4 ms·

> But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting should ever have been legal i

> But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting should ever have been legal in the first place -- the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible. > Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one already. Is that what it actually does? Reading it, does not seem to communicate that. It seems to be saying, "if you are a contractor, you have to actually be a contractor, and not just filling out contractor-like legal paperwork because your employer forced you to" Uber and Lyft drivers are not actual businesses, they are employees of Uber and Lyft, picking up piecework employment, and Uber and Lyft are abusing a legal loophole to not pay them fairly. But if you run "Acme Transportation LLC" and own a vehicle that you use as your own Limo Shuttle service, you would fulfill Part C, even if it's your first day of business. Uber and Lyft want everyone to pretend those two groups of people are the exact same. But they aren't the same, and I've not heard any good reason why the rest of us should pretend likewise.

chrisseaton 6y ago
> I've generally only regularly seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible For example, almost all construction is subtracted. You contract with someone for a construction project. They manage it and they subcontract to specialists to do the different parts of the job, such as electricians, plumbers, etc. What on earth is 'immoral, unethical, or irresponsible' about that?
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > For example, almost all construction is subtracted. Yes, that was the first example that came to mind. You hire "ABC Fencebuilders" to build a fence, but without informing you, they subscontracted the job out to "BCD Fencebuilders" who subcontracted the job out to "CDE Fencebuilders". And so, if anything goes wrong, you have a half-dozen companies to deal with (none of which you actually hired, none of which you would have used if you had a choice), and no one will take actual responsibility for the situation, because they can all point to mysterious third-parties. That's what's irresponsible about that. Residential construction is rife with this, it's routinely used to screw people over. It's not necessarily a problem for someone to contract out work outside their industry or field (a carpenter might recommend hiring an electrician and/or a plumber, because a carpenter is not an electrician. All good, makes sense). But banning subcontracting within the same industry (i.e., an electrician subcontracting out their work to a different electrician) doesn't seem like a problem at all.
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    I don't think you understand how contracting works. If I contract you, and your subcontractor messes up, I don't complain to the subtractor, I complain to you. It's up to you whether you complain to the subtractor or just get it fixed. There's no issue with 'they can all point to mysterious third-parties'. That just isn't how contract law works. You’re responsible for the work of all your subcontractors. > but without informing you They do inform you. It's completely normal and works fine. The top-level contractor is often explicitly called the 'prime contractor' with the expectation they'll do the work of finding other contractors for you. It's not a scam it's useful to consumers. I don’t want to find and manage ten different contractors - I want just one person to complain to.
    - maxsilver 6y ago
      > I don't think you understand how contracting works. I think I do, I think you just haven't been hit by (or are otherwise ignoring) bad subcontracting behaviour. > That just isn't how contract law works. (The top party in the agreement still technically holds legal liability for the subcontracting work) True, but that only matters if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford the time and money and headaches to sue to enforce good behaviour. Normal people don't have lawyers on call, and can't afford to immediately file a lawsuit everytime someone does something irresponsible, and then wait for the whole thing to play out in court. > They do inform you. They don't always, and even if they do inform you, they can still do so without your consent. (EDIT: Removed another subcontracting example that was difficult for folks to follow, and wasn't particularly important to the point anyway)
      - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
        Being unable to afford a lawyer is still a thing even if the original contractor did all the work themselves. Selling a mortgage to another bank is not an instance of subcontracting. None of the things you're complaining about have anything to do with subcontracting.
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
- Ntrails 6y ago
  > What on earth is 'immoral, unethical, or irresponsible' about that? I cannot comment on construction, but lets talk about big companies. Big offices contract out to cleaning companies in part in order to avoid having to take responsibility for pay and conditions. e.g. "We pay all of our staff the London living wage". "What about your cleaning staff?" "Those are employees of our subcontractors, so we cannot comment"
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - graeme 6y ago
    Actually in that case subcontracting is legal. You appear to have misunderstood the law. You’re allowed to hire someone from a different field.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - chrisseaton 6y ago
    If you want your office management contractor to use a cleaning company that pays a living wage you can... put that in your contract with them! I think some companies literally do this already. We already have solutions to these problems! And if your contractor says it cannot comment on something and you’re not happy with that response, go with someone else.
    - AniseAbyss 6y ago
      Paying someone a living wage should never be voluntary. I guess we can abolish the minimum wage because everyone will do the ethical thing?
      - deleted 6y ago
        [deleted]
      - chrisseaton 6y ago
        > Paying someone a living wage should never be voluntary. I didn't say it should. > I guess we can abolish the minimum wage because everyone will do the ethical thing? No I don't think that. I'm not arguing for or against a living wage - it's just an example of something you could force a subcontractor to do using your contract with the prime contractor. Whether you think the living wage should be voluntary or not... it's not an example of an issue with subcontracting. Subcontracting doesn't make any difference to how much people are agreed to be paid.
MR4D 6y ago
What about the person who drives for both Uber and Lyft? My brother does that, and tells me most drivers he knows do the same. Should they be employees? And if so, can I work for Google and Apple at the same time as an employee?
- ugexe 6y ago
  If Apple or Google are ok with that then there is no legal reason they couldn’t. Of course “works somewhere else” isn’t a protected class, so how those employers respond to that arrangement is entirely up to them.
- maxsilver 6y ago
  I'd argue yes, they should definitely still be employees. When a person flips burgers for both McDonalds and Burger King, they're still clearly an employee with two different jobs at two companies, and not some sort of "independent food consultant". If you work as a cashier at both Shell and Speedway, you are today an employee with two different jobs at two different companies, and not some kind of "independent petroleum cashier contractor". Having two jobs at different companies happens all the time in the US today for low/middle-class folks, and has for many many decades now -- these folks are generally all still considered W2 employees.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  It is not uncommon to have multiple employers and be an employee at all of them. Someone might work one shift at CVS, then another at Rite Aid. Someone might work at Wendy's one day and work at McDonald's the next.
prostoalex 6y ago
> the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible What about lead generation? Hiring a professional at pre-determined prices like plumber (HomeAdvisor), mechanic (OpenBay), dentist (1800-DENTIST), florist (FTD), electrician (Amazon Home Services), various comedian or model or party clown booking agencies help the consumer to procure an infrequently needed service and not get ripped off in the process. It helps the professional to get some extra bookings when they have capacity for it. It seems that under AB5 any lead generation shop is in the same primary business as the subcontractor and therefore 1800DENTIST has to fully employ all those dentists on its platform.

