4 ms·

The effects of this law are complicated -- I can't say that it's clearly a net boon or a net fail to me. While I sincerely empathize with Lawson here, I can na

The effects of this law are complicated -- I can't say that it's clearly a net boon or a net fail to me. While I sincerely empathize with Lawson here, I can name off the top of my head a dozen restaurants, several grocery stores, and a handful of B2C startups in the Bay Area that have historically misclassifed most of their cooks, dishwashers, waiters, cashiers, stockers, warehouse, and shipping & receiving staff as independent contractors. Many of those misclassified employees would rather[0] be employees with basic protections such as overtime pay + some degree of protection in the event that they are injured while working. At the same time, I know of some folks who are completely out of work as a result. [0] I know because I asked some of them, and was one of them in a past life

NotSammyHagar 7y ago
Every worker should have those basic protections. There are some people who are fortunate like this writer to have a real job and do not need their part-time gig. But there are way more people who could benefit from those protections. I'm a software engineer so I'm already pretty fortunate. Should we change laws so that we somehow hire more engrs, maybe pay less employment taxes or some such thing? Probably not. And there are plenty of people even in software engineering who lose their jobs and can't find another one for whatever reason, they'd benefit from stronger workplace protections. Workplace protections are a good idea, just like higher minimum wages; it's because raising the minimum bar is better because it helps those at the bottom. Even if a privileged person could take on a part-time passion project and now they can't.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- vector_spaces 7y ago
  I hear what you're saying, particularly about the author and her passion project. But there are some folks who aren't privileged by any stretch of the imagination who are probably going to experience some income loss or instability as legislation like this become more common. See [1] for an example, and also consider the situation for undocumented workers. So it's complicated! This will probably be a good thing for most workers, but it'll likely have nasty side effects when it comes to the most marginalized and vulnerable workers [1] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-rules-for-contractors-have-unexpected-consequences-for-the-citys-strip-clubs/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-rules-for-contractors-ha...
- username90 7y ago
  > Every worker should have those basic protections. So why tie them to a job? Why force people to work full time for a single employer to enjoy them? Why not do like most countries and guarantee these protections for everyone instead?
  - yostrovs 7y ago
    Why tie anything to a job. People have human needs regardless of their skills or ability to get a job. From each according to his abilities.. To each according to his needs. Right?
  - NotSammyHagar 7y ago
    I'd support this not be tied to jobs. but in the us, reality is that currently many things like health insurance are unfortunately tied to jobs.

NotSammyHagar 7y ago

Every worker should have those basic protections. There are some people who are fortunate like this writer to have a real job and do not need their part-time gig. But there are way more people who could benefit from those protections. I'm a software engineer so I'm already pretty fortunate. Should we change laws so that we somehow hire more engrs, maybe pay less employment taxes or some such thing? Probably not. And there are plenty of people even in software engineering who lose their jobs and can't find another one for whatever reason, they'd benefit from stronger workplace protections. Workplace protections are a good idea, just like higher minimum wages; it's because raising the minimum bar is better because it helps those at the bottom. Even if a privileged person could take on a part-time passion project and now they can't.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
vector_spaces 7y ago
I hear what you're saying, particularly about the author and her passion project. But there are some folks who aren't privileged by any stretch of the imagination who are probably going to experience some income loss or instability as legislation like this become more common. See [1] for an example, and also consider the situation for undocumented workers. So it's complicated! This will probably be a good thing for most workers, but it'll likely have nasty side effects when it comes to the most marginalized and vulnerable workers [1] https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-rules-for-contractors-have-unexpected-consequences-for-the-citys-strip-clubs/ https://www.sfexaminer.com/news/new-rules-for-contractors-ha...
username90 7y ago
> Every worker should have those basic protections. So why tie them to a job? Why force people to work full time for a single employer to enjoy them? Why not do like most countries and guarantee these protections for everyone instead?
- yostrovs 7y ago
  Why tie anything to a job. People have human needs regardless of their skills or ability to get a job. From each according to his abilities.. To each according to his needs. Right?
- NotSammyHagar 7y ago
  I'd support this not be tied to jobs. but in the us, reality is that currently many things like health insurance are unfortunately tied to jobs.