Drudge Retort: The Other Side of the News
Friday, January 03, 2020

The bill, already the subject of sturm, drang, and a $110 million campaign for a state ballot initiative funded by the companies it targets, is meant to transform the hundreds of thousands of contractors in the state working for companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Instacart, and Postmates into employees. This reclassification would entitle them to benefits like hourly minimum wages, workers' and expense compensation, and potentially, health care.

Advertisement

More

Comments

Admin's note: Participants in this discussion must follow the site's moderation policy. Profanity will be filtered. Abusive conduct is not allowed.

Happy New Years to progressive free-lancers who vote for moonbeamers.

You built that.

#1 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-03 03:21 PM | Reply | Funny: 1

Nulli hates AB 5 because god forbid workers should be entitled to the minimum wage and health benefits. What a tool.

#2 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-03 03:23 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Be careful what you wish for

static.pjmedia.com

#3 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-03 03:24 PM | Reply

#1 | Posted by nullifidian

"Free Lancers" mostly don't want to be Free Lancers. When all the actual workers a multi-billiion dollar company employs are "contractors" seems like there is an issue.

#4 | Posted by GalaxiePete at 2020-01-03 03:36 PM | Reply

Companies that can only exist by exploiting workers probably shouldn't be around.

#5 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-03 07:46 PM | Reply

The people opposing this are free-lancers who want the flexibility to work as much or as little as they want, on their schedule. The big government progressives and union bosses want them under their heel.

#6 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-03 07:58 PM | Reply

"as little as they want, on their schedule."

They should unionize!

#7 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-03 08:02 PM | Reply

"Nulli hates AB 5 because god forbid workers should be entitled to the minimum wage and health benefits. What a tool.
#2 | POSTED BY MODER8"

What you fail to realize is that a lot of 'gig' contractors are not employees because their efforts are not worth the extra pay - and more importantly - extra hassle with actual employment. For example, if I am Uber - you open yourself up to lawsuits if your now employees get into a car accident. So, to prevent this - you better expect to pee in a cup and other random drug tests.

As the end of the day - it is the hassle and liability which makes turning them into employees unworkable. So, the logical response from the companies is to simply cut the position rather than turn them into employees - we saw this in the media already. I would expect Uber - which is already hemorrhaging money - to simply pull out of the CA market because their business model cannot take this added cost and hassle without raising prices to the point that their service is no longer in demand.

For ride sharing, I think this is horrible societal results. I would suspect that Uber has generated additional business for the entertainment sector of the economy as well as saved countless lives from alcohol related accidents. If people have to worry about going downtown and finding parking - then knowing you need to stop after a beer or 2 out of safety, a lot of people will probably just skip the hassle and stay local or stay home. So, this is going to have big knock on effects. I would assume the result will be increased police money for DUI busts and a booming business in the lawyer business for people defending DUI arrests. Add on the fact that weed is legal in CA and I see a spike in auto deaths in the coming years.

I will add that the liberals are so transparent in their hypocrisy in this as it relates to illegals doing the 'gig' economy in the building/trades/landscaping business for YEARS. Why no outcry against people picking up the illegals at Home Depot?

Lastly, I was part of the 'sharing' economy with an AirBNB rental in Sacramento. When I first started renting it - it is a spare unit that I usually kept vacant for out of town guests, etc - and it was a nice extra cash each month. I was making about $3,000/month in rent - about $2,500 after expenses. I was even considering converting some of my other units into Airbnb so I could bring the cleaner on full time. But then the city stepped in and limited the number of days allowed per year. Then they stepped in and started collecting city fees like they would on a hotel. As more people entered the AirBNB market, prices came down a bit as there was more competition and the city fees added 20% to the cost of a rental. So, I went from $3000 to $2200 due to less days/month rented. After expenses - I was at $1,700/month and the class of AirBNB renters declined and their expectations went up. I could rent it as a long term apartment for $1,700 and I would not have to deal with 10 customers/month arranging for my cleaner to do check-in/check-out.

So, I said F' it and took my unit off the market. It just wasn't worth the hassle. So, I would expect the same out of Uber if CA puts this into law. Who wins in this scenario? Not the employs (like my cleaner) as they are out of a job. Not the companies as they exit the business. Not the customers as prices go up. - the only winner is the old established businesses - licensed taxi companies that had service so bad and prices so high that Uber was invented in the first place.

Yes, Liberals lack the ability to see more than 3 months into the future which is why they can never see the consequences of their moronic actions.

#8 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-03 09:40 PM | Reply

Those poor, poor giant international corporations such as Uber! Having to pay minimum wage. The Horror!

Cry me a river you corporate shill.

#9 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-03 09:45 PM | Reply

Nulli you're a real moron. Go back to Russia!

#10 | Posted by zelkova at 2020-01-03 09:54 PM | Reply

Advertisement

Advertisement

"Those poor, poor giant international corporations such as Uber! Having to pay minimum wage. The Horror!
Cry me a river you corporate shill.
#9 | POSTED BY MODER8"

Uber has systematically pulled out of the markets (China, Vietnam, etc) because it is a marginal business at best. It has lost more money than any previous start-up ever. Even without CA doing this, Uber is likely to fail and go bankrupt. Personally, I see this as a bad thing. I think the US' lack of workable public transport + an outdated taxi services based on a licensed monopoly status is a horrible direction for the company and will lead to more drunk driving deaths.

But hey - You got to "stick to the man!"....great trade-off moron.

#11 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-03 09:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

California's War on Gig Work Falls Hardest on Women

California's Assembly Bill 5 has already had an adverse impact on the state's freelance writers, approximately two-thirds of whom are women.

"CNBC reports:

A writer named Rebecca Lawson, who covered the NBA's Dallas Mavericks from San Diego, wrote a post on Monday titled, "California's terrible AB5 came for me today, and I'm devastated." Lawson, who was editor-in-chief of the blog Mavs Moneyball, said she would be forced to step down as of March 31.

"SB Nation has chosen to do the easiest thing they can to comply with California law " not work with California-based independent contractors, or any contractors elsewhere writing for California-based teams," Lawson wrote. "I don't blame them at all."

#12 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-03 10:03 PM | Reply

""SB Nation has chosen to do the easiest thing they can to comply with California law " not work with California-based independent contractors, or any contractors elsewhere writing for California-based teams," Lawson wrote. "I don't blame them at all."
#12 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN "

The logical conclusion - mass firings, not increased wages. Liberals really do have an issue with planning.

#13 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-03 10:11 PM | Reply

"a lot of 'gig' contractors are not employees because their efforts are not worth the extra pay"

Translation: We enjoy the product, but don't believe you deserve to afford your rent.

Ultimately, this law is misguided: for one, Uber drivers can work or not, as they choose, and their bosses don't have control over their hours or their product, so according to federal tax law, they can be treated as self-employed.

For another, CA couldn't have chosen a worse time to pass this law, at a time when, according to the new tax code, wage workers can no longer deduct things like miles driven, but self-employed workers can. IOW, a bassist playing a pair of 2.5 hr sets, five nights a week, wouldn't qualify for health insurance, and meanwhile their strings, instrument, and lessons--which could've been written off were they self-employed--are no longer deductible.

#14 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-03 10:26 PM | Reply

"California's War on Gig Work Falls Hardest on Women"

Is this the point where Republicans pretend to care about women?

#15 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-03 10:27 PM | Reply

"Not the employs (like my cleaner) as they are out of a job. "

Except she wasn't your employ, she was your hire...right? You didn't pay her wages, and withhold federal & state taxes while paying half the payroll taxes, right?

That's the point. Employees are paid wages, from which payroll taxes are withheld and matched by the employer; hirees are paid $100 for the $100 job, and are responsible for both halves of the payroll taxes.

#16 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-03 10:33 PM | Reply

"Except she wasn't your employ, she was your hire...right? You didn't pay her wages, and withhold federal & state taxes while paying half the payroll taxes, right?
#16 | POSTED BY DANFORTH "

She was my employee by the common English usage of the word - she was not be the US government labor law definition. She was in independent contractor. I was paying her $500/month for maybe 10-15 hours of actual work, which basically accounted for a stripping of the bed sheets (she washed those at home as I have multiple sets), clean the floors, make sure the dishes are done, etc. It was a great deal for her as her wages/hour are actually quite high. My plan was to turn 4-5 more units to airbnb so she would be making $2000 - $2500/month for maybe 60-90 hours/month of work. At that point, I actually register her as an employee with all benefits for her that entails. But, at $500/month, it is not worth the hassle for me to do that. So, rather than creating an environment where she could make $30+/hour and get 4x more hours, the job is just going away. You will see the same with Uber. This DOES NOT HELP THE EMPLOYEES.

