4 ms·
> while not being given the flexibility to drive for other companies. Leaving some drivers with negative paychecks (basically, their pay didn't cover expenses).
by iammisc 5y ago
> while not being given the flexibility to drive for other companies. Leaving some drivers with negative paychecks (basically, their pay didn't cover expenses).
This seems to me that the drivers should just file a self-written W-2 as a statutory employee and let the IRS figure it out. Not allowing an 'owner-operator' to work for other companies pretty clearly puts the 'owners' into the category of statutory employee.
- acdha 5y agoThat’s easy to say if you can trivially find another job. If they’re concerned about that and don’t want to be in a tax case (which seems extra unappealing for someone who spends most of the day driving) they probably won’t - and that’s what those companies are banking on.
- iammisc 5y agoYou don't need to do anything. The IRS will fight this one for you.
- acdha 5y agoThe question is whether they are confident enough that this will be true, not lead to retaliation, and some consequences will happen. If not, a lot of people might feel they’re trapped.
- iammisc 5y agoI dunno.. maybe the government should start an advertising campaign, but that would imply that they would be able to put individual interests above those of their corporate overlords.
- throwawayboise 5y agoTruck drivers with a clean driving record can trivially find another job. Now if they are locked into some Uber-like scam where their employer financed "their" truck purchase it may be more complicated.
- acdha 5y agoThat’s what the situation in this thread sounded like: those companies must have some kind of lever to force exclusivity and I’d assume it’s something like a loan.
- caethan 5y agoCalifornia regulatory requirements basically shut down drivers owning their own trucks: the cheap old diesel trucks aren't in compliance anymore. So there's a lot of scummy leasing arrangements for the newer more expensive trucks.