3 ms·

AB5 wouldn't affect you under the "Professionals" or "Professional Services" label. [1][2] Software contracting is largely excluded especially freelance. The

AB5 wouldn't affect you under the "Professionals" or "Professional Services" label. [1][2] Software contracting is largely excluded especially freelance. The employer would just have to follow the AB test which is beneficial to contractors: Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the company proves that the worker: (A) Is free from the control and direction of the company in performing work, both practically and in the contractual agreement between the parties; and (B) Performs work that is outside the usual course of the company’s business; and (C) Is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the company. If there was ever any issues with (C) which would be the only possible conflict, software/product/creative/engineers can get LLCs to to corp to corp contracting. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... [2] https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2019/09/california-ab5-employment-law https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-benefits/2019...

big_chungus 7y ago
Your assumptions are incorrect; I have already showed why I wouldn't have been able to work in a prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451 You're wrong that the "ABC" test is beneficial to contractors. I was doing software development for a software development company, so I wouldn't have passed B. As you have already agreed, I'd have failed C. Finally, I may or may not have met A. Your response to this is, "get an LLC?" You think gig economy workers and high schoolers are capable of this? As you said, that's fine for professionals with those kinds of resources and expertise (or the money for a lawyer). It's also different paperwork for the company. Showing that the best solution is to bypass the law via a loophole also doesn't exactly extol it's virtues.
- drawkbox 7y ago
  "Professional Services" and "Professionals" are exempt which includes engineers/software development. See here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997), engineers are AB5 exempt by law. Also, most freelancing software engineers and developers have their own LLC before they even begin. Asking a software engineer to make an LLC is easy, a bunch of food workers may not have the funds. I know almost zero developers that are contractors or freelancers that don't have their own LLC (usually single owner). I am a software engineer/developer and game developer that contracts and this doesn't affect me at all. I am very happy for food, cleaning, healthcare workers that will get more protections now. California is the last state doing anything for labor and workers. No need to pile it on labor/workers more when you have only one state out there fighting for lower/middle class to get better employment.
  - big_chungus 7y ago
    I'll quote the reply to the comment which you linked: "Unfortunately software engineering is not considered a "professional service" according to the final text in AB5. I'm not sure where you're seeing an exemption for software engineers in either of your linked resources. "Engineers" aren't software engineers if that's what you thought it was (see the part where a license is required)." It covers _licensed_ professionals, which would not have been me. I didn't even have a formal education. The only sub-specialty I could potentially see is a security professional with certifications, but that would probably only apply to, say, situations working on FIPS compliance audit.
    - drawkbox 7y ago
      Not sure I agree but if you are right, the software engineering job (which you can get a degree for which would be a certification or even a software cert like MCSD or similar) would mostly depend on the job at hand. If it was for any company/client that their main focus isn't software contracting then if would be fine according to the not the same field rule. If it was for a software company already, that contracted out then maybe but probably not for a few reasons: Contracts are usually project based or short term anyways (in hiring case contract to hire) and contractors usually have multiple clients and change frequently which would also fall into the non-long term exemption. Finally, again, if you have a degree, one certification (even MCSD or other) or you have an LLC, which every contractor/freelancer should have anyways, then you would be fine. I think you are trying really hard to make this affect software engineers/developers or other developer fields when it would easily be avoidable. The law was meant to target California companies abusing industry like food service, cleaning services, healthcare services where companies are clearly abusing workers and workers would rather be employed further. Most software contractors do not want to be full/part time and enjoy their freedom of setting their hours and picking and choosing clients. The only software field companies this would affect would be companies that force their developers to be in the office, between certain times, that sell software development services and have these workers for long term periods of time. Basically those situations the software developer probably does want to be employed so again not really an issue.

big_chungus 7y ago

Your assumptions are incorrect; I have already showed why I wouldn't have been able to work in a prior comment: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451 You're wrong that the "ABC" test is beneficial to contractors. I was doing software development for a software development company, so I wouldn't have passed B. As you have already agreed, I'd have failed C. Finally, I may or may not have met A. Your response to this is, "get an LLC?" You think gig economy workers and high schoolers are capable of this? As you said, that's fine for professionals with those kinds of resources and expertise (or the money for a lawyer). It's also different paperwork for the company. Showing that the best solution is to bypass the law via a loophole also doesn't exactly extol it's virtues.

drawkbox 7y ago
"Professional Services" and "Professionals" are exempt which includes engineers/software development. See here (https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997), engineers are AB5 exempt by law. Also, most freelancing software engineers and developers have their own LLC before they even begin. Asking a software engineer to make an LLC is easy, a bunch of food workers may not have the funds. I know almost zero developers that are contractors or freelancers that don't have their own LLC (usually single owner). I am a software engineer/developer and game developer that contracts and this doesn't affect me at all. I am very happy for food, cleaning, healthcare workers that will get more protections now. California is the last state doing anything for labor and workers. No need to pile it on labor/workers more when you have only one state out there fighting for lower/middle class to get better employment.
- big_chungus 7y ago
  I'll quote the reply to the comment which you linked: "Unfortunately software engineering is not considered a "professional service" according to the final text in AB5. I'm not sure where you're seeing an exemption for software engineers in either of your linked resources. "Engineers" aren't software engineers if that's what you thought it was (see the part where a license is required)." It covers _licensed_ professionals, which would not have been me. I didn't even have a formal education. The only sub-specialty I could potentially see is a security professional with certifications, but that would probably only apply to, say, situations working on FIPS compliance audit.
  - drawkbox 7y ago
    Not sure I agree but if you are right, the software engineering job (which you can get a degree for which would be a certification or even a software cert like MCSD or similar) would mostly depend on the job at hand. If it was for any company/client that their main focus isn't software contracting then if would be fine according to the not the same field rule. If it was for a software company already, that contracted out then maybe but probably not for a few reasons: Contracts are usually project based or short term anyways (in hiring case contract to hire) and contractors usually have multiple clients and change frequently which would also fall into the non-long term exemption. Finally, again, if you have a degree, one certification (even MCSD or other) or you have an LLC, which every contractor/freelancer should have anyways, then you would be fine. I think you are trying really hard to make this affect software engineers/developers or other developer fields when it would easily be avoidable. The law was meant to target California companies abusing industry like food service, cleaning services, healthcare services where companies are clearly abusing workers and workers would rather be employed further. Most software contractors do not want to be full/part time and enjoy their freedom of setting their hours and picking and choosing clients. The only software field companies this would affect would be companies that force their developers to be in the office, between certain times, that sell software development services and have these workers for long term periods of time. Basically those situations the software developer probably does want to be employed so again not really an issue.