#17 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-03 10:50 PM | Reply

"She was my employee by the common English usage of the word"

No, that's not true. She was your hiree. An employer, BY DEFINITION, pays half of the payroll taxes, and issues a W-2.

"she was not (by) the US government labor law definition.

Then she wasn't your employee, by definition. This isn't subject to your whim.

"At that point, I actually register her as an employee with all benefits for her that entails."

No you wouldn't. You would've still paid her as a hiree, and would've avoided making her an employee because it costs more.

"she would be making $2000 - $2500/month for maybe 60-90 hours/month of work."

IOW, assuming the mid-point, your big plan was to cut her hourly rate by 25%.

"This DOES NOT HELP THE EMPLOYEES."

You're right: cutting their hourly wage by 25% doesn't help them.

#18 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-03 11:58 PM | Reply

"#18 | POSTED BY DANFORTH"

I truly hope you don't give anyone advice in real life as your analysis is scary stupid. So, in honor of starting the new year where we left off the last - by me continually kicking your ass in any discussion, financial or otherwise, I will give you a point by point breakdown of just how stupid your argument is:

"No, that's not true. She was your hiree."

I said common usage in English. For this - let's go to the dictionary:
def - "a person employed for wages or salary, especially at nonexecutive level."....so, strike #1 - YOU ARE WRONG. Words have meaning no matter how many times Liberals try to redefine terms like gender, marriage, or baby.

"IOW, assuming the mid-point, your big plan was to cut her hourly rate by 25%."

This is a moronic conclusion and factually wrong. I pay her by the job, not by the hour so 'cutting her wages' is not possible. Every time she cleans, I pay her $50. Could take her 1 hour, could take her 1.5 hours - up to her. So, YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG.

On a bigger picture level, she currently drives 10 minutes each way to do the 1 hour cleaning. If I had 5 apartments doing AirBNB, her commuting time would be a much smaller portion of her total time. In essence, she has economies of scale with her working/commuting hours while my cost remains unchanged at $50/cleaning. So, on a holistic level - YOU ARE WRONG.

"You're right: cutting their hourly wage by 25% doesn't help them."

And this last gem sums up why the Dems are poor SOB's on average. This is an unskilled cleaning position paying $50/hour because it is limited hours. Even if your argument above is correct (which we have already covered that it is not), I think most unskilled people looking to better themselves would gladly trade 10 hours/month at $50/hour for 60 hours/month at $37.50/hour. Only a lazy braindead Liberal would make your assumption that it is not worth their time to work 60 hours/week at $37.50/hour.

Again, do the world a favor and stop responding on financial topics. You only make yourself - and liberals in general - look stupid.

#19 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-04 12:47 AM | Reply

Again, do the world a favor and stop responding on financial topics. You only make yourself - and liberals in general - look stupid.

POSTED BY IRAGOLDBERG AT 2020-01-04 12:47 AM | REPLY

images.app.goo.gl

#20 | Posted by LauraMohr at 2020-01-04 12:54 AM | Reply

#20 | POSTED BY LAURAMOHR

You have to be a special kind of stupid to argue with Douchefroth about money AND LOSE. That guy is a total, clueless joke.

But, how about you give your answer Laura. You seem like an unskilled labor type. Would you choose:

1.) Work 10 hours/month @ $50/hour ($500/month)
2.) Work 60 hours/month @ $37.50/hour ($2250/month)

Which would you choose?

#21 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-04 12:59 AM | Reply

1.) Work 10 hours/month @ $50/hour ($500/month)
2.) Work 60 hours/month @ $37.50/hour ($2250/month)

10 hours, and find another 50 at option two

Or another 5 10 hour intervals at option one.

The opportunity cost of two is the loss of income at one. Do you think you are the only person hiring the cleaning lady?

You decided to forgo $1700 a month, leaving a building empty, because it's a hassle to call up a cleaning lady and do some emailing back and forth? What is that an hour of work? Man you are lazy.

#22 | Posted by dibblda at 2020-01-04 01:48 AM | Reply

"Do you think you are the only person hiring the cleaning lady?"

For $37.50/hour to her and not a cleaning service which kicks her back minimum wage, HELL YES.

"You decided to forgo $1700 a month, leaving a building empty, because it's a hassle to call up a cleaning lady and do some emailing back and forth? What is that an hour of work? Man you are lazy.
#22 | POSTED BY DIBBLDA"

My time is worth more than the headache of dealing with people - so I have the option to forego $1700/month and it really doesn't impact me. Sorry, but I don't want to deal with calls over Thanksgiving, or Christmas, or a call at 2am because the guests were out at a bar and lost the keys. I worked hard and successfully my whole life so I don't have to work hard for this one now. I have 16 other rental units each pulling $1,500 - $2,000/month and I get a call from a tenant maybe once every 2 months. With AirBNB, I get a call about every 3rd rental. So, just not worth the headache - not the hours, but when the hours occur. I don't think I will be the only one removing AirBNB listings.

#23 | Posted by iragoldberg at 2020-01-04 02:17 AM | Reply

"I said common usage in English."

You admitted it doesn't qualify under the law. And by definition, WAGES are when taxes are withheld and a W-2 is issued. You neither withheld taxes, nor issued her a W-2. And you certainly didn't pay half her payroll taxes, nor is she eligible for workers' comp, or unemployment once the job ends. She is NOT your employee, no matter how much you want to pretend.

"Cutting her wages is not possible"

Only because you're not paying her "wages". But you've cut her hourly pay, using the midpoints of YOUR OWN EXAMPLE.

"60 hours a week at $37.50 an hour"

Great...now you've changed the midpoint, and you're working someone 20 hours of overtime without paying time and a half. And added to the list above, you're certainly not providing health insurance.

The rest of your tap dancing included parameters you had to add once I exposed your grand plan to cut her pay. Now put those goalposts back where you found them.

#24 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 02:20 AM | Reply

"YOU ARE FACTUALLY WRONG."

I used the example YOU GAVE. Try the math again WITHOUT moving the goalposts YOU SET UP, dumbschitt.

#25 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 02:29 AM | Reply

#25 | POSTED BY DANFORTH

It's late and you are arguing with a turnip. I assume you know that?

#26 | Posted by REDIAL at 2020-01-04 02:38 AM | Reply

The Gig economy is about using semantics to dodge regulations and shift costs to the worker.

#27 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2020-01-04 07:18 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I said common usage in English. For this - let's go to the dictionary: def - "a person employed for wages or salary, especially at nonexecutive level."....so, strike #1 - YOU ARE WRONG. Words have meaning..."

And the MEANING of both "wages" and "salary" are that the employer withholds taxes, and issues a W-2. You do neither. As you said, words have meaning, and in the definition YOU CITED, you're the one who is wrong, calling a hiree an employee. She's not, no matter how much you want to pretend.

Meanwhile, you keep declaring yourself the winner, like someone rounding first in a home run trot, about to suddenly discover the catcher is holding strike three. Forgive me while I laugh at your dumb ass.

#28 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 08:04 AM | Reply

The big government progressives and union bosses want them under their heel.

The oppressive heel of fair wages and benefits in exchange for their hard work. How will they ever recover?

#29 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 08:29 AM | Reply

Free lancers want freedom. Leftists and unions want control. Nuff said.

#30 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-04 08:39 AM | Reply

You're not the authority on what anyone wants, you senile old coot.

#31 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 08:45 AM | Reply

"The oppressive heel of fair wages and benefits in exchange for their hard work. How will they ever recover?"

Yeah...so Uber is not their employer. Their passengers are. Uber is simply the communication link between driver and passenger.

Just when I think there might be a progressive out there with an iota of economic sense...I go and read a post like this and see that it's probably never going to be.

#32 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 10:15 AM | Reply

Uber is not their employer. Their passengers are. Uber is simply the communication link between driver and passenger.

Ask any Uber driver who they drive for. Nearly 100% of them will say "Uber." They get paid by Uber. Their earnings reports come from Uber. Their 1099s come from Uber. Do you send your Uber driver a 1099?

You're ignorant of reality.

#33 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 10:24 AM | Reply

"The big government progressives and union bosses want them under their heel."

Nulli, please, in the future, when posting one of your right wing talking points try to rephrase it in your own words. Just repeating talking points word for word just makes you look like a parrot.

#34 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-04 10:35 AM | Reply

Uber drivers I've visited with haven't expressed an interest in being employed. They love the freedom which is what drew them to bring an Uber driver in the first place. They had another job and wanted something extra. Of course, they want a bigger cut of the revenue but they aren't wanting that to come in the form of work comp, unemployment, health insurance, etc.

But I don't live in a heavily populated area with virtually full time Uber drivers either.

But if this is what they want.....fine.

#35 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-04 10:38 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The degree of ignorance of economics and common sense on display on this thread is astounding.

FFS - some of you lefties desperately need to take an Econ101 class.

