3 ms·

> 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 behavio

> 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
> Let's say you hate Chase Bank, they foreclosed on your parents home years ago, and are your sworn enemy. I don’t know if hatred and ‘sworn enemies’ and bearing a grudge is a great reason to be arguing for anything. But anyway your issue is with selling debt, not subcontracting, as the same issues would arrive if they sold the debt to Chase without subcontracting. Again, with simple subcontracting you only have to deal with the original contractor.
bmm6o 6y ago
> and sells it off Now you're talking about something completely different. You'd disallow selling a mortgage? And this is related to subcontractors how?
supportlocal4h 6y ago
If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Just like a landlord has to bar subleasing in the original lease agreement. No new law required. Problem solved. I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. I also question the current headline. Comedians in general are not affected. Comedians may be booked for 30 engagements a year by 25 different parties. That would make them an independent contractor. They probably employ an agent to line up those bookings. An agent may be employed by multiple comedians. Now, what if there were a company that booked comedians all over the place, then payed various comedians to fill those slots? Doesn't that flip the relationship? Isn't the comedian now employed by the agency? Is the comedy club contracting with the comedian or with the agency? Is the comedian contracting with the club or with the agency?
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Agreed, but I still don't think people should have to. It should just be default. It feels like saying, "if you didn't want them to rob you, you should have written 'can not rob me' into the contract" > I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. Also agreed. It seems clear to me what the law is trying to solve. If Uber/Lyft win this, then there's no reason for any company to not just reclassify every employee they've ever had as an independent contractor. If Uber/Lyft win this fight, there's zero reason for McDonalds to not say, "oh, our franchisee's don't have any employees. Those folks in the kitchen are all independent culinary artists, who use our Nationwide Mealtime App Platform to bid on various 4-hour shifts across our network of franchise-owned kitchens. Each one of those people are absolutely all their own employers, and fully control their means of employment, so long as they produce McNuggets and BigMacs to our exact specifications (which are so precise only for your own health and safety and freshness, of course, and definitely not because we are some sort of employer directing their labour)"
  - supportlocal4h 6y ago
    To be clear, I personally think "contractors" is often a pretty scummy way of avoiding legal obligations. I agree with your McDonalds scenario. But it doesn't help to confuse that with orthogonal issues. If you demonstrate that you confuse the two issues, you erode confidence that you are capable of producing correct solutions.

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

> Let's say you hate Chase Bank, they foreclosed on your parents home years ago, and are your sworn enemy. I don’t know if hatred and ‘sworn enemies’ and bearing a grudge is a great reason to be arguing for anything. But anyway your issue is with selling debt, not subcontracting, as the same issues would arrive if they sold the debt to Chase without subcontracting. Again, with simple subcontracting you only have to deal with the original contractor.

bmm6o 6y ago

> and sells it off Now you're talking about something completely different. You'd disallow selling a mortgage? And this is related to subcontractors how?

supportlocal4h 6y ago

If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Just like a landlord has to bar subleasing in the original lease agreement. No new law required. Problem solved. I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. I also question the current headline. Comedians in general are not affected. Comedians may be booked for 30 engagements a year by 25 different parties. That would make them an independent contractor. They probably employ an agent to line up those bookings. An agent may be employed by multiple comedians. Now, what if there were a company that booked comedians all over the place, then payed various comedians to fill those slots? Doesn't that flip the relationship? Isn't the comedian now employed by the agency? Is the comedy club contracting with the comedian or with the agency? Is the comedian contracting with the club or with the agency?

maxsilver 6y ago
> If you object to your contractor hiring any subcontractor, or just a specific contractor, you should write that into the contract. Agreed, but I still don't think people should have to. It should just be default. It feels like saying, "if you didn't want them to rob you, you should have written 'can not rob me' into the contract" > I don't think that was the problem this law is trying to solve. Also agreed. It seems clear to me what the law is trying to solve. If Uber/Lyft win this, then there's no reason for any company to not just reclassify every employee they've ever had as an independent contractor. If Uber/Lyft win this fight, there's zero reason for McDonalds to not say, "oh, our franchisee's don't have any employees. Those folks in the kitchen are all independent culinary artists, who use our Nationwide Mealtime App Platform to bid on various 4-hour shifts across our network of franchise-owned kitchens. Each one of those people are absolutely all their own employers, and fully control their means of employment, so long as they produce McNuggets and BigMacs to our exact specifications (which are so precise only for your own health and safety and freshness, of course, and definitely not because we are some sort of employer directing their labour)"
- supportlocal4h 6y ago
  To be clear, I personally think "contractors" is often a pretty scummy way of avoiding legal obligations. I agree with your McDonalds scenario. But it doesn't help to confuse that with orthogonal issues. If you demonstrate that you confuse the two issues, you erode confidence that you are capable of producing correct solutions.