6 ms·

“In 2020, we will move California’s team blogs from our established system with hundreds of contractors to a new one run by a team of new SB Nation employees.”

“In 2020, we will move California’s team blogs from our established system with hundreds of contractors to a new one run by a team of new SB Nation employees.” So in other words, the headline could be "California's AB5 creates better jobs at Vox Media"

munk-a 7y ago
Better jobs, sure... but weaker Q1 profits are expected and that's just unacceptable! /s
chance_state 7y ago
Do we know what the net gain/loss of jobs will be? Creating a handful of better jobs while firing "hundreds" might not be a good trade-off.
- AmericanChopper 7y ago
  Creating more restrictive employment regulations will result in job losses 100% of the time. Something that is very arrogantly dismissed by people who promote them. Also the idea that these jobs are better comes with its own set of problems. If you had one of the jobs that was outlawed by these regulations, you now possibly have no job at all. It’s self evident that anybody who had one of these jobs would prefer it to having no job at all. It also carries the not-at-all-self-evident assumption that anybody working one of these jobs would prefer to have a full time employment contract. I’m a contractor, I like being a contractor, if I lived in California I would have just had my livelihood taken away from me by the government, who would say they’re doing it for my own good.
- Goronmon 7y ago
  Is there ever a situation where its preferable to have shitty jobs (shitty meaning no healthcare and no minimum wage protections in this example) regardless of the number?
  - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
    Uh, yeah. When I was younger I got to choose between working as a contractor with no health care or not working, and I happily chose working as a contractor. Once I found something better, I voted with my feet and went there, but I don't appreciate legislatures "looking out for me" by reducing my options.
    - Brozilean 7y ago
      In this case, there is no option. You either work contractor or don't work. This law is in place to establish this option of "better job". You wouldn't have an option without it.
      - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
        No, that's the thing. It's not turning 300 contractor positions into 300 better jobs. It's turning 300 contractor positions into a very small number of better jobs (not all of which will actually go to those contractors), leaving a lot more people unemployed.
        toomuchtodo 7y ago
        US unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 50 years and wages are starting to rise due to employers desperate for labor. This is the best time for labor policies that cause churn to be established.
        Matticus_Rex 7y ago
        I think it's the least damaging time for those policies to be established, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
        7y ago
modeless 7y ago
"Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions created.
- gdulli 7y ago
  That's expected, right? Their freelancer database likely has a long tail of occasional or inactive contributors. It's not like it makes sense to assume they have the equivalent of "hundreds" of current freelancer FTEs. Wasn't a goal of this to convert "jobs" with low/unreliable hours to employee status?
- vintermann 7y ago
  Remember it's a choice by Vox Media to do handle it in this way. It's not some event of nature that just happens. No matter how "necessary" it actually was, organized labor has never accepted the idea that many precarious jobs are better than a few decent jobs. It just leads to a race to the bottom.
- reaperducer 7y ago
  "Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions created. To clarify: most of these "jobs" were so sparse they could hardly be classified as jobs. They were people working intermittently one or two hours a week as a hobby. Replacing a bunch of people cosplaying journalists when the mood strikes them with a couple of dozen actual journalists is a good thing.
  - scarface74 7y ago
    So now you think it was the right thing to do to stop people who may have just wanted some side money from being able to do freelance work?
    - reaperducer 7y ago
      No one is stopping anyone from making side money doing freelance work. Vox just has to play by the rules that every other company does.
paggle 7y ago
Let’s wait for evidence on “better.” I wonder what kinds of demands will be placed on employees who know that their 20 positions have 200 former freelancers able and willing to do their job.
- false-mirror 7y ago
  Vox has a union. Without freelance, the workers have more leverage over their employer.
scarface74 7y ago
What makes you think all of those freelancers wanted to be full time employees? Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld, quit his full time job to work on his blog and do his podcasts full time. He also does freelance writing on the side. He said that the new law has actually made it harder for him to do freelance work even though that's what he wanted.

munk-a 7y ago

Better jobs, sure... but weaker Q1 profits are expected and that's just unacceptable! /s

chance_state 7y ago

Do we know what the net gain/loss of jobs will be? Creating a handful of better jobs while firing "hundreds" might not be a good trade-off.