The sad thing for those who are going to be ruined by this law - I don't think it's unconstitutional. It's simply corporate welfare at its finest. Let's take Uber. Uber creates competition for larger cab companies and these companies donate to California Democrats. So, in return these politicians will use the power of the state to drive Uber out in order for said politicians to reward their donors. This isn't the market speaking, it's cronyism.

#36 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-04 10:53 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

--They love the freedom which is what drew them to bring an Uber driver in the first place.

Yep. I know exactly one uber driver. She loves the freedom to take zero gigs or a half dozen on any given day. It's all about freedom and flexibility, which unions and leftists--redundant I know--hate.

#37 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-04 11:02 AM | Reply

With Uber a driver has absolutely no schedule. Drivers just click GO on their app whenever. They can stop whenever. Do one ride, do several. They can go months without clocking in. Or they can clock in every day.
They also pick what areas they want to drive in.

Many drivers work simultaneously for Uber and Lyft clocking into both at the same time, then when a ride comes thru on one they clock out of the other then clock back in to both once the ride is done. Some do that plus simultaneously clock into delivery services such as Postmates.

There are even apps that will manage the clocking in and out automatically for drivers working different platforms simultaneously.

There are good deductions as well for mileage plus the initial 20% deduction off gross income that small businesses now get since from the tax code passed in 2016. Being a contractor is considered running your own business.

#38 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 11:07 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 3

Yep. I know exactly one uber driver. She loves the freedom to take zero gigs or a half dozen on any given day. It's all about freedom and flexibility, which unions and leftists--redundant I know--hate.

#37 | POSTED BY NULLIFIDIAN

Mo Hurst was an Uber driver while he was attending the University of Michigan. He proclaimed he was the best Uber driver in Ann Arbor. Side note: after a career of making life miserable for opposing quarterbacks in college he is now playing in the NFL.

#39 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-04 11:08 AM | Reply

losangeleno.com


Despite AB 5, Uber Drivers Would Rather Quit Than Be Employees.

Gov. Gavin Newsom signed into law Assembly Bill 5, which is intended to reduce worker misclassification by turning "independent contractors," like rideshare drivers, into employees of the companies they work with.

As well-meaning as the change may have been intended, the consensus among the rideshare drivers waiting for pings from an LAX holding lot on a recent Friday said, thanks but no thanks.

Despite all of the complaints, protests and anger from drivers about their treatment from their so-called partners at Uber and Lyft, the top reason people endure the traffic and headaches of driving rideshare professionally in and around L.A. is that the hours are flexible. If you only want to drive after dropping off your kids at school, you can simply turn off the app when you're done. If you want to take a month, two months, six months off from driving you won't even get so much as an email from the companies inquiring your status. I should know. After being an Uber/Lyft driver for over five years, I stopped using the apps almost a year ago and have not heard a peep from either company asking me to return.

Other gigs might say they have flexible hours, but for all its faults, driving for Lyft and Uber is truly a side hustle with few peers.


"When the lawmakers make these laws, they don't live our lives," says Uber driver Hayk (who refused to give his last name). "They don't live like we. They don't struggle like we. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of people who will stop doing Uber, where will they find another job? I have a big family in a two-bedroom creepy apartment. I pay $2,500. My wife got a full-time job. I have to pick my kids up or drop them off. I do that and come back to work, driving. What shift is going to let me do that other than this?"

#40 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 11:16 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

I know exactly one uber driver.

Sounds like you're definitely a leading authority on what uber drivers want.

#41 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 11:17 AM | Reply

#38: on the clock, overlapping sources. What a nightmare for an employer. Are you working for me, them, both? Let's say you work for both from 8-4. During that day, you take 10 separate passengers for a ride.

But, all 10 is with company A and none for company B.

At the end of the day, in 8 hours you actually worked and earned money during 6 hours for one company. The other company, you worked 2 hours and made nothing for either.

You are my employee and I have to give you benefits and you did nothing for me? What a cheating way to be employed for free stuff.

#42 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-04 11:20 AM | Reply

"What you fail to realize is that a lot of 'gig' contractors are not employees because their efforts are not worth the extra pay - and more importantly - extra hassle with actual employment. "

No point in reading any further.

When you treat humans like cattle because their "efforts are not worth the extra pay" what makes you think any of the rest of your comments are valid? if Their efforts are not worth the pay then it is you who is the fool.

You base your entire argument on treating your employees like worthless slaves. These are humans. Sometimes with families. They deserve equal pay or equal work. You don't want to be responsible for other humans then don't be involved with them! Do no hire them and allow them to come into your home. Once you employ someone you take in a certain amount of responsibility. You just don't want to be responsible for your own actions. And you want your profits for free.

Sorry you may not be allowed to continue to steal from your employees so you can line your own pockets with ill gotten gains. Only a Republican would think this way. And I think CA is trying to do something about that. And I am not sorry it makes you mad. Tough.

Don't come to California and try to rip off your employees I guess. Make your I'll gotten profits off the red states.

#43 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-04 11:20 AM | Reply

"ill gotten gains"

Siri must be related to Sniper.

She is so stupid sometimes. She insists "ill" is spelled "I'll"

Even after I changed it!

#44 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-04 11:23 AM | Reply

--Sounds like you're definitely a leading authority on what uber drivers want.

Yeah, I was being honest and not lying about my personal experience with uber drivers, Angry Joe. Sue me, correspondence school lawyer.

#45 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-04 11:26 AM | Reply

Heaven forbid people be allowed to make a little extra cash on the side, on their own terms.

The horrors!

#46 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-04 11:30 AM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

It's simply corporate welfare at its finest.

No Jeff, corporate welfare at its finest is Wisconsin Republicans giving $4,000,000,000.00 in taxpayer money to a Taiwanese job creation scam. What you're describing is requiring one employer to treat its workers the same way everyone else has to, which is also known as "fairness."

#47 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 11:36 AM | Reply

Yeah, I was being honest and not lying about my personal experience with uber drivers

And i appreciate you admitting to how terribly unqualified you are to opine on "what freelancers want."

Thanks!

#48 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 11:38 AM | Reply

No Jeff, corporate welfare at its finest is Wisconsin Republicans giving $4,000,000,000.00 in taxpayer money to a Taiwanese job creation scam. What you're describing is requiring one employer to treat its workers the same way everyone else has to, which is also known as "fairness."

#47 | POSTED BY JOE

They are both corporate welfare, Joe.

This law is designed to drive innovative competition out of business via the power of the state in order to reward Democrat donors.

#49 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-04 11:39 AM | Reply

This law is designed to drive innovative competition out of business via the power of the state in order to reward Democrat donors.

You don't know what it's designed to do.

Uber donates heavily to Democrats.
www.opensecrets.org

Your theory is out of step with reality.

#50 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 11:42 AM | Reply

"Uber is not their employer. Their passengers are."

Please tell me you were joking. Failing that, please explain which of the IRS's 20 questions (Or CA's three) your concept answers.

#51 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 11:44 AM | Reply

I drive for Uber/Lyft and the thought of something like the Cali law coming to my state scares the heeby jeebies out of me.

The flexibility is key to driving for them.

Most drivers I know agree.

#52 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 11:51 AM | Reply

#42 Exactly. Becoming an employee would prevent drivers from working for multiple platforms.

#53 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 11:54 AM | Reply

Please tell me you were joking.

Could be easily argued that Uber is nothing more than an arrangement service like eBay, which they charge fee, and payment escrow service, again like EBay/PayPal.

Uber has no behavoiral control - www.irs.gov
Uber has no finacial control - www.irs.gov
Uber type of relationship is no different than craigslist and paypal put together. : www.irs.gov

Uber doesn't tell you where to work.
Uber doesn't tell you when to work.
Uber doesn't force you to pick up customers.
Uber doesn't arrange your work materials.
Uber doesn't pay for your gas.
Uber doesn't require you do anything, you can come and go as you please.

Which of the 20q does an Uber contractor violate? Because I think the IRS would be interested in that, and the CA law wouldn't be needed.

But perhaps you are right, you could save California and the IRS if you took it upon yourself to explain to them where they are wrong.

#54 | Posted by AndreaMackris at 2020-01-04 12:02 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 2

"Could be easily argued that Uber is nothing more than an arrangement service like eBay"

Using that "logic" and MadBomber's comment to which I was responding...Ebay is the employer.

"perhaps you are right, you could save California and the IRS if you took it upon yourself to explain to them where they are wrong."

Hey, dumbschitt, I've always argued CA is WRONG. The drivers are independent contractors, and should be treated that way, for all the reasons you cited.

That said, I'm sure you'll be getting at least one "Newsworthy" flag, from Dumber.

#55 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 12:09 PM | Reply

The Uber and Lyft apps will step in and log drivers out if they have driven 12 hours forcing a rest period of 6 hours. That is about they only time they step in and tell you that you can or can not so something.

