7 ms·

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? Or does it have to be done ASAP? The latter seems sort of infeasible. Curious about how these judgments are resolved. My feeling is that judges and the government aren't out there to hurt anyone since compliance is the goal rather than punishment but I have no real legal expertise. Thanks in advance.

runako 6y ago
Not a lawyer, but as a citizen why would we expect a company to be allowed to violate a law for an extended period of time after a court has ruled that the conduct is illegal? That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws.
- jimbokun 6y ago
  Because it might be better for all stakeholders, employer, employees and customers?
- twblalock 6y ago
  > That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws. AB5 is a case of capriciously writing laws. The state wrote a new law that was specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it.
  - thatguy0900 6y ago
    Isn't every law specifically intended to put a group of people in noncompliance with it? What's the point of making a law if everyone was going to comply regardless?
    - twblalock 6y ago
      The power to create laws is not supposed to be used as weapon. It clearly was in this case. AB5 was written in bad faith with the goal of hurting specific companies, not with the goal of writing a sensible law that sets a framework for how businesses ought to operate. They wrote it in such a hurry that it unintentionally hurt a bunch of other people and small businesses. That's not how laws are supposed to work.
      - thatguy0900 6y ago
        So if a government sees a company's actions as too unethical what are they to do about it other than target them with a law? I don't know about the specifics of this law, Ill assume you're correct it's poor, but I have trouble understanding your point of the law not being used as a weapon against these companies. That seems to be all its for to me, something to be used to stop a bad actors behavior. I can't imagine the majority of laws are created preemptively.
      - zjaffee 6y ago
        Laws aren't allowed to be created as weapons, under US constitutional law this is often referred to as illegal taking, if AB5 was illegal taking these companies would've been able to get the law halted which it seems to have not happened.
        deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - runako 6y ago
        Would you consider all labor and environmental laws to have been crafted as a weapon? One could argue that much of our labor and environmental protective apparatus was written to curb behaviors of specific companies (or "business models," if you prefer).
        closeparen 6y ago
        It’s usually written to make existing manufacturing activity clean up after itself, or existing employment relationships better for the employees. There may be some collateral damage, but the intent is not to destroy. “People’s jobs should be better” is a different goal from “bad jobs should not exist.” It may be used as a tool to achieve the former, but we care whether it’s actually effective at doing so.
  - runako 6y ago
    > specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it. It would be capricious if it were more targeted, written without ample public discussion, or if the affected firms had no ability to continue operations. As I understand it, none of that is true of AB5. For example, the affected companies are free to use contingent workforces in a manner similar to the other many thousands of companies that were not affected. I'm far from an expert on the law, but wouldn't a fair read also be that those companies were operating in noncompliance with community norms (as expressed by voter preferences), and so lawmakers plugged a regulatory hole? In that way, could it be seen as similar to a body writing a new law (say) prohibiting people from carrying long rifles into grocery stores? Would that also be a law written capriciously?
    - twblalock 6y ago
      If it wasn't targeted, then why are there so many exceptions written into the law? Lawmakers added exemptions for dozens of different types of businesses. If this was intended to be a generic law about worker classification they wouldn't have needed to do that. They really had Uber and similar companies in their crosshairs, and they intended to apply this law narrowly to them.
      - runako 6y ago
        Thanks for the clarification! (I am definitely not an expert on this law.) Just reading up on it, I see exemptions for (simplifying a bit) a) highly-paid professions and b) commercial fishers, repo agencies, and people who drive for driving clubs(?). The first category absolutely makes sense if the aim is something like "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers". The second category smells like lobbying. Unless I'm missing some of the dozens of types of businesses, I don't see how the exemptions are broadly anything more than a red herring here. I guess they could have left the exemptions and then put a $ figure and an inflation tie, but that has proven problematic as well. How would you have written a law to express the goal of "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers" ?
dragonwriter 6y ago
> Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? No, except perhaps as a settlement offer, but because the law gives specific rights to workers which State executive officials don't have the authority to bargain away, I don't know that would be effective except against any fines, etc, that might be due to the State; individual workers would still have claims until they complied. > Or does it have to be done ASAP? It has to be done from the effective date of the legal requirement to avoid legal penalties; for the preliminary injunction, it has to be done on whatever timeline (which may be immediately) is specified in the injunction once any stay on the injunction ends (this one was stayed for 10 days during which Uber is attempting to appeal to have it lifted) to avoid contempt penalties for defying the injunction. > The latter seems sort of infeasible. Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law.
- throwaway894345 6y ago
  > Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law. The business plan didn’t break the law; a new law was introduced to disrupt the existing business plan. This is pretty obvious no matter your opinion about Uber’s business model or the novel law in question.
  - comex 6y ago
    The new law merely codified a legal standard that the California Supreme Court had previously come up with (in Dynamex in 2018) as an interpretation of existing law.
hobofan 6y ago
Since this is the result of a court case, where they should have been complying with the law already, no, there is no transition period. The transition period was the ~2 months between AB5 being signed and it coming into effect (+ the year leading up to it, which they could've also used to prepare).
marcosdumay 6y ago
> can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? IANAL, but well, this is kinda basic. All laws come with instructions about that. Some do give them that time, other laws do not and say they must be followed immediately.

