4 ms·

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

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.

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.