Other than that it is a full freedom to work when and where and for how long you wish or not at all for however long.

#56 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 12:10 PM | Reply

--That said, I'm sure you'll be getting at least one "Newsworthy" flag,

Thanks for the tip. Done.

#57 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-04 12:20 PM | Reply

"Thanks for the tip."

Any time, Dumber.

#58 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 12:22 PM | Reply

It seems like AB5 may have good intentions but that it isn't what most gig econony people would want, at least not rideshare drivers.

#59 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 01:16 PM | Reply

"Sounds like you're definitely a leading authority on what uber drivers want."

The one undeniable truth about Uber drivers is that they are the authority on what they want...and no one can tell them differently.

Which is why authoritarians such as yourself can't stand it.

#60 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 01:19 PM | Reply | Funny: 1 | Newsworthy 1

"When you treat humans like cattle because their "efforts are not worth the extra pay" what makes you think any of the rest of your comments are valid?"

If one's economic value is less than what it costs to sustain themselves, they're always going to be in the red.

If you have a problem with this, then you should start shelling out your own money on their behalf.

Real world: I live in Europe, but spend a lot of time in Vegas. Unless I'm leaving my hotel to go to the airport, I use Uber. Because for a few dollars they can take me from the MGM Grand down to the Bellagio, Ceasars, whatever. If I had to pay more, I'd walk...it's not that far...and it would be on you to explain to that person why they get zero dollars because YOU decided if they weren't remunerated to a certain amount, they weren't allowed to work at all.

You are a F--king -------. Worry about your silly stupid flunkie ass. If you want to start a transport company and charge ungodly amounts, then go for it. No one is stopping you.

#61 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 01:27 PM | Reply

"Heaven forbid people be allowed to make a little extra cash on the side, on their own terms."

God no...not without the government first having authorized them to utilize their labor and assets in a way that the government deemed suitable.

#62 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 01:28 PM | Reply

"That said, I'm sure you'll be getting at least one "Newsworthy" flag, from Dumber."

Can you do more than one?

Is that possible?

#63 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 01:35 PM | Reply

"Other than that it is a full freedom to work when and where and for how long you wish or not at all for however long."

No one should be allowed to work as little or as much as they want.

Those decisions are better left to bureaucrats.

#64 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 01:38 PM | Reply

Heaven forbid people be allowed to make a little extra cash on the side, on their own terms.

The horrors!

#46 | POSTED BY JEFFJ

You know it is a scam. Why do you support cheating others of their rightful gains? Making money is fine. Stealing it from your employees is not. They are not independent contractors if they work under the banner of Uber.

Put your own shingle out and go for it. You still have to follow the "rules"and pay your payroll taxes etc if you are going to be legit. If you want to be "under the table" there are risks associated with that too. As soon as you make money from others your responsibilities increase. You become partly responsible especially while they are on the job . Hence one of the reasons healthcare became attached to your employment. When you make money from the labor of others you assume certain levels of responsibilities for them. But being from the party of no responsibilities I do understand where you are coming from. I just disagree with you. As do the majority of responsible adults of my state. Thank Gawd.

#65 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-04 02:16 PM | Reply

"If I had to pay more, I'd walk...it's not that far...and it would be on you to explain to that person why they get zero dollars because YOU decided if they weren't remunerated to a certain amount, they weren't allowed to work at all."

Yeah, sure you would, in July in Las Vegas. Whose kidding who here?

""Other than that it is a full freedom to work when and where and for how long you wish or not at all for however long."

Uber could easily calculate into their price the additional costs of all the basic things employees are entitled to. You might pay slightly more but it wouldn't stop you or me from using Uber when we wanted to. But for those employees it would be life changing. As work, in the United States, is supposed to be. I don't want people desperate for money driving me anywhere, I want well paid employees who know their taxes, workers' compensation, unemployment insurance, etc. are not things they have to worry about. Just like the rest of us. We do not want to create a sub-class of workers who don't get the same basic benefits as all other employees.

#66 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-04 02:19 PM | Reply

It does seem to me that Republicans are always trying to invent new ways of having a sub-class of workers. From slavery, to indentured servitude, to illegal immigrants, to Uber drivers....they are always looking for ways for themselves to increase profits by paying employees less or even nothing at all.

#67 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-04 02:22 PM | Reply

"You know it is a scam. Why do you support cheating others of their rightful gains?"

How is this a scam? No one makes you become an Uber driver. The vast majority of them do it for extra cash.

But it seems that, since it violates your sense of social justice or whatever, government shouldn't permit it.

Why not just stay the f--k out of it. If the drivers don't want to drive, they don't have to. You're actually supporting a system where they would have to. Which is why you and the vast majority of progressives are more fascist than those who you claim are fascists.

#68 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 02:25 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"Uber could easily calculate into their price the additional costs of all the basic things employees are entitled to. You might pay slightly more but it wouldn't stop you or me from using Uber when we wanted to."

Fair enough.

So than what should be the minimum amount an Uber driver can legally offer for a ride from the Marriott Grand Chateau to Nellis Air Force Base?

#69 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 02:27 PM | Reply

"they are always looking for ways for themselves to increase profits by paying employees less or even nothing at all."

I could care less about Uber's profits. I have no investments there.

I'm trying to hold on to my own money. Just like you.

#70 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 02:28 PM | Reply

Danni I drive for Uber and I in no way feel sub-class. I and most drivers do not want to lose the freedoms we have as contractors.

It is the same thing as running one's own business. I am able to pick and choose whom I drive for at any given minute. I drive for Uber Lyft and Favor. I can decide based on what is going on in the area (concerts, events, mealtime hour) which ones I want to log into or even log into multiple and simply accept what ride or delivery comes first.

We even have the freedom to accept or decline rides when they pop up.

Forcing us to be scheduled employees pretty much takes away the whole purpose and then you WOULD have disgruntled people.

I feel like much of what is being discussed here is by well intentioned folks who do not understand what it is to be a gig person.

#71 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 02:36 PM | Reply

Let Uber and Lyft die and go back to the old system of cabs and busses. I never trusted Uber anyways. Do they do background checks on drivers to make sure you aren't getting the car with a serial killer? The gig economy needs to die. The people wanting to freelance are hurting too many wage workers.

#72 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 02:36 PM | Reply

#72 Yes Uber and Lyft do background checks. They also have probably prevented a ton of DUI driving making the streets safer. Tons of people now take an Uber rather than drive when they go to bars and clubs. Way cheaper than a taxi and more feasible than a bus.

#73 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 02:42 PM | Reply

--Do they do background checks on drivers to make sure you aren't getting the car with a serial killer?

Like taxi drivers?

One name: Travis Bickle.

#74 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-04 02:46 PM | Reply

"They are not independent contractors if they work under the banner of Uber."

That's crazy talk. There are a lot of folks who work "under the banner" of a multitude of companies, because that gives them more control over their own lives. Also, with the new tax code, wage workers can't write off expenses, but self-employed workers can. Depending on your particular situation and expenses, it could be a much better financial deal to be self-employed.

#75 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 02:46 PM | Reply

"Like taxi drivers?"

Using Actual Math, under which system are you more likely to get a rummy? Employee or Freelance?

#76 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 02:48 PM | Reply

#75 It is a MUCH better financial deal to be self-employed for Uber and Lyft. Mileage and an initial 20% deduction off gross income (thanks to the 2017 tax code) for starters.

#77 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 02:50 PM | Reply

"an initial 20% deduction off gross income"

Not gross income, gross profit. Also, it's UP TO 20%, depending on other types of income on your tax return.

#78 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-04 02:53 PM | Reply

In case you do not know, Uber drivers are paid a majority of what riders pay for their rides. We are not paid hourly but on a percentage. We get most of what Uber charges riders.

#79 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 02:57 PM | Reply

I really appreciate Uber. Makes nights out a lot easier and have always had good experiences

#80 | Posted by GOnoles92 at 2020-01-04 03:02 PM | Reply

Again,


Despite (the new California law) AB 5, Uber Drivers Would Rather Quit Than Be Employees

losangeleno.com

I just don't think some of y'all understand. Not knocking anyone, I just don't think you understand.

#81 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 03:07 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

-I feel like much of what is being discussed here is by well intentioned folks who do not understand what it is to be a gig person.

That won't stop them from....

1. Pretend to know everything
2. Make victims out of just about anybody.

#82 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-04 03:42 PM | Reply

"You know it is a scam. Why do you support cheating others of their rightful gains?"

If we can tolerate someone as stupid as you, anything is possible.

#83 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-04 03:44 PM | Reply

I just don't think some of y'all understand. Not knocking anyone, I just don't think you understand.

