4 ms·

You're putting a lot of weight on the word basically in your first sentence - the reality is that gig workers have characteristics that clearly fall under the c

You're putting a lot of weight on the word basically in your first sentence - the reality is that gig workers have characteristics that clearly fall under the classification of employees and others that clearly fall under the classification of contractors. The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law. Though to be clear, I agree with you 100% that this is because Congress is just perpetually failing America through corruption, selfishness, etc., and that failure puts the labor secretary in an unenviable position of having to enforce laws that don't really work for the situation.

larrik 6y ago
> The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law. As a member of the Executive branch, that seems to be his job, yes.
brudgers 6y ago
[IANAL] My understanding is that if a worker has any characteristic of an employee, they are an employee. Any of several criteria are sufficient and only one of them is necessary. In the bigger picture, Congress passes laws and delegates authority to a branch of government to establish rules and regulations using a process complying with other statutes that dictate how rules and regulations become binding. Essentially, in the US at all levels -- Federal, State, and Local -- there are two types of legal requirements. Statutes and rules/regulations. The statute is the what. Rules and regulations are the implementation details...ok, there's actually a third parallel part which is legal precedent established by the courts. Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun.
- awillen 6y ago
  I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the system is not clear in the way that you are describing it. As to "Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun." - each tiny detail? This is a case of classifying millions of workers. We're not talking about a tiny detail, we're talking about something that is immensely important both to all the people affected by it as well as all the companies that have to operate under these labor laws. This isn't Congress delegating away the details, it's them failing for an extended period of time to address an absolute enormous and critical issue in the labor market.
  - brudgers 6y ago
    So are you saying the Labor Secretary should classify them as independent contractors? In terms of scale the Department of Labor classifies all workers. Should Congress classify each worker individually? Were previous Labor Secretaries out of line for classifying the workers as contractors?
daotoad 6y ago
If you accept that the law is ambiguous and that the current Secretary of Labor is effectively making law by choosing an interpretation, you must also accept that the existing regulatory structure also derives from a choice made by a previous Secretary of Labor who effectively made law by so doing so. Your argument does not provide any basis for preferring one interpretation over another.
- awillen 6y ago
  That's because it's not an argument about which interpretation is preferable. The parent comment said it is not the secretary's job to rewrite the law (which implies that the secretary is not making law), and my argument is that that the secretary is indeed writing law. In terms of preference, mine is not for one labor secretary's policy over another (I mean, I have a preference there, but it's beside the point here). My argument is that the labor secretary is making law here, and that is a bad thing because it is the job of Congress to make laws, which they are utterly failing to do.
  - daotoad 5y ago
    It is the Secretary's job to (have their department) write regulations. Regulations are the implementation of the specification laid out in law. When the law is ambiguous, regulators have to choose an interpretation. Congressional paralysis is definitely a problem, but until we have a major change in either Senate rules or political paradigm, we not see any improvement on that front.

larrik 6y ago

> The problem with your argument is that because the law is ambiguous with regard to this situation, the labor secretary is effectively making law by choosing a particular interpretation of the law. As a member of the Executive branch, that seems to be his job, yes.

brudgers 6y ago

[IANAL] My understanding is that if a worker has any characteristic of an employee, they are an employee. Any of several criteria are sufficient and only one of them is necessary. In the bigger picture, Congress passes laws and delegates authority to a branch of government to establish rules and regulations using a process complying with other statutes that dictate how rules and regulations become binding. Essentially, in the US at all levels -- Federal, State, and Local -- there are two types of legal requirements. Statutes and rules/regulations. The statute is the what. Rules and regulations are the implementation details...ok, there's actually a third parallel part which is legal precedent established by the courts. Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun.

awillen 6y ago
I am also not a lawyer, but my understanding is that the system is not clear in the way that you are describing it. As to "Anyway, Congress delegates authority to executive agencies so that it can focus on other things and not have to micro-mange each tiny detail of everything under the sun." - each tiny detail? This is a case of classifying millions of workers. We're not talking about a tiny detail, we're talking about something that is immensely important both to all the people affected by it as well as all the companies that have to operate under these labor laws. This isn't Congress delegating away the details, it's them failing for an extended period of time to address an absolute enormous and critical issue in the labor market.
- brudgers 6y ago
  So are you saying the Labor Secretary should classify them as independent contractors? In terms of scale the Department of Labor classifies all workers. Should Congress classify each worker individually? Were previous Labor Secretaries out of line for classifying the workers as contractors?

daotoad 6y ago

If you accept that the law is ambiguous and that the current Secretary of Labor is effectively making law by choosing an interpretation, you must also accept that the existing regulatory structure also derives from a choice made by a previous Secretary of Labor who effectively made law by so doing so. Your argument does not provide any basis for preferring one interpretation over another.

awillen 6y ago
That's because it's not an argument about which interpretation is preferable. The parent comment said it is not the secretary's job to rewrite the law (which implies that the secretary is not making law), and my argument is that that the secretary is indeed writing law. In terms of preference, mine is not for one labor secretary's policy over another (I mean, I have a preference there, but it's beside the point here). My argument is that the labor secretary is making law here, and that is a bad thing because it is the job of Congress to make laws, which they are utterly failing to do.
- daotoad 5y ago
  It is the Secretary's job to (have their department) write regulations. Regulations are the implementation of the specification laid out in law. When the law is ambiguous, regulators have to choose an interpretation. Congressional paralysis is definitely a problem, but until we have a major change in either Senate rules or political paradigm, we not see any improvement on that front.