6 ms·

"California’s legislature recently passed a law, Assembly Bill 5, codifying a California Supreme Court decision that classifies many independent contractors as

"California’s legislature recently passed a law, Assembly Bill 5, codifying a California Supreme Court decision that classifies many independent contractors as full-time employees" . . . is that a giant sucking sound I hear as scores of independent businesses are forced to leave California because they can no longer endure the punishment of California government forcing more taxes and regulations on them ? In effect, classifying more and more independent contractors as employees as just a "backdoor parlor trick" for government to collect more employment taxes . . .

pimlottc 7y ago
> In effect, classifying more and more independent contractors as employees as just a "backdoor parlor trick" for government to collect more employment taxes . . . I'm not sure that matters, contractors still have to pay self-employment taxes.
thrower123 7y ago
At some point, the poor camel's back is going to give out and one of these thousand cuts is going to kill the golden goose. This is probably not the one, but piling up misguided policies decade after decade is destroying a state that should be a utopia.
- bsder 7y ago
  And yet California is the 6th largest economy of the world and growing. And after purging most of the Republicans from the Assembly somehow hasn't had any budget issues. Imagine that. So, I'm still waiting for that inevitable exodus of Republicans from California so my housing costs will come down. I hear tell that Texas is your utopia. Could y'all hurry up and leave already?
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  - _-david-_ 7y ago
    There is now record homelessness in California so maybe things aren't going to good. There is definitely budget issues. California's roads are close to the worst in the US. There are all sorts of issues with dams in the California. It is estimated to be $185 billion - $765 Billion (not sure why estimates are so broad) to fix all the infrastructure in California. If you add up all the debt by the California government and the various local governments it is over $1 trillion. The debt on pension alone is over $200 billion. If there are additional people leaving California it will be harder to pay off all the debt and pay for all the infrastructure.
  - thrower123 7y ago
    Yet there's enormous homeless problems, with feces and used hypodermics in the streets juxtaposed with trillion dollar tech headquarters. Outbreaks of plague, typhus and cholera. Rolling blackouts because infrastructure has been so poorly maintained. People that make five and six times the nationwide median salary living in their cars or packed in with roommates because the housing market is so broken. If it wasn't real, nobody would believe it.
  - Gibbon1 7y ago
    > And after purging most of the Republicans from the Assembly somehow hasn't had any budget issues. Imagine that. The Republican obstruction was the cause of California's continuing budget issues until the voters passed Proposition 25 which removed the 2/3 super majority requirement to pass a budget.
freeopinion 7y ago
I don't know California employment law and I don't know the specifics of AB5, but I have some experience with "backdoor parlor tricks." They are most often used by corporations looking to dodge various obligations. I have seen big tech companies outsource entire departments of their operation in a way that some schmo shows up to the same company every day and gets their marching orders from an employee of that company. They do this for years. But they are not employees, or temps. They work for some "contractor" whose only contract is with the company in question. Why doesn't SB Nation want to treat these "contractors" like employees? I don't care at all for California, but I have a hard time seeing them as the bad guy here. This editor claims many people do so much work for SB Nation that they can't fit into the small box carved out by AB5. Before I get too worked up, I'd ask for a definition of "small box." If you're putting in 30 hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only contract, it's pretty clear that you are an employee and any other arrangement is a dodge.
- foogazi 7y ago
  > If you're putting in 30 hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only contract, it's pretty clear that you are an employee and any other arrangement is a dodge. Why does it matter? Why can’t citizens freely arrange their own working conditions? Why can’t the editor decide to work for who she wants? Because she lives in California
  - freeopinion 7y ago
    Because some poor family is struggling to eat so they send their 14 year old kid to hustle up some income. That kid gets exploited by their employer, but has to accept it because little sister and brother and mom are depending on them. Substitute 28 year old immigrant mom--or 55 year old grandpa--for 14 year old kid. The story repeats and repeats. When you're hungry you accept conditions you wouldn't otherwise. You may think this is fine and fitting. But California has decided there are limits to what is fine and fitting. Perhaps they ban child labor below age 12. Perhaps they insist that pregnant mothers can't be forced to lift more than 100kg. Maybe they bar disfigurement as acceptable corporate punishment for mistakes. Maybe they say you can't pay less than $100/hr. Some of this regulation may seem ridiculous to you. I'm guessing you've never been hungry and exploited. You and I can argue about whether $100/hr is the line between exploitation and entitlement. Should employers really be forced to pay for insurance? I hope, though, that you understand that most people think that employers do have certain obligations. And whether you believe that or not, the reality is that employers are regulated. So it creates an unlevel playing field when one company recognizes their employees and follows the rules, while another rushes them out the back door into a ditch whenever somebody that looks like a regulator shows up. I agree that two consenting adults should be able to negotiate terms of employment. I recognize that the power dynamic between parties is not always equitable. That's never been the case for me; perhaps it's never been the case for you. But it is the case for a lot of Californians. And I think that it is reasonable to apply rules to everybody instead of trying to figure out which employers are scummy and which aren't. I personally think my kid doesn't need to be paid a minimum wage, because I provide their food, roof, bed, insurance, etc. I want them to work for the experience. Nobody is really depending on the paycheck. But perhaps their coworker is depending desperately on that paycheck. We could regulate that only desperate people have to be paid a minimum wage, but that seems pretty unworkable. So, as it stands, my child's employer has to pay them minimum wage even though my child might be willing to negotiate for less. I'm ok blaming that on California, even though my child doesn't live or work in California.
mdorazio 7y ago
People have been saying some version of this about California economic policies for as long as I can remember, but the state somehow manages to keep attracting business and residents. First it was high taxes, then it was effectively banning non-competes, then it was raising minimum wages in major cities, now it's redefining contractor classification. I have to say that personally I don't see this going any differently than the previous times - businesses will continue to do just fine, some workers will get forced out of the state, others will take their places, and the net result will be a continuation of rising inequality [1], but not much else. [1] https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/income-inequality-is-on-the-rise-in-california-in-some-counties-the-disparities-are-extreme/ https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/income-ineq...

