3 ms·

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 b

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.

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.