3 ms·

From your second example... that sounds like it’s going to affect construction workers too... a lot of contractors just hire construction workers day to day to

by rem7 7y ago

From your second example... that sounds like it’s going to affect construction workers too... a lot of contractors just hire construction workers day to day to expand their workforce. Would that become illegal or is it different in construction?

nradov 7y ago
A lot of what contractors do in hiring day labor and paying them cash under the table is already illegal. I don't think this bill would change that.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
If yes, is this not a good a thing? Part-time employees are not significantly different than contractors in terms of benefits owed so it's not a major cost for that use case. And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets?
- breerly 7y ago
  Yes and no. This will force companies to hire more employees, true, but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce. Remember that cost is a constraint for businesses. Depends what is more valuable from a human + capitalism perspective, fewer work opportunities that pay better or more competition and “starter/flexible” work overall.
  - bryanlarsen 7y ago
    > but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce. That's what people predict about minimum wage increases too. Yet the effect has always been smaller than predicted, sometimes even non-existent.
- ansible 7y ago
  > And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets? I'd argue that if you deserve benefits like everyone else. Especially ridiculous is the situation some people I know of are in. They are working two or three part-time jobs because they can't find a full-time position. The places that employ them have many part-time positions, and fewer full-time positions. And these people don't get benefits. So you've got people who are working 40+ hours a week, for employers who have enough hours to work to have full-time employees, but instead have part-time job openings instead. All so that the employers don't have to pay for benefits.
  - JeffL 7y ago
    I would guess it's because their labor is not worth minimum wage plus all the extra overhead costs of a full time employee. It's people trying to get by despite stupid price controls that don't reflect reality.
    - ansible 7y ago
      And because we've tied health care to employment directly. If only we wanted to have affordable health care for everyone...
ThrustVectoring 7y ago
A general contractor's area of business isn't exactly doing construction, it's the project management aspects. Talking to vendors, organizing work crews, acquiring specialized labor from various trades, communicating project information to various stakeholders, etc. It's a subtle distinction, but one that I suspect would survive legal scrutiny.

by rem7 7y ago

nradov 7y ago

A lot of what contractors do in hiring day labor and paying them cash under the table is already illegal. I don't think this bill would change that.

bryanlarsen 7y ago

If yes, is this not a good a thing? Part-time employees are not significantly different than contractors in terms of benefits owed so it's not a major cost for that use case. And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets?

breerly 7y ago
Yes and no. This will force companies to hire more employees, true, but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce. Remember that cost is a constraint for businesses. Depends what is more valuable from a human + capitalism perspective, fewer work opportunities that pay better or more competition and “starter/flexible” work overall.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  > but at the cost of a much smaller overall workforce. That's what people predict about minimum wage increases too. Yet the effect has always been smaller than predicted, sometimes even non-existent.
ansible 7y ago
> And if you're working full-time for somebody, don't you deserve the benefits everybody else gets? I'd argue that if you deserve benefits like everyone else. Especially ridiculous is the situation some people I know of are in. They are working two or three part-time jobs because they can't find a full-time position. The places that employ them have many part-time positions, and fewer full-time positions. And these people don't get benefits. So you've got people who are working 40+ hours a week, for employers who have enough hours to work to have full-time employees, but instead have part-time job openings instead. All so that the employers don't have to pay for benefits.
- JeffL 7y ago
  I would guess it's because their labor is not worth minimum wage plus all the extra overhead costs of a full time employee. It's people trying to get by despite stupid price controls that don't reflect reality.
  - ansible 7y ago
    And because we've tied health care to employment directly. If only we wanted to have affordable health care for everyone...

ThrustVectoring 7y ago

A general contractor's area of business isn't exactly doing construction, it's the project management aspects. Talking to vendors, organizing work crews, acquiring specialized labor from various trades, communicating project information to various stakeholders, etc. It's a subtle distinction, but one that I suspect would survive legal scrutiny.