pimlottc 7y ago

> In effect, classifying more and more independent contractors as employees as just a "backdoor parlor trick" for government to collect more employment taxes . . . I'm not sure that matters, contractors still have to pay self-employment taxes.

thrower123 7y ago

At some point, the poor camel's back is going to give out and one of these thousand cuts is going to kill the golden goose. This is probably not the one, but piling up misguided policies decade after decade is destroying a state that should be a utopia.

bsder 7y ago
And yet California is the 6th largest economy of the world and growing. And after purging most of the Republicans from the Assembly somehow hasn't had any budget issues. Imagine that. So, I'm still waiting for that inevitable exodus of Republicans from California so my housing costs will come down. I hear tell that Texas is your utopia. Could y'all hurry up and leave already?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- _-david-_ 7y ago
  There is now record homelessness in California so maybe things aren't going to good. There is definitely budget issues. California's roads are close to the worst in the US. There are all sorts of issues with dams in the California. It is estimated to be $185 billion - $765 Billion (not sure why estimates are so broad) to fix all the infrastructure in California. If you add up all the debt by the California government and the various local governments it is over $1 trillion. The debt on pension alone is over $200 billion. If there are additional people leaving California it will be harder to pay off all the debt and pay for all the infrastructure.
- thrower123 7y ago
  Yet there's enormous homeless problems, with feces and used hypodermics in the streets juxtaposed with trillion dollar tech headquarters. Outbreaks of plague, typhus and cholera. Rolling blackouts because infrastructure has been so poorly maintained. People that make five and six times the nationwide median salary living in their cars or packed in with roommates because the housing market is so broken. If it wasn't real, nobody would believe it.
- Gibbon1 7y ago
  > And after purging most of the Republicans from the Assembly somehow hasn't had any budget issues. Imagine that. The Republican obstruction was the cause of California's continuing budget issues until the voters passed Proposition 25 which removed the 2/3 super majority requirement to pass a budget.

