9 ms·

It doesn't ban anything, it just says that certain types of people working in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.

baggy_trough 7y ago
Yes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
  It's better than no benefits created by predictably tight-fisted California business.
  - baggy_trough 7y ago
    That's true for some, but not those that are going to be losing their job.
    - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
      Some people may lose their jobs, but with the unemployment rate at the lowest it's been in 40 years, they should be able to find other jobs, hopefully with benefits. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/californias-unemployment-rate-record-low https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/california... https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur...
graeme 7y ago
This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by definition it isn't subcontracting. This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs within the same industry. A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting as described in this wiki is morally bad. But instead you made neither point and appear to think I'm merely confused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor
- dangrossman 7y ago
  You can subcontract work to another firm, which has employees. Your contract is with the firm. California believes that if you "subcontract" an individual to do the work your company is in the business of doing, you're not "subcontracting" with them at all, you're employing them. That's not a ban on subcontracting. It's a ban on calling an employee a contractor.
  - graeme 7y ago
    Ok, that's more concrete. So, to give a specific example: a friend of mine runs a photography business. He's independently established in the trade. Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other photographers. They are also independently established. 1. This is banned by the California law? 2. You approve of this restriction? To be clear, these people aren't employees under the law in Canada, our jurisdiction. California seems to be redefining the word "contractor".
    - tstrimple 7y ago
      This is easy enough to answer by looking at the provisions in the bill. https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision-demonstrates-need-for-harmonization/ https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision... > The Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining “employee” status for purposes of the wage order, which presumptively considers all workers to be employees, and permits workers to be classified as independent contractors only if the hiring business demonstrates that the worker in question satisfies each of three conditions: > (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and > (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and > (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the hiring entity. Your friend's subcontracting would be covered by case C. The problem becomes if that subcontractor that your friend sometimes works with only ever does photography work for your friend, and isn't "engaged in an independently established trade" they might run into problems. At some point that starts to resemble a part time employee. > C Factor: Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity? The Court interpreted this factor as intending to identify an individual who independently has made the decision to go into business for himself or herself, for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the like. The fact that a company has not prohibited or prevented a worker from engaging in such a business is not sufficient to satisfy this factor; rather, a hiring entity will need to prove that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
EricE 7y ago
"standard employment benefits." And what would those standards be?
- thephyber 7y ago
  The state of California[1] and USA[2] define (via both statue and other jurisprudence) required minimum pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. [1] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-faqs.htm https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-faqs.htm [2] https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws
bcheung 7y ago
It also says if you actually want to be an independent contractor... because maybe you just dropped $150K on a vehicle, then you can't write it off anymore, and you're screwed. It bans people from having a choice.

baggy_trough 7y ago

Yes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.

omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
It's better than no benefits created by predictably tight-fisted California business.
- baggy_trough 7y ago
  That's true for some, but not those that are going to be losing their job.
  - omgwtfbyobbq 7y ago
    Some people may lose their jobs, but with the unemployment rate at the lowest it's been in 40 years, they should be able to find other jobs, hopefully with benefits. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/californias-unemployment-rate-record-low https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/california... https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur...

graeme 7y ago

This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by definition it isn't subcontracting. This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs within the same industry. A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting as described in this wiki is morally bad. But instead you made neither point and appear to think I'm merely confused. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor

dangrossman 7y ago
You can subcontract work to another firm, which has employees. Your contract is with the firm. California believes that if you "subcontract" an individual to do the work your company is in the business of doing, you're not "subcontracting" with them at all, you're employing them. That's not a ban on subcontracting. It's a ban on calling an employee a contractor.
- graeme 7y ago
  Ok, that's more concrete. So, to give a specific example: a friend of mine runs a photography business. He's independently established in the trade. Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other photographers. They are also independently established. 1. This is banned by the California law? 2. You approve of this restriction? To be clear, these people aren't employees under the law in Canada, our jurisdiction. California seems to be redefining the word "contractor".
  - tstrimple 7y ago
    This is easy enough to answer by looking at the provisions in the bill. https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision-demonstrates-need-for-harmonization/ https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision... > The Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining “employee” status for purposes of the wage order, which presumptively considers all workers to be employees, and permits workers to be classified as independent contractors only if the hiring business demonstrates that the worker in question satisfies each of three conditions: > (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and > (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and > (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the hiring entity. Your friend's subcontracting would be covered by case C. The problem becomes if that subcontractor that your friend sometimes works with only ever does photography work for your friend, and isn't "engaged in an independently established trade" they might run into problems. At some point that starts to resemble a part time employee. > C Factor: Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity? The Court interpreted this factor as intending to identify an individual who independently has made the decision to go into business for himself or herself, for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the like. The fact that a company has not prohibited or prevented a worker from engaging in such a business is not sufficient to satisfy this factor; rather, a hiring entity will need to prove that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.

EricE 7y ago

"standard employment benefits." And what would those standards be?

thephyber 7y ago
The state of California[1] and USA[2] define (via both statue and other jurisprudence) required minimum pay, benefits, working conditions, etc. [1] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-faqs.htm https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/dlse-faqs.htm [2] https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws https://www.dol.gov/general/aboutdol/majorlaws

bcheung 7y ago

It also says if you actually want to be an independent contractor... because maybe you just dropped $150K on a vehicle, then you can't write it off anymore, and you're screwed. It bans people from having a choice.