chrisseaton 6y ago

> I've generally only regularly seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible For example, almost all construction is subtracted. You contract with someone for a construction project. They manage it and they subcontract to specialists to do the different parts of the job, such as electricians, plumbers, etc. What on earth is 'immoral, unethical, or irresponsible' about that?

maxsilver 6y ago
> For example, almost all construction is subtracted. Yes, that was the first example that came to mind. You hire "ABC Fencebuilders" to build a fence, but without informing you, they subscontracted the job out to "BCD Fencebuilders" who subcontracted the job out to "CDE Fencebuilders". And so, if anything goes wrong, you have a half-dozen companies to deal with (none of which you actually hired, none of which you would have used if you had a choice), and no one will take actual responsibility for the situation, because they can all point to mysterious third-parties. That's what's irresponsible about that. Residential construction is rife with this, it's routinely used to screw people over. It's not necessarily a problem for someone to contract out work outside their industry or field (a carpenter might recommend hiring an electrician and/or a plumber, because a carpenter is not an electrician. All good, makes sense). But banning subcontracting within the same industry (i.e., an electrician subcontracting out their work to a different electrician) doesn't seem like a problem at all.
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  I don't think you understand how contracting works. If I contract you, and your subcontractor messes up, I don't complain to the subtractor, I complain to you. It's up to you whether you complain to the subtractor or just get it fixed. There's no issue with 'they can all point to mysterious third-parties'. That just isn't how contract law works. You’re responsible for the work of all your subcontractors. > but without informing you They do inform you. It's completely normal and works fine. The top-level contractor is often explicitly called the 'prime contractor' with the expectation they'll do the work of finding other contractors for you. It's not a scam it's useful to consumers. I don’t want to find and manage ten different contractors - I want just one person to complain to.
  - maxsilver 6y ago
    > I don't think you understand how contracting works. I think I do, I think you just haven't been hit by (or are otherwise ignoring) bad subcontracting behaviour. > That just isn't how contract law works. (The top party in the agreement still technically holds legal liability for the subcontracting work) True, but that only matters if you are wealthy enough to be able to afford the time and money and headaches to sue to enforce good behaviour. Normal people don't have lawyers on call, and can't afford to immediately file a lawsuit everytime someone does something irresponsible, and then wait for the whole thing to play out in court. > They do inform you. They don't always, and even if they do inform you, they can still do so without your consent. (EDIT: Removed another subcontracting example that was difficult for folks to follow, and wasn't particularly important to the point anyway)
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      Being unable to afford a lawyer is still a thing even if the original contractor did all the work themselves. Selling a mortgage to another bank is not an instance of subcontracting. None of the things you're complaining about have anything to do with subcontracting.
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
Ntrails 6y ago
> What on earth is 'immoral, unethical, or irresponsible' about that? I cannot comment on construction, but lets talk about big companies. Big offices contract out to cleaning companies in part in order to avoid having to take responsibility for pay and conditions. e.g. "We pay all of our staff the London living wage". "What about your cleaning staff?" "Those are employees of our subcontractors, so we cannot comment"
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- graeme 6y ago
  Actually in that case subcontracting is legal. You appear to have misunderstood the law. You’re allowed to hire someone from a different field.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- chrisseaton 6y ago
  If you want your office management contractor to use a cleaning company that pays a living wage you can... put that in your contract with them! I think some companies literally do this already. We already have solutions to these problems! And if your contractor says it cannot comment on something and you’re not happy with that response, go with someone else.
  - AniseAbyss 6y ago
    Paying someone a living wage should never be voluntary. I guess we can abolish the minimum wage because everyone will do the ethical thing?
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - chrisseaton 6y ago
      > Paying someone a living wage should never be voluntary. I didn't say it should. > I guess we can abolish the minimum wage because everyone will do the ethical thing? No I don't think that. I'm not arguing for or against a living wage - it's just an example of something you could force a subcontractor to do using your contract with the prime contractor. Whether you think the living wage should be voluntary or not... it's not an example of an issue with subcontracting. Subcontracting doesn't make any difference to how much people are agreed to be paid.

MR4D 6y ago

What about the person who drives for both Uber and Lyft? My brother does that, and tells me most drivers he knows do the same. Should they be employees? And if so, can I work for Google and Apple at the same time as an employee?

ugexe 6y ago
If Apple or Google are ok with that then there is no legal reason they couldn’t. Of course “works somewhere else” isn’t a protected class, so how those employers respond to that arrangement is entirely up to them.
maxsilver 6y ago
I'd argue yes, they should definitely still be employees. When a person flips burgers for both McDonalds and Burger King, they're still clearly an employee with two different jobs at two companies, and not some sort of "independent food consultant". If you work as a cashier at both Shell and Speedway, you are today an employee with two different jobs at two different companies, and not some kind of "independent petroleum cashier contractor". Having two jobs at different companies happens all the time in the US today for low/middle-class folks, and has for many many decades now -- these folks are generally all still considered W2 employees.
heavyset_go 6y ago
It is not uncommon to have multiple employers and be an employee at all of them. Someone might work one shift at CVS, then another at Rite Aid. Someone might work at Wendy's one day and work at McDonald's the next.

prostoalex 6y ago

> the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible What about lead generation? Hiring a professional at pre-determined prices like plumber (HomeAdvisor), mechanic (OpenBay), dentist (1800-DENTIST), florist (FTD), electrician (Amazon Home Services), various comedian or model or party clown booking agencies help the consumer to procure an infrequently needed service and not get ripped off in the process. It helps the professional to get some extra bookings when they have capacity for it. It seems that under AB5 any lead generation shop is in the same primary business as the subcontractor and therefore 1800DENTIST has to fully employ all those dentists on its platform.