5 ms·

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

by 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."
    - gregd 7y ago
      I don't disagree that our healthcare system is a joke. But working full-time for a company in no way, shape or form guarantees that you'll get health benefits too. AB5 also doesn't force employers to provide healthcare.
      - DoreenMichele 7y ago
        That doesn't mean the general climate in the US, shaped as it is by our health care policies, didn't help foster the creation of this bill. Policy and law isn't always rational, well-informed and wise. All too often, it's what you can get most everyone to agree on based on shared assumptions and biases.
      - snotrockets 7y ago
        I thought ACA fixed that? (As in requiring employers to give some healthcare, even if a horrible one)
    - ican1 7y ago
      I'm surprised why hating on America is fashionable in HN. If this hatred was directed against countries like France or Germany it would be immediately shut down as "nationalist flamewar." I'd also like to point out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries and more Europeans immigrate to the US than the reverse. If US is as bad as you say then why does that happen?
      - username90 7y ago
        USA is rich at the moment since the dollar is extremely strong, its GDP per capita wouldn't look so good if it went down to 2009 levels again. USA is an attractive emigration target since it is the biggest country which speaks the lingua franca, you see all English speaking countries enjoying similar advantages. This also naturally helps with university prestige and startup success.
    - s17n 7y ago
      The author of the article wouldn’t be a full time employee anyway, so I don’t see why this is such a hardship for SB Nation.
ars 7y ago
Please explain how they are being exploited? What exactly do they lose? And in your reply don't forget that if they converted to employees their base salary would be lower.
- gregd 7y ago
  You keep saying that converting from IC to employee would mean their base salary would be lower. Have you ever been an Independent Contractor? This simply isn't true.
  - ars 7y ago
    Yes I have, and yes it would be lower. There's even a conversion formula companies use. Basically take the extra social security tax they have to pay, and subtract that from salary (adjust a bit since the lower salary also lowers the tax). If they cover health insurance then subtract that as well. > This simply isn't true. It's lovely hearing that something I've actually experienced is not true. I switched from contractor with flexible hours, to employee full time (with the same company), and my take home was lower as an employee, but then again I got health insurance. If I had to do it again I would have stayed a contractor: I made more money, and I could shop around for better health insurance. The company might have said no and/or given me fewer hours, so I guess that's a negotiation I would have done. Of course in California the choice would be taken away from me.
    - gregd 7y ago
      I've been a self-employed IC with numerous large clients and I currently work for a company that I'm an actual employee, but my company contracts me out to another company. I've done this for over 15 years and none of what you're describing has been my experience. Did you even negotiate the transition or did you just accept what your company told you? How often have you gone through this?
s17n 7y ago
In California at least, pretty much all employees are at-will. Workman's comp I guess is a thing though - is it really that expensive?
- s17n 7y ago
  Looked it up, for a writer it would probably be like 1% of payroll.

by gregd 7y ago

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."
  - gregd 7y ago
    I don't disagree that our healthcare system is a joke. But working full-time for a company in no way, shape or form guarantees that you'll get health benefits too. AB5 also doesn't force employers to provide healthcare.
    - DoreenMichele 7y ago
      That doesn't mean the general climate in the US, shaped as it is by our health care policies, didn't help foster the creation of this bill. Policy and law isn't always rational, well-informed and wise. All too often, it's what you can get most everyone to agree on based on shared assumptions and biases.
    - snotrockets 7y ago
      I thought ACA fixed that? (As in requiring employers to give some healthcare, even if a horrible one)
  - ican1 7y ago
    I'm surprised why hating on America is fashionable in HN. If this hatred was directed against countries like France or Germany it would be immediately shut down as "nationalist flamewar." I'd also like to point out that the US has a higher GDP per capita than most European countries and more Europeans immigrate to the US than the reverse. If US is as bad as you say then why does that happen?
    - username90 7y ago
      USA is rich at the moment since the dollar is extremely strong, its GDP per capita wouldn't look so good if it went down to 2009 levels again. USA is an attractive emigration target since it is the biggest country which speaks the lingua franca, you see all English speaking countries enjoying similar advantages. This also naturally helps with university prestige and startup success.
  - s17n 7y ago
    The author of the article wouldn’t be a full time employee anyway, so I don’t see why this is such a hardship for SB Nation.

ars 7y ago

Please explain how they are being exploited? What exactly do they lose? And in your reply don't forget that if they converted to employees their base salary would be lower.

gregd 7y ago
You keep saying that converting from IC to employee would mean their base salary would be lower. Have you ever been an Independent Contractor? This simply isn't true.
- ars 7y ago
  Yes I have, and yes it would be lower. There's even a conversion formula companies use. Basically take the extra social security tax they have to pay, and subtract that from salary (adjust a bit since the lower salary also lowers the tax). If they cover health insurance then subtract that as well. > This simply isn't true. It's lovely hearing that something I've actually experienced is not true. I switched from contractor with flexible hours, to employee full time (with the same company), and my take home was lower as an employee, but then again I got health insurance. If I had to do it again I would have stayed a contractor: I made more money, and I could shop around for better health insurance. The company might have said no and/or given me fewer hours, so I guess that's a negotiation I would have done. Of course in California the choice would be taken away from me.
  - gregd 7y ago
    I've been a self-employed IC with numerous large clients and I currently work for a company that I'm an actual employee, but my company contracts me out to another company. I've done this for over 15 years and none of what you're describing has been my experience. Did you even negotiate the transition or did you just accept what your company told you? How often have you gone through this?

s17n 7y ago

In California at least, pretty much all employees are at-will. Workman's comp I guess is a thing though - is it really that expensive?

s17n 7y ago
Looked it up, for a writer it would probably be like 1% of payroll.