#81 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

I do understand and I openly state I would rather benefit the many while penalizing a few. I am sorry if you get stuck in some 9-5 you don't like so others can get benefits. Your desire for flexibility causes misfortune for others.

#84 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 03:49 PM | Reply

How does it cause misfortune where I drive? I drive in areas with no bus service and little to no taxi service .

How do I cause misfortune to those college kids who choose to take an Uber back to the dorms when drunk rather than them driving themselves?

Just as an example.

#85 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 03:59 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

You want to keep doing it as an independent contractor. Independent contractor status should not exist for most jobs. I have seen way too many people misclassified as such so employers could absolve themselves of all liability. I feel society would be better off if employees like you were classified as part time workers.

#86 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 04:07 PM | Reply

Uber by itself has over 2 million drivers. Do you feel that qualifies as "the few" ?

#87 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:08 PM | Reply

Almost every Uber driver would rather quit than become an employee.

#88 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:09 PM | Reply

Compared to the vast majority of workers that could be screwed over by the "gig economy" yes. I don't feel bad if you take a set shift at Uber while somebody else gets workmans comp and benefits. Anything American can do to kill the gig economy is a good thing if you ask me.

#89 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 04:13 PM | Reply

losangeleno.com

#90 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:14 PM | Reply

Almost every Uber driver would rather quit than become an employee.
#88 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

So be it. They will hire new workers that want employee protections.

#91 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 04:15 PM | Reply

Well I respect your opinion. I do not agree with it but I respect it. I don't personally believe there are as many people getting screwed over as you state especially in areas with little taxi service and poor to no bua service.

We can agree to disagree.

#92 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:17 PM | Reply

*bus not bua lol

#93 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:18 PM | Reply

Yeah! Uber drivers don't want health insurance. And they like getting paid less than minimum wage. And they especially enjoy solely liable for any and all mishaps. Cuz that what everybody wants.

------- corporate shills trying to deny working people a living wage and the most basic of protections.

#94 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-04 04:41 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

"I just don't think some of y'all understand. Not knocking anyone, I just don't think you understand."

Mmmm...sorry sweetheart, you're just not smart enough to get it.

Fortunately, government is here to save you. From yourself.

#95 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 04:45 PM | Reply

#94 not sure what you mean. When I drive for Uber I make a lot more than minimum wage. I try to make $25 to $35 per hour.

And drivers are NOT liable for accidents. Uber and Lyft actually insure all rides with commercial insurance.

#96 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 04:48 PM | Reply

"------- corporate shills trying to deny working people a living wage and the most basic of protections."

If this is your concern, why not pay for it out of your own pocket?

You seem to be ignoring the fact that the economic value of an individual might mean they're never able to earn a living wage. Which leaves it up to you to provide for them those things they can't provide for themselves.

#97 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 04:51 PM | Reply

"And drivers are NOT liable for accidents. Uber and Lyft actually insure all rides with commercial insurance."

Mmmm...but you're not controlled by progressives...that's the real problem.

#98 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 04:53 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Your pay may go down to about 20.00 bucks an hour but you would probably get benefits like overtime pay and all the other perks that go with it like health insurance and pto. Why not embrace it and unionize?

#99 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-04 04:53 PM | Reply

Because people get raped and mugged and murdered when drivers can choose not to drive. Regulations are about safety not a bunch of dems trying to bring down businesses.

#100 | Posted by hatter5183 at 2020-01-04 04:56 PM | Reply

Madbomber personifies the typical selfish right winger. Tells me that if I am concerned about workers having a living age, I and only people like me, should pay for it. Madbomber, it is exactly because of people like you that we need government to write and enforce laws to prevent all the selfish -------- from screwing the rest of society over for their own personal gain.

Also, if a business is unwilling to pay a full time worker a living wage, they deserve to go out of business. Gotta problem with that? Move to Russia or some other right wing totalitarian nation. Just stop pushing your rich=boy anti-worker economic policies on America.

#101 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-04 05:00 PM | Reply

Moder8. Again, most uber drivers would quit driving if it went to having to become an employee.

losangeleno.com


The new law designed to support independent contractors gets thumbs down from rideshare drivers who prefer flexibility and freedom.

"When the lawmakers make these laws, they don't live our lives," says Uber driver Hayk (who refused to give his last name). "They don't live like we. They don't struggle like we. Imagine the hundreds of thousands of people who will stop doing Uber, where will they find another job? I have a big family... My wife got a full-time job. I have to pick my kids up or drop them off. I do that and come back to work, driving. What shift is going to let me do that other than this?"

#102 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 05:09 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

IDEP, just because you say something does not make it true. Like anything else, no doubt you can find some drivers who may agree with you. But it complete -------- on your part to claim that the vast majority of free lancers oppose this.

#103 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-04 05:11 PM | Reply

"Madbomber personifies the typical selfish right winger. Tells me that if I am concerned about workers having a living age, I and only people like me, should pay for it."

I'm selfish>

You're telling a person that if their economic value is not greater than living wage, they're legally prohibited from working.

Way to be exceptionally authoritarian.

#104 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-04 05:31 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

Way to mis-state what I just said. If an employer expects to have a worker in his/her employ on a full time basis, that employer MUST be willing to pay a living wage. If the employer is unwilling to do that, they have no business exploiting a working person.

#105 | Posted by moder8 at 2020-01-04 05:34 PM | Reply

Moder8 you might want to read that article. I respect your opinion and am not trying to spread horse doodoo. Im just saying there are MANY reasons drivers would not want to lose the income and flexibility of working multiple platforms, setting your own schedule and being your own boss.

#106 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 06:46 PM | Reply

So I read it over and if I were in CA it wouldn't affect me.

That said as a guy who derives a significant source of my income from side hustles I would hate it if I were affected. As was mentioned the tax aspect would be brutal, the loss of freedom of being an employee, heck the hours I work probably wouldn't even be allowed as I frequently work over 40 just on the side.

#107 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-04 08:57 PM | Reply

If an employer expects to have a worker in his/her employ on a full time basis, that employer MUST be willing to pay a living wage.

Moder8 this sounds like some misinformation given to you about Uber, unless I misunderstand you.

Uber in NO way expects ANY set amount of hours from drivers EVER. Drivers decide when to work. If at all.

#108 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-04 09:18 PM | Reply

If this is your concern, why not pay for it out of your own pocket?

He wants to. We all know Uber would pass the cost onto him, the consumer. And cucks like you won't let him pay for it, out of his own pocket.

#109 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-04 09:56 PM | Reply

"He wants to. We all know Uber would pass the cost onto him, the consumer. And cucks like you won't let him pay for it, out of his own pocket."

You've never used Uber or Lyft, have you?

You pay a low base fee which is determined by distance. But you can tip the driver as much (or as little) as you want on top of that. Uber's not going to stop any customers from doing so.

#110 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-05 07:16 AM | Reply

It appears that, even in 2020, there are people out there who are unfamiliar with how Uber works. Moder8 and Joe in particular.

#111 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-05 07:16 AM | Reply

Madbomber most people do understand how Uber works. The thing for me is that I realize it will suck for rideshare drivers but benefit many others. The people who do Uber can move on to other things. Allowing more jobs to take on the title of independent contractor sets a dangerous precedent. It should be only allowed for a very small set of circumstances.

#112 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-05 07:40 AM | Reply

If I were an Uber driver in CA as soon as this law was passed I would have swung by Staples and gotten a bunch of business cards with name, cell and email on it. Handed it out to every rider I got. Then when this hits you are set up as a true IC people call you directly, you set the rates. Get a few other drivers together and if you don't want to drive give them another drivers number.

If you have been driving for Uber close to full time you know what you make on a ride and what Uber charges, you either make more, charge less or land in the middle and everyone wins. I mean except for Uber and the state of CA.

#113 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-05 08:05 AM | Reply

"If I were an Uber driver in CA as soon as this law was passed I would have swung by Staples and gotten a bunch of business cards with name, cell and email on it."

Good idea perhaps but then you would miss the opportunity Uber does offer with their app which allows a customer to just click on the app and bring the closest Ubere driver to them very quickly. I know that hundreds of Uber drivers park in special parking lots near the airport because the Uber signal is broadcast only to that parking lot. You'd miss about 90% of Uber activity with your system and then you'd have to arrange for credit card processing, rate calculations, etc.
No, I think Uber's platform is great but they just need to allow their employees to earn enough to actually live. From the Uber drivers I have spoken to, the only one's who can actually support themselves make themselves stay out on the road for at least 12 hours a day. Uber should sacrifice some of their profits to make it possible for drivers to earn a living wage in 8 hours per day and not have to worry about taxes, unemployment, etc. Other nations are already doing that and Uber is still surviving there.

#114 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-05 09:31 AM | Reply

#114

CC processing is easy. Rates a driver already has a good idea of. Loss of business would be large but only if Uber still plays in the space. If they decide to pull out then you aren't competing with Uber if Uber says in then you keep working for Uber.

