6 ms·

I guess I'm a bit behind the conversation here but what exactly are the obligations the reclassifying contractors as employees would place on employers that are

by s17n 7y ago

I guess I'm a bit behind the conversation here but what exactly are the obligations the reclassifying contractors as employees would place on employers that are apparently impossible for SB Nation to fulfill?

microcolonel 7y ago
Well, first of all they'd have some obligation to ascertain that, and that alone won't come cheap. Effectively, Rebecca was likely more productive than the law allows, so they would need to provide her with ridiculously outsized benefits even though she is clearly a genuine independent contractor, and it's likely that other contributors were also too productive for the law. Though, and this bears repeating, even figuring that out is going to be very expensive.
StanislavPetrov 7y ago
Paying for health insurance, unemployment insurance and a host of other fees required of businesses for employees that aren't required for contractors.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- tantalor 7y ago
  I think those only kick in if the number of employees is large enough. The article doesn't mention that detail so you may be right.
  - kasey_junk 7y ago
    SB Nation is run by Vox Media.
- ars 7y ago
  Exactly. But you don't list the actual problem: Those benefits are based on working certain number of hours (because the benefits are fixed, they can not adjust them up and down based on hours worked). So basically what this law does is prevent people or employers from having flexibility in hours.
  - gregd 7y ago
    You keep stating things that aren't true. Salaried employees negotiate and get benefits and isn't tied to "hours worked". There are lots of jobs now listing flexible hours as a benefit.
    - fiter 7y ago
      I believe the poster you are replying to is referring to number of hours worked. Are you referring to when the hours are worked? There's a difference between 100 hours one month and 20 hours another month versus 8 hour block per day and four 2 hour blocks per day.
- s17n 7y ago
  Pretty sure those requirements only apply to full time employees.
gregd 7y ago
It removes a mechanism that allows companies to exploit workers by treating them like employees, but considering them legally as ICs (no Workman's Comp, at-will, etc.) and giving them a 1099 form at the end of the year.
- watwatinthewat 7y ago
  But this person is losing her "passion project", so it must not be worth the intended consequences. (/s)
- jcims 7y ago
  Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers. So you end up with a bunch of admin overhead at the employer to manage all of these additional requirements and maintain all of the admin burden at the regulators to ensure that they are doing their job. Wouldn't it be better to just tax companies for 1099 like you do unemployment tax and pivot that over to a state-managed healthcare and retirement benefit that 1099's could opt in to for some reasonably low cost?
  - gregd 7y ago
    "Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers." How so?
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      Because the US is shockingly sucktastic wrt health care for it's people. Most wealthy, developed nations provide good health care to its citizens via the government. The US provides health care as a benefit of full-time employee status. Contractor, part-time employees, unemployed people, homemakers and others often get screwed in this deal, which is likely part of why California is saying "You can't call these people contractors anymore." National health care would resolve a lot of issues that get darkly joked about a la "The third world country of America."
      - 7y ago
bsder 7y ago
Even if you fall afoul of the AB5, all this does is move the burden of proof to the employing company that the people employed are independent contractors. If your people are all happy being independent contractors, you're probably going to be okay. The fact that SB Nation would rather fire all these people rather than even attempt to comply simply tells me how much value SB Nation places on them.
- jcims 7y ago
  What if you're just publishing a few articles a month?
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
  No, it does more than simply move the burden of proof. Writing articles for a media site is always going to fail the ABC test; it's clearly "integral to the company’s business", no matter how strongly the writers look like independent contractors in other ways.

by s17n 7y ago

microcolonel 7y ago

Well, first of all they'd have some obligation to ascertain that, and that alone won't come cheap. Effectively, Rebecca was likely more productive than the law allows, so they would need to provide her with ridiculously outsized benefits even though she is clearly a genuine independent contractor, and it's likely that other contributors were also too productive for the law. Though, and this bears repeating, even figuring that out is going to be very expensive.

StanislavPetrov 7y ago

Paying for health insurance, unemployment insurance and a host of other fees required of businesses for employees that aren't required for contractors.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tantalor 7y ago
I think those only kick in if the number of employees is large enough. The article doesn't mention that detail so you may be right.
- kasey_junk 7y ago
  SB Nation is run by Vox Media.
ars 7y ago
Exactly. But you don't list the actual problem: Those benefits are based on working certain number of hours (because the benefits are fixed, they can not adjust them up and down based on hours worked). So basically what this law does is prevent people or employers from having flexibility in hours.
- gregd 7y ago
  You keep stating things that aren't true. Salaried employees negotiate and get benefits and isn't tied to "hours worked". There are lots of jobs now listing flexible hours as a benefit.
  - fiter 7y ago
    I believe the poster you are replying to is referring to number of hours worked. Are you referring to when the hours are worked? There's a difference between 100 hours one month and 20 hours another month versus 8 hour block per day and four 2 hour blocks per day.
s17n 7y ago
Pretty sure those requirements only apply to full time employees.

gregd 7y ago

It removes a mechanism that allows companies to exploit workers by treating them like employees, but considering them legally as ICs (no Workman's Comp, at-will, etc.) and giving them a 1099 form at the end of the year.

watwatinthewat 7y ago
But this person is losing her "passion project", so it must not be worth the intended consequences. (/s)
jcims 7y ago
Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers. So you end up with a bunch of admin overhead at the employer to manage all of these additional requirements and maintain all of the admin burden at the regulators to ensure that they are doing their job. Wouldn't it be better to just tax companies for 1099 like you do unemployment tax and pivot that over to a state-managed healthcare and retirement benefit that 1099's could opt in to for some reasonably low cost?
- gregd 7y ago
  "Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers." How so?
  - DoreenMichele 7y ago
    Because the US is shockingly sucktastic wrt health care for it's people. Most wealthy, developed nations provide good health care to its citizens via the government. The US provides health care as a benefit of full-time employee status. Contractor, part-time employees, unemployed people, homemakers and others often get screwed in this deal, which is likely part of why California is saying "You can't call these people contractors anymore." National health care would resolve a lot of issues that get darkly joked about a la "The third world country of America."
    - 7y ago

bsder 7y ago

Even if you fall afoul of the AB5, all this does is move the burden of proof to the employing company that the people employed are independent contractors. If your people are all happy being independent contractors, you're probably going to be okay. The fact that SB Nation would rather fire all these people rather than even attempt to comply simply tells me how much value SB Nation places on them.

jcims 7y ago
What if you're just publishing a few articles a month?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
No, it does more than simply move the burden of proof. Writing articles for a media site is always going to fail the ABC test; it's clearly "integral to the company’s business", no matter how strongly the writers look like independent contractors in other ways.