5 ms·
This line of reasoning assumes that the legislature couldn't have made up a third class of worker instead of lumping everyone as either an employee or a contrac
by henryfjordan 6y ago
This line of reasoning assumes that the legislature couldn't have made up a third class of worker instead of lumping everyone as either an employee or a contractor. The courts cannot write law in the same way the legislature can, and so was much more restricted in what they could order. AB5 is just unimaginative.
- AaronFriel 6y agoCan the California state legislature create a new federal class of worker? I keep seeing this in threads, but I don't understand the rationale. The United States Federal Government recognizes W-2 and 1099 filings, the State of California cannot invent a new Federal filing status or amend the United States Code, correct?
- henryfjordan 6y agoYou know, I haven't heard that argument being raised yet. That's an interesting point. I think California could have said "pay gig workers with a W-2 but you don't need to give them all the exact same benefits as employees (health insurance, 401k, disability)”. Basically I'm not sure that it matters much, but you are correct in that California cannot amend federal law.
- jedberg 6y agoIf anything you would want them to say "pay them with a 1099 but also you must follow these extra rules beyond the federal 1099 rules". If you make them W2, then there are a bunch of federal rules you have to follow that may not make sense.
- marshray 6y agoWho said anything about federal class? What stops the state from adding its own set of classifications and filing requirements in addition to the federal ones?
- lotsofpulp 6y agoHopefully a desire to spend some of society's resources doing something other than paperwork.