#115 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-05 09:44 AM | Reply

There's more to the "gig economy" than Uber and Lyft.

#116 | Posted by Angrydad at 2020-01-05 09:59 AM | Reply

"Uber should sacrifice some of their profits to make it possible for drivers to earn a living wage in 8 hours per day and not have to worry about taxes, unemployment, etc. Other nations are already doing that and Uber is still surviving there."

Really?

What if the driver only wants to do 45 minutes of work?

That's the entire appeal. You can drive a car when you want, where you want. Why would you pay someone for eight hours of work when they don't do eight hours of work?

#117 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-05 10:10 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

"Allowing more jobs to take on the title of independent contractor sets a dangerous precedent. It should be only allowed for a very small set of circumstances."

If I choose to sell my labor via independent contract, who are you to stop me. My labor, my decision.

#118 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-05 10:12 AM | Reply | Funny: 1

Great Madbomber, Do what Tao says. Print up cards and hand them out and set your own rates. Be an independent cabbie. I still think Uber's business practices need to go away. If we keep down this path more and more workers will get shafted with the Independent contractor label which will only enrich businesses and screw workers.

#119 | Posted by byrdman at 2020-01-05 10:51 AM | Reply

#110-111 I've been using Uber and Lyft for a decade. The point was that you told Moder8 to pay for Uber employee benefits himself. The best way for Moder8 to do that is for Uber to provide benefits to employees who are entitled to them, and pass the costs on to the consumer. Pretending that one guy tipping a driver is going to get him health insurance is just conservative make-believe --------.

#120 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-05 12:57 PM | Reply

If these drivers are using this as 'extra income' then its their current employer that 'should' provide the living wage.

Extra income, not second full time job.

See my earlier post. If I am an employee of XYZ, I probably wont be allowed to be dual/triple employ. I will have to drop the others. But, by working for many, I get more work, when I want, where I want.

If I can work all, overlapping, which employee has to provide me benefits?

I am a professional referee. I am available for multiple organizations. I determine my availability, I can accept and reject games, but in no way can any org pay me a living wage. Some offer insurance and others dont.

Since its 'extra income', why should they have to pay me a living wage when I am not offering them services in return for it?

#121 | Posted by Petrous at 2020-01-05 01:21 PM | Reply

#121 Bingo.

Many of us don't just drive Uber. We may drive for multiple companies at our discretion. It is another reason we are more or less running our own business. Some days may be better for Uber or Lyft other days may be better doing Favor or Doordash. Some days you just do more than one at the same time accepting a ride or delivery from whichever comes first.

Pun intended, but we are in the driver seat.

Experienced drivers also learn the best times to log in on each day. It is kind of an art form at times.

And then there is the financial advantages to drivers when it comes to taxes by being your own boss.

#122 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-05 01:57 PM | Reply

Now, if Uber was requiring we work x amount of hours then that would be different.

#123 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-05 02:01 PM | Reply

Uber and Lyft actually insure all rides with commercial insurance.

#96 | POSTED BY IDEPENDANT97

So the company is liable and not you?

Then you are not an independent contractor.

You are working for them.

And they are cheating the system by not paying your payroll taxes.

Good for you. If you can get away with it.

#124 | Posted by donnerboy at 2020-01-05 02:08 PM | Reply

Actually I believe we do pay for the insurance via the fees uber takes out. And we are responsible for deductibles.

#125 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-05 02:15 PM | Reply

Do any of you understand the concept of a part-time job?

#126 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-05 02:30 PM | Reply

Are traditional taxi drivers employees with benefits?

#127 | Posted by Idependant97 at 2020-01-05 02:32 PM | Reply

"Do any of you understand the concept of a part-time job?"

Gonna go waaaaay out on a limb and say you've never done any 1099 work, JeffJ.

Am I safe out here?

#128 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-05 02:34 PM | Reply

Make your point Jeff.

Let's hear it.

#129 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-05 10:47 PM | Reply

Joe,

Millions of people benefit from part-time jobs. Extra income. Stay at home parent. Teen. Minority, etc.

Throw in innovators who risk their financial security in order to try and pioneer a new business model, like Uber, and prosper...

Seriously, is all of that bad? Should it be shut down by the state?

#130 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-05 11:12 PM | Reply

Nobody ever said any of that was bad. The intent and effect of AB5 is not to take any of that away, but merely to apply existing workers comp, wage, and labor laws to workers who are improperly classified as independent contractors even though they meet the definition of an "employee" according to a test handed down by the California Supreme Court.

Companies like Uber are not "innovators who risk their financial security." They are self-described "disruptors" who enter local economies without taking any of the steps a traditional employer would have to take, create a demand for their product while flaunting the law and maximizing profit at the expense of their workers, and spend millions on legal fees to protect their extralegal practices. Stop treating them like paypers and benefactors.

#131 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 03:55 AM | Reply

*paupers

It's all pretty simple.

If i am an "employee" according to the California Supreme Court, i am entitled to the wages, workers comp and labor benefits of other California "employees."

If Uber drivers are not "employees" under this existing case law, then they are not "employees" for purposes of AB5. But Uber's insistence on calling their drivers "independent contractors" has never been about a good faith attempt to maximize flexibility for those people. Its been about Uber making the most money possible off the labor of others, period.

There's nothing about giving Uber drivers workers comp that harms the Uber driver. That harms Uber.

There's nothing about giving Uber drvers minimum wage that harms the Uber driver. That harms Uber.

#132 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 04:06 AM | Reply

There's nothing about giving Uber drvers minimum wage that harms the Uber driver. That harms Uber.

I have no idea the standard take home of an Uber driver, I have heard some stuff but most of it is questionable. However I can't believe too many of the drivers are making less than min. wage. I know I sure wouldn't be messing around with it if I wasn't making even 10 bucks an hour.

#133 | Posted by TaoWarrior at 2020-01-06 06:16 AM | Reply

I know I sure wouldn't be messing around with it if I wasn't making even 10 bucks an hour.

#133 | POSTED BY TAOWARRIOR

Never mind the fact that it has cost and risk baked in. Gas, wear-and-tear on the car, having complete strangers in your car....yet Uber is omni-present. Strange how that works...well, it no longer works in California because the people who run that state have no understanding of the concept of unintended consequences. They are hell-bent on hurting most the people whom they purport to help.

#134 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 08:16 AM | Reply

I can't believe too many of the drivers are making less than min. wage

And this just makes sure the ones who don't, do. What is the problem?

it no longer works in California

No response to my post so you just continue spewing talking points. What a loser.

#135 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 08:52 AM | Reply

"So the company is liable and not you?
Then you are not an independent contractor."

You don't know anything about commercial transportation.

Do you know that millions of semi-trucks on the road hauling freight are owned by the driver, but the liability of the truck is handled by someone else? It's the person they are hauling for and it's under their authority. Do you understand what "authority" means? LOL

And guess what...in 100% of those circumstances....the driver is NOT an employee of the person insuring the liability of that truck trailer or even the cargo in some instances.

They are an independent contractor.

Geez...the trucking industry has been dealing with this for decades and decades.

So, do you guys want to go further and just criminalize the entire concept of independent contractors?

#136 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 09:45 AM | Reply

The challenge of this law is based on the fact that law only targets app based employers and not other traditional employers who frequently hire independent contractors.

Is California ready to just eliminate the entire concept of contractors and instead...EVERYONE has to be an employee?

no friggin chance.

#137 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 09:53 AM | Reply

--So, do you guys want to go further and just criminalize the entire concept of independent contractors?

Yes, but they won't admit it. They want everyone under the thumbs of government and unions.

#138 | Posted by nullifidian at 2020-01-06 09:55 AM | Reply

One of the biggest if not the single biggest beneficiary of this law would be health, auto and work comp insurance carriers.

health insurance carriers don't want the exposure of drivers being hurt on the road nor do the auto carriers....they want work comp to take it all.

so, the insurance industry is winning with this.....yeah!!

#139 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 09:59 AM | Reply

" I know I sure wouldn't be messing around with it if I wasn't making even 10 bucks an hour."

I've been around various businesses which employed contractors like Uber and other types of businesses as well. What usually happens is the "employee" sees his/her paycheck and it looks great! But when you deduct their expenses, their taxes, health insurance (if they even have any), etc. it brings it way down to less than minimum wage. When they do their taxes at the end of they year they end up owing thousands and I am not speaking out of ignorance. I've seen it happen to several people I know very well and who I tried to warn about what was going to happen. Well, the IRS didn't come after them the first or second year, but they did after a few years and by then they owed huge amounts of money. Just think about the SS tax, employers have to match the deduction from an actual employee's paycheck. A self-employed Uber driver has to pay double because he doesn't have an employer matching his/her contribution and, if you look at their gross earnings after taxes and expenses, they will be getting terribly small SS check when and if they live long enough to even claim. Anyone not earning upwards of $100K is crazy to become a contractor but they are all over the place, too dumb or naive to understand how they are being taken advantage of. I've also witnessed on employer who hired everyone as a contractor to do heavy labor and he had "employees" for years, some owed 15-20K in back taxes when it was finally exposed to the IRS but guess what the "employer" faced no penalties at all. You can have all the laws in the world but if you don't have anyone willing to enforce them you really have not protections for workers and that is, pretty much, the situation today.