AmericanChopper 7y ago
Creating more restrictive employment regulations will result in job losses 100% of the time. Something that is very arrogantly dismissed by people who promote them. Also the idea that these jobs are better comes with its own set of problems. If you had one of the jobs that was outlawed by these regulations, you now possibly have no job at all. It’s self evident that anybody who had one of these jobs would prefer it to having no job at all. It also carries the not-at-all-self-evident assumption that anybody working one of these jobs would prefer to have a full time employment contract. I’m a contractor, I like being a contractor, if I lived in California I would have just had my livelihood taken away from me by the government, who would say they’re doing it for my own good.
Goronmon 7y ago
Is there ever a situation where its preferable to have shitty jobs (shitty meaning no healthcare and no minimum wage protections in this example) regardless of the number?
- Matticus_Rex 7y ago
  Uh, yeah. When I was younger I got to choose between working as a contractor with no health care or not working, and I happily chose working as a contractor. Once I found something better, I voted with my feet and went there, but I don't appreciate legislatures "looking out for me" by reducing my options.
  - Brozilean 7y ago
    In this case, there is no option. You either work contractor or don't work. This law is in place to establish this option of "better job". You wouldn't have an option without it.
    - Matticus_Rex 7y ago
      No, that's the thing. It's not turning 300 contractor positions into 300 better jobs. It's turning 300 contractor positions into a very small number of better jobs (not all of which will actually go to those contractors), leaving a lot more people unemployed.
      - toomuchtodo 7y ago
        US unemployment is the lowest it’s been in 50 years and wages are starting to rise due to employers desperate for labor. This is the best time for labor policies that cause churn to be established.
        Matticus_Rex 7y ago
        I think it's the least damaging time for those policies to be established, but that doesn't mean it's a good thing to do.
        deleted 7y ago
        [deleted]
      - 7y ago

modeless 7y ago

"Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions created.

gdulli 7y ago
That's expected, right? Their freelancer database likely has a long tail of occasional or inactive contributors. It's not like it makes sense to assume they have the equivalent of "hundreds" of current freelancer FTEs. Wasn't a goal of this to convert "jobs" with low/unreliable hours to employee status?
vintermann 7y ago
Remember it's a choice by Vox Media to do handle it in this way. It's not some event of nature that just happens. No matter how "necessary" it actually was, organized labor has never accepted the idea that many precarious jobs are better than a few decent jobs. It just leads to a race to the bottom.
reaperducer 7y ago
"Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions created. To clarify: most of these "jobs" were so sparse they could hardly be classified as jobs. They were people working intermittently one or two hours a week as a hobby. Replacing a bunch of people cosplaying journalists when the mood strikes them with a couple of dozen actual journalists is a good thing.
- scarface74 7y ago
  So now you think it was the right thing to do to stop people who may have just wanted some side money from being able to do freelance work?
  - reaperducer 7y ago
    No one is stopping anyone from making side money doing freelance work. Vox just has to play by the rules that every other company does.

paggle 7y ago

Let’s wait for evidence on “better.” I wonder what kinds of demands will be placed on employees who know that their 20 positions have 200 former freelancers able and willing to do their job.

false-mirror 7y ago
Vox has a union. Without freelance, the workers have more leverage over their employer.

scarface74 7y ago

What makes you think all of those freelancers wanted to be full time employees? Jason Snell, the former editor of Macworld, quit his full time job to work on his blog and do his podcasts full time. He also does freelance writing on the side. He said that the new law has actually made it harder for him to do freelance work even though that's what he wanted.