stacking up.
As a middlish class person (I really have no idea what class I belong to) so many things come free. I don't pay for banking, I never have late fees, hell, I can even travel hack with credit cards throwing $500 at me every month for signing up and travel internationally for free. Things like this are beyond the reach of those on welfare. Why might one have a shiny iPhone, because the $600 phone doesn't get their $500 food stamps taken away, whereas that same money in a bank account would.**
The Republicans want to make this system worse, have higher requirements for it, make the time people can collect shorter, screen out as many people as possible.
TL;DR I agree with you.
* It might be $2k, I'm not sure, but the point is still the same
** I don't know how many on welfare have one, or if this is the exact logic they used
This freethinking, gun-owning vegetarian apologizes, in advance, for any cognitive duress experienced by our clearly 'well-intentioned but otherwise government-educated' brethren in the UK - lay off the soy, boys; the effects of phytoestrogen are showing... ;)