#140 | Posted by danni at 2020-01-06 10:50 AM | Reply

Danni, unfortunately (unless I'm reading it wrong) this California bill doesn't address the situation you're talking about.

Is Uber guilty of lying or omitting information specific to what tax status an independent contractor has?

The abuse you're talking about is apparently fine to continue in California.

#141 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 11:37 AM | Reply

No response to my post so you just continue spewing talking points. What a loser.

#135 | POSTED BY JOE

Your post can be summed up thusly (if I'm reading it wrong, please clarify): You want to criminalize part-time work and independent contractor work; kill the gig economy.

#142 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 12:11 PM | Reply

"Millions of people benefit from part-time jobs. Extra income. Stay at home parent. Teen. Minority, etc.
Throw in innovators who risk their financial security in order to try and pioneer a new business model, like Uber, and prosper...
Seriously, is all of that bad? Should it be shut down by the state?
#130 | POSTED BY JEFFJ"

^
Literally nothing to do with being an employee vs being an independent contractor. But you did get on your knees for innovators and job creators, which is a common pose for you.

Your hourly wage job at... whatever it is you do has not provided you with the sufficient experience to understand the difference between W-2 work and 1099 work.

#143 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 01:51 PM | Reply

Jeff, I'm wondering....how many times have you been accused of being a ----------- ---- on this place in the past year?

What Uber is not guilty of, nor any other similar app based business is killing a traditional business with a traditional employer-employee relationship. Except cab drivers I guess.

they didn't upend an existing marketplace and replace it with this new format. Their business model intends on having folks work part-time offering a service that doesn't require full time workers seeking a salary/wage, benefits, etc.... NOT to take those kinds of jobs away (again, other than cab drivers and I suspect those jobs sucked)

#144 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 01:57 PM | Reply

Your hourly wage job at... whatever it is you do has not provided you with the sufficient experience to understand the difference between W-2 work and 1099 work.

#143 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

I manage independent contractors, you dolt.

I understand it probably better than you do. Once a year I have to sit through a training session on how to talk to independent contractors in order to maintain the relationship as contractors, not employees.

That I choose to ignore your inanities does not bely a lack of understanding of the difference between W-2 work (which is what I do) with 1099 work (which is what I manage).

#145 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 01:57 PM | Reply

"The best way for Moder8 to do that is for Uber to provide benefits to employees who are entitled to them, and pass the costs on to the consumer."

So, if a driver is working for both Uber and Lyft, are both obligated to provide them with the same benefits?

And how do you do that when a driver may work 4 hours a week, 40 hours, or even more. Or maybe none at all? Uber doesn't "hire" drivers. The drivers choose to work for them. Anyone 21 or older with a clean record and a year of experience can be an Uber driver. Based on your logic, Uber should be providing me with benefits, as I am fully qualified as an Uber driver...I'm just choosing not to drive for them.

#146 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 02:00 PM | Reply

"They are self-described "disruptors" who enter local economies without taking any of the steps a traditional employer would have to take..."

And also relieve the drivers who use the Uber App to avoid any of the steps a traditional employee would take. Such as obligating oneself to a number of hours dictated by their employer.

Why do you think Uber and Lyft are as popular with drivers as they are with riders. These aren't poor people. I've never been picked up in a K-car before. In fact I've never been picked up in a car I wouldn't drive myself. I got picked up at DFW last year in a late model Mercedes SUV. A few weeks ago in Vegas I was picked up by a man named David Sebastian Bach. He's a Canadian who grew up in Germany, where he put out a few records in the 1970s with EMI Electrola, as well as acting in a few movies. Nowadays he's a writer who plays in a Jazz band.

I don't think you've really thought through the things you're saying. If so, you can provide an answer on how Lyft and Uber could realistically provide benefits for drivers who may work a whole lot, or not at all.

#147 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 02:11 PM | Reply

"I manage independent contractors, you dolt. I understand it probably better than you do"

Great, this is your time to shine!

How are they "independent" if you are managing them?
How does it even make sense that non-employees require management... from an employee?

#148 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 02:16 PM | Reply

"provide an answer on how Lyft and Uber could realistically provide benefits for drivers who may work a whole lot, or not at all."

Just like other part-time workers, once they hit 30hr/wk. It wouldn't be difficult to, say, average them monthly or quarterly. Average 30 hrs or more, and you get XX months of health coverage. Since they currently have a roughly 4%-5% retention rate after the first year, this would certainly address that issue as well.

#149 | Posted by Danforth at 2020-01-06 02:16 PM | Reply

"Once a year I have to sit through a training session on how to talk to independent contractors in order to maintain the relationship as contractors, not employees."

What does this even mean? Is there an option for them to become employees? They get to play both sides of the fence?

#150 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 02:17 PM | Reply

"So, if a driver is working for both Uber and Lyft, are both obligated to provide them with the same benefits?"

Benefits?
What benefits are employers obligated to provide?
???

#151 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 02:18 PM | Reply

JeffJ, do you think your job of putting workers on 1099s saves your company more money than it costs to employ you as a W-2?

Thanks for reading and understanding.

#152 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 02:25 PM | Reply

How are they "independent" if you are managing them?

I misspoke - I don't manage them. I manage their contracts.

#153 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 02:55 PM | Reply

Is there an option for them to become employees?

No. The reason for the training seminar is to limit liability. Use the wrong language and the company could be viable for not providing worker's benefits, etc.

That's why I acknowledged I misspoke in #153.

"Your honor,

Jeff said he manages me. Jeff referred to my business as a "job". Therefore I am not a contractor but am an employee."

#154 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 02:58 PM | Reply

Why do you talk to independent contractors in order to maintain the relationship as contractors, not employees?

Who benefits from that?

And if it's so beneficial for the contractors, why aren't you one?

#155 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 02:59 PM | Reply

"Use the wrong language and the company could be viable fornotproviding worker's benefits, etc."

So your job is to make sure workers don't get benefits.

I bet you think you're a productive member of society!

#156 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:01 PM | Reply

So your job is to make sure workers don't get benefits.

One of the contractors I deal with told me that he's personally making in excess of $300K per year through the contract work he performs.

#157 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 03:04 PM | Reply

"One of the contractors I deal with told me that he's personally making in excess of $300K per year through the contract work he performs."

Yeah, so?

#158 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:06 PM | Reply

Snoofy,

I'm done with this. I'm just letting you know so you don't continue to pester me with inanities.

#159 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 03:07 PM | Reply

-That I choose to ignore your inanities does not bely a lack of understanding of the difference between W-2 work (which is what I do) with 1099 work (which is what I manage).

sooner or later, you'll plonk that asshat or wish you had. He's desperate for any attention.

But your job, if I'm reading it right, is to affirm what the relationship truly is.....business dealing with independent contractors....not an end run around calling them employees.

Again, an affirmation as to what it is...not to make up a lie into what it's not.

#160 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 03:07 PM | Reply

"I'm done with this."

Done with what?
Robbing 1099 workers to pay your W-2 boss?
No, you've made a career of it.
Like I said, you think it's a productive one.

#161 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:09 PM | Reply

#160 Ebs,

You are reading it right.

#162 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 03:10 PM | Reply

"But your job, if I'm reading it right, is to affirm what the relationship truly is.....business dealing with independent contractors....not an end run around calling them employees."

Good luck getting JefFJ -- or any Republican, or Eberly -- to acknowledge any such end-arounds exist.
That's the whole issue here, Eberly.

#163 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:10 PM | Reply

"I'm done with this."

This is why I don't cry over Goatman being booted. While he wasn't abusive, this is exactly what he did. He drove off people who could engage in a meaningful conversation.

This is what Snoofy is....the mirror image of Goatman.

#164 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 03:11 PM | Reply

Plenty of end runs exist.

roofers are my best example. They never have any employees....just "sub-contractors". which is a total lie.

#165 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 03:14 PM | Reply

"This is what Snoofy is....the mirror image of Goatman."

The only way to tell us apart is to count the toes!
And the plonks.

#166 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:14 PM | Reply

"Plenty of end runs exist.
roofers are my best example. They never have any employees....just "sub-contractors". which is a total lie."

Try convincing JeffJ of that, Eberly!
It's his job to not get convinced.
How much you paying?