runako 6y ago

Not a lawyer, but as a citizen why would we expect a company to be allowed to violate a law for an extended period of time after a court has ruled that the conduct is illegal? That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws.

jimbokun 6y ago
Because it might be better for all stakeholders, employer, employees and customers?
twblalock 6y ago
> That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws. AB5 is a case of capriciously writing laws. The state wrote a new law that was specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it.
- thatguy0900 6y ago
  Isn't every law specifically intended to put a group of people in noncompliance with it? What's the point of making a law if everyone was going to comply regardless?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    The power to create laws is not supposed to be used as weapon. It clearly was in this case. AB5 was written in bad faith with the goal of hurting specific companies, not with the goal of writing a sensible law that sets a framework for how businesses ought to operate. They wrote it in such a hurry that it unintentionally hurt a bunch of other people and small businesses. That's not how laws are supposed to work.
    - thatguy0900 6y ago
      So if a government sees a company's actions as too unethical what are they to do about it other than target them with a law? I don't know about the specifics of this law, Ill assume you're correct it's poor, but I have trouble understanding your point of the law not being used as a weapon against these companies. That seems to be all its for to me, something to be used to stop a bad actors behavior. I can't imagine the majority of laws are created preemptively.
    - zjaffee 6y ago
      Laws aren't allowed to be created as weapons, under US constitutional law this is often referred to as illegal taking, if AB5 was illegal taking these companies would've been able to get the law halted which it seems to have not happened.
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
    - runako 6y ago
      Would you consider all labor and environmental laws to have been crafted as a weapon? One could argue that much of our labor and environmental protective apparatus was written to curb behaviors of specific companies (or "business models," if you prefer).
      - closeparen 6y ago
        It’s usually written to make existing manufacturing activity clean up after itself, or existing employment relationships better for the employees. There may be some collateral damage, but the intent is not to destroy. “People’s jobs should be better” is a different goal from “bad jobs should not exist.” It may be used as a tool to achieve the former, but we care whether it’s actually effective at doing so.
- runako 6y ago
  > specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it. It would be capricious if it were more targeted, written without ample public discussion, or if the affected firms had no ability to continue operations. As I understand it, none of that is true of AB5. For example, the affected companies are free to use contingent workforces in a manner similar to the other many thousands of companies that were not affected. I'm far from an expert on the law, but wouldn't a fair read also be that those companies were operating in noncompliance with community norms (as expressed by voter preferences), and so lawmakers plugged a regulatory hole? In that way, could it be seen as similar to a body writing a new law (say) prohibiting people from carrying long rifles into grocery stores? Would that also be a law written capriciously?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    If it wasn't targeted, then why are there so many exceptions written into the law? Lawmakers added exemptions for dozens of different types of businesses. If this was intended to be a generic law about worker classification they wouldn't have needed to do that. They really had Uber and similar companies in their crosshairs, and they intended to apply this law narrowly to them.
    - runako 6y ago
      Thanks for the clarification! (I am definitely not an expert on this law.) Just reading up on it, I see exemptions for (simplifying a bit) a) highly-paid professions and b) commercial fishers, repo agencies, and people who drive for driving clubs(?). The first category absolutely makes sense if the aim is something like "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers". The second category smells like lobbying. Unless I'm missing some of the dozens of types of businesses, I don't see how the exemptions are broadly anything more than a red herring here. I guess they could have left the exemptions and then put a $ figure and an inflation tie, but that has proven problematic as well. How would you have written a law to express the goal of "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers" ?

dragonwriter 6y ago

> Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? No, except perhaps as a settlement offer, but because the law gives specific rights to workers which State executive officials don't have the authority to bargain away, I don't know that would be effective except against any fines, etc, that might be due to the State; individual workers would still have claims until they complied. > Or does it have to be done ASAP? It has to be done from the effective date of the legal requirement to avoid legal penalties; for the preliminary injunction, it has to be done on whatever timeline (which may be immediately) is specified in the injunction once any stay on the injunction ends (this one was stayed for 10 days during which Uber is attempting to appeal to have it lifted) to avoid contempt penalties for defying the injunction. > The latter seems sort of infeasible. Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law.

throwaway894345 6y ago
> Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law. The business plan didn’t break the law; a new law was introduced to disrupt the existing business plan. This is pretty obvious no matter your opinion about Uber’s business model or the novel law in question.
- comex 6y ago
  The new law merely codified a legal standard that the California Supreme Court had previously come up with (in Dynamex in 2018) as an interpretation of existing law.

hobofan 6y ago

Since this is the result of a court case, where they should have been complying with the law already, no, there is no transition period. The transition period was the ~2 months between AB5 being signed and it coming into effect (+ the year leading up to it, which they could've also used to prepare).

marcosdumay 6y ago

> can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? IANAL, but well, this is kinda basic. All laws come with instructions about that. Some do give them that time, other laws do not and say they must be followed immediately.