3 ms·

Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees. Now if you had a restaurant that tried to clai

Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees. Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. Ultimately this sounds like they wanted to get away with offloading the risks of trucking to the individual rather than deal with it at a business level.

prostoalex 7y ago
> Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees. The analogy is not 100% equivalent, as truckers in question are independent owners and operators. Closer restaurant analogy would be someone opening a taco truck, and getting hired to cater a small event. California now says that whoever hires that taco truck is responsible for benefits and other labor regulations, so pay up or hire caterers from a well-established corporate entity like Wendy's. For analogy's sake let's also consider that the taco truck owner has already invested a six-digit amount into their [now useless] food truck. This benefits large established corporations in favor of small independent businesses. It helps no one, as truckers always had a choice to go work for one of those large corporate entities (the churn in corporate trucking is consistently high, which is why you tend to see those "We're hiring" signs on the back of the trucks) if they wanted a full array of benefits and schedule/routes set by someone in corporate. For whatever personal reasons (larger take-home income, benefits provided by spouse, ability to choose preferred routes, schedule preferences, etc.) they chose not to. For what it's worth, labor law specifically carves out restaurant owners and their family members (including things like minimum wage). Truckers want the same carveout.
- wahern 7y ago
  > California now says that whoever hires that taco truck is responsible for benefits and other labor regulations The law says no such thing. The biggest change from pre-existing law regards the second prong of the new law, which asks whether the type of work is within the usual course of the hiring entity's business. This is the same test in pre-existing law, it's just that this test is applied strictly rather than only given weighted consideration. Are you a company that organizes and dispatches taco trucks? You're likely effected. Are you a company that hires a taco truck every Tuesday for employee lunch? I'd bet money that you're safe. Are you a family hiring a taco truck for a birthday party? It's ludicrous to suggest the new test imposes a legal burden on you.
Animats 7y ago
Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. That's Travis Kalanick's "Cloud Kitchens".

prostoalex 7y ago

> Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees. The analogy is not 100% equivalent, as truckers in question are independent owners and operators. Closer restaurant analogy would be someone opening a taco truck, and getting hired to cater a small event. California now says that whoever hires that taco truck is responsible for benefits and other labor regulations, so pay up or hire caterers from a well-established corporate entity like Wendy's. For analogy's sake let's also consider that the taco truck owner has already invested a six-digit amount into their [now useless] food truck. This benefits large established corporations in favor of small independent businesses. It helps no one, as truckers always had a choice to go work for one of those large corporate entities (the churn in corporate trucking is consistently high, which is why you tend to see those "We're hiring" signs on the back of the trucks) if they wanted a full array of benefits and schedule/routes set by someone in corporate. For whatever personal reasons (larger take-home income, benefits provided by spouse, ability to choose preferred routes, schedule preferences, etc.) they chose not to. For what it's worth, labor law specifically carves out restaurant owners and their family members (including things like minimum wage). Truckers want the same carveout.

wahern 7y ago
> California now says that whoever hires that taco truck is responsible for benefits and other labor regulations The law says no such thing. The biggest change from pre-existing law regards the second prong of the new law, which asks whether the type of work is within the usual course of the hiring entity's business. This is the same test in pre-existing law, it's just that this test is applied strictly rather than only given weighted consideration. Are you a company that organizes and dispatches taco trucks? You're likely effected. Are you a company that hires a taco truck every Tuesday for employee lunch? I'd bet money that you're safe. Are you a family hiring a taco truck for a birthday party? It's ludicrous to suggest the new test imposes a legal burden on you.

Animats 7y ago

Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. That's Travis Kalanick's "Cloud Kitchens".