#167 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:15 PM | Reply

#166 was a pretty good response.

#168 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 03:16 PM | Reply

Seriously, Eberly, try convincing any Republican that 1099's are being overused, not underused.

You'll find this splits nicely along partisan lines, just like everything else nowadays.

JeffJ is even recycling the "freedom to innovate" rhetoric from the Microsoft antitrust trial... Microsoft being a serial offender of using 1099s side by side employees in the labor force. It's why Microsoft is forced to give their temp employees a 100-day break after 365 days of service... golly I wonder if JeffJ knows anything about that...

#169 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:18 PM | Reply

"#166 was a pretty good response."

Thanks, but the truth is my beard has a ways to go until it reaches Goatman status.
I'm working on it though. And by working I mean, doing nothing.
It's a 1099 beard. Really saves me big $$$ overhead, nah mean nam sayin' JeffJ!

#170 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:21 PM | Reply

"What benefits are employers obligated to provide?"

Ask Joe.

#171 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 03:43 PM | Reply

1099's are great for the payment of casual labor...which is what Uber driving is for most people.

My wife was a fitness instructor. She got a 1099, along with all the other fitness instructors.

I never saw an issue with it. In fact I think it was preferable to traditional employment.

As a side, I'll get a 1099 this year. Not sure what the big deal is.

#172 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 03:48 PM | Reply

"You'll find this splits nicely along partisan lines, just like everything else nowadays."

That's because independent contractors have full control over the sale of their labor, which means that progressives can't control it.

Progressives like to frame the argument as if they are defending labor from employers, but whatever actions they take in defense of labor limits the rights of labor as much as it limits the rights of employers.

Minimum wages establish a wage floor that employers must pay. As the same time, it tells workers that, unless their economic value is in excess of that wage floor, they're not legally allowed to sell their labor.

Just like requiring Uber and Lyft to provide benefits for drivers who use their service establishes minimum criteria that they must meet in order to receive those benefits.

#173 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 03:53 PM | Reply

"As a side, I'll get a 1099 this year. Not sure what the big deal is."

Is is the quarterly tax that's no big deal, or the penalty for not paying quarterly tax that's no big deal, or "All Of The Above?"

#174 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:54 PM | Reply

"That's because independent contractors have full control over the sale of their labor"

1099's aren't subject to non-compete agreements?

#175 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 03:54 PM | Reply

"It's a 1099 beard. Really saves me big $$$ overhead, nah mean nam sayin' JeffJ!"

You seem to be implying that employing independent contractors is a way of raking in the cash.

When my wife was a fitness instructor, she toyed with the idea of placing a bid on the contract herself. And the a little bird gave her the current contract. The current contractor was making about $1500 in profit for the whole year.

It wouldn't have even been worth the effort.

#176 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 03:55 PM | Reply

"Is is the quarterly tax that's no big deal, or the penalty for not paying quarterly tax that's no big deal, or "All Of The Above?"

I don't know. Ask me in a few weeks...when I do my taxes.

What I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt is that I never paid a dime in quarterly taxes on my wife's income. I never got a bill. Never paid a penalty (that I know of). And my tax person never ever mentioned a need for me to pay a quarterly tax. I've not been audited yet. Just settled up at the end of the year.

#177 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 03:59 PM | Reply

"1099's aren't subject to non-compete agreements?"

My wife's wasn't...when she was considering on bidding on the contract. And since many, many drivers use both Lyft and Uber, I think it's safe to say there is no non-compete agreement there.

#178 | Posted by madbomber at 2020-01-06 04:01 PM | Reply

#173

from wiki -
Minimum wage legislation emerged at the end of the nineteenth century from the desire to end sweated labor which had developed in the wake of industrialization.[20] Sweatshops employed large numbers of women and young workers, paying them what were considered nonliving wages that did not allow workers to afford the necessaries of life.[21] Besides substandard wages, sweating was also associated with long work hours and unsanitary and unsafe work conditions.[22] From the 1890s to the 1920s, during the Progressive Era, a time of social activists and political reform across the United States, progressive reformers, women's organizations, religious figures, academics, and politicians all played an important role in getting state minimum wage laws passed throughout the United States.

I wonder why the workers chose to work in sweatshops for wages that couldn't sustain them?
They should have just kept walking down the street to find something that paid a bit more scratch.

#179 | Posted by schifferbrains at 2020-01-06 04:01 PM | Reply

Your post can be summed up thusly (if I'm reading it wrong, please clarify): You want to criminalize part-time work and independent contractor work; kill the gig economy.

Jesus Christ dude, you're such a ------- idiot.

#180 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 04:03 PM | Reply

Don't we have exchanges for folks to sign up for health insurance now? Wasn't that the greatest thing since sliced bread?

That meant folks didn't have to be saddled with employment where they hated their job....now they have the freedom to go out on their own and start a business without the burden of healthcare.

But the same people championing that still whine when someone still doesn't get something. It's always going to be the same whine....."someone else owes me my healthcare"

#181 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 04:04 PM | Reply

I said "if a worker meets the definition of employee' set forth by the California Supreme Court they should be treated like an employee." Jeff translates that to the worthless talking point "you want to criminalize part time work." There is zero point in talking about anything with somebody this stupid.

#182 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 04:05 PM | Reply

"1099's aren't subject to non-compete agreements?"

non-compete?
or non-piracy?
or non-solicitation?
which state?

all of those questions matter, BTW.

#183 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 04:06 PM | Reply

#182 | POSTED BY LILJOE AT 2020-01-06 04:05 PM | FLAG: zero point in talking to someone like me this stupid

#184 | Posted by eberly at 2020-01-06 04:07 PM | Reply

Your post can be summed up thusly (if I'm reading it wrong, please clarify): You want to criminalize part-time work and independent contractor work; kill the gig economy.
----
Jesus Christ dude, you're such a ------- idiot.

#180 | POSTED BY JOE

I put that in bold for a reason.

Obviously I misconstrued what you were saying based on your reaction.

You could just offer some clarification.

You seem to be supporting this bill which directly targets the gig economy.

If I misconstrued your position it may be because you didn't articulate it very effectively.

#185 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 04:11 PM | Reply

Epic post! You're as pointless as Jeff, for very different reasons.

#186 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 04:11 PM | Reply

You could just offer some clarification.

Your "translation" of my post is so pathetically inaccurate that you'll never understand the point.

The California Supreme Court set forth a definition of "employee."

IF someone meets the elements of that test, they should be treated as an employee.

To claim that someone advancing that position "wants to criminalize part time work" is to be entirely ignorant of the test.

You are inundated with talking points and unable to think for yourself. Seek help.

#187 | Posted by JOE at 2020-01-06 04:14 PM | Reply | Newsworthy 1

The California Supreme Court set forth the definition of "employee."

Isn't that a legislative act?

#188 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 04:35 PM | Reply

When I read about this a few weeks ago the source I had (I think RealClearPolitics linked LA Times) didn't mention the 2018 California Supreme Court case.

#189 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 04:56 PM | Reply

"What I can tell you beyond any shadow of a doubt is that I never paid a dime in quarterly taxes on my wife's income."

I also didn't pay your wife's taxes.
We have so much in common!

#190 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 05:35 PM | Reply

"The California Supreme Court set forth the definition of "employee."
Isn't that a legislative act?"

No, it's an interpretive act of a legislated definition.

#191 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 05:35 PM | Reply

No, it's an interpretive act of a legislated definition.

#191 | POSTED BY SNOOFY

OK. That makes sense.

#192 | Posted by JeffJ at 2020-01-06 05:40 PM | Reply

"You seem to be implying that employing independent contractors is a way of raking in the cash."

Implying? Allow me to explicit state that using independent contractors makes sense because it's cheaper than hiring employees!

"The current contractor was making about $1500 in profit for the whole year.
It wouldn't have even been worth the effort."

$1500 in profit times one is not worth it.
$1500 in profit ... times each fitness instructor... is exactly what makes it worth the effort.
This is called "economies of scale" which is a concept you're apparently still not up to speed on.
(Also, you only looked at the profit made pursuant to the instructor teaching the class. Fitness clubs have other ways to make money; e.g. membership dues.)

#193 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 05:40 PM | Reply

There are plenty of reasons why independent contractors make sense, but...

100% of them are related to the cost of labor.

Health care cost probably being the single largest expense that's avoided.
But there's other costs like vacation, sick time, holiday pay, (saving the cost of) short and long term disability and unemployment (insurance), and a few others that Eberly can likely expound on.

#194 | Posted by snoofy at 2020-01-06 05:47 PM | Reply

Comments are closed for this entry.

Home | Breaking News | Comments | User Blogs | Stats | Back Page | RSS Feed | RSS Spec | DMCA Compliance | Privacy | Copyright 2020 World Readable

Drudge Retort