freeopinion 7y ago

I don't know California employment law and I don't know the specifics of AB5, but I have some experience with "backdoor parlor tricks." They are most often used by corporations looking to dodge various obligations. I have seen big tech companies outsource entire departments of their operation in a way that some schmo shows up to the same company every day and gets their marching orders from an employee of that company. They do this for years. But they are not employees, or temps. They work for some "contractor" whose only contract is with the company in question. Why doesn't SB Nation want to treat these "contractors" like employees? I don't care at all for California, but I have a hard time seeing them as the bad guy here. This editor claims many people do so much work for SB Nation that they can't fit into the small box carved out by AB5. Before I get too worked up, I'd ask for a definition of "small box." If you're putting in 30 hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only contract, it's pretty clear that you are an employee and any other arrangement is a dodge.

foogazi 7y ago
> If you're putting in 30 hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only contract, it's pretty clear that you are an employee and any other arrangement is a dodge. Why does it matter? Why can’t citizens freely arrange their own working conditions? Why can’t the editor decide to work for who she wants? Because she lives in California
- freeopinion 7y ago
  Because some poor family is struggling to eat so they send their 14 year old kid to hustle up some income. That kid gets exploited by their employer, but has to accept it because little sister and brother and mom are depending on them. Substitute 28 year old immigrant mom--or 55 year old grandpa--for 14 year old kid. The story repeats and repeats. When you're hungry you accept conditions you wouldn't otherwise. You may think this is fine and fitting. But California has decided there are limits to what is fine and fitting. Perhaps they ban child labor below age 12. Perhaps they insist that pregnant mothers can't be forced to lift more than 100kg. Maybe they bar disfigurement as acceptable corporate punishment for mistakes. Maybe they say you can't pay less than $100/hr. Some of this regulation may seem ridiculous to you. I'm guessing you've never been hungry and exploited. You and I can argue about whether $100/hr is the line between exploitation and entitlement. Should employers really be forced to pay for insurance? I hope, though, that you understand that most people think that employers do have certain obligations. And whether you believe that or not, the reality is that employers are regulated. So it creates an unlevel playing field when one company recognizes their employees and follows the rules, while another rushes them out the back door into a ditch whenever somebody that looks like a regulator shows up. I agree that two consenting adults should be able to negotiate terms of employment. I recognize that the power dynamic between parties is not always equitable. That's never been the case for me; perhaps it's never been the case for you. But it is the case for a lot of Californians. And I think that it is reasonable to apply rules to everybody instead of trying to figure out which employers are scummy and which aren't. I personally think my kid doesn't need to be paid a minimum wage, because I provide their food, roof, bed, insurance, etc. I want them to work for the experience. Nobody is really depending on the paycheck. But perhaps their coworker is depending desperately on that paycheck. We could regulate that only desperate people have to be paid a minimum wage, but that seems pretty unworkable. So, as it stands, my child's employer has to pay them minimum wage even though my child might be willing to negotiate for less. I'm ok blaming that on California, even though my child doesn't live or work in California.

mdorazio 7y ago

People have been saying some version of this about California economic policies for as long as I can remember, but the state somehow manages to keep attracting business and residents. First it was high taxes, then it was effectively banning non-competes, then it was raising minimum wages in major cities, now it's redefining contractor classification. I have to say that personally I don't see this going any differently than the previous times - businesses will continue to do just fine, some workers will get forced out of the state, others will take their places, and the net result will be a continuation of rising inequality [1], but not much else. [1] https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/income-inequality-is-on-the-rise-in-california-in-some-counties-the-disparities-are-extreme/ https://calmatters.org/california-divide/2019/10/income-ineq...