4 ms·

Gig workers are 1099/contractors per the IRS Checklist for 1099 vs. W-2. This move by the Labor Dept is pure politics and a gift to the 'organized labor' moveme

Gig workers are 1099/contractors per the IRS Checklist for 1099 vs. W-2. This move by the Labor Dept is pure politics and a gift to the 'organized labor' movement so gig economy workers can be corralled into labor unions for the typical political reasons (voting as a block, endorsing/funding political campaigns, being weaponized to influence policy change)

diob 4y ago
This is a strange take, and looking at the checklist, it isn't even true what you've claimed. Let's take a gander: Following are the 20-points that have been established: 1. Must the individual take instructions from your management staff regarding when, where, and how work is to be done? (should be no if independent) Yes, down to the routes given. Drivers cannot go their own path, they typically have to use the instructions from the app. In addition, when / where is often forced by taking away work privileges from those who turn down work at any time. 2. Does the individual receive training from your company? (should be no if independent) No 3. Is the success or continuation of your business somewhat dependent on the type of service provided by the individual? (should be no if independent) Yes 4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services? (should be no if independent) Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way. 5. Have you hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker in completing the project stated in the contract? (should be no if independent) Iffy, this one is interesting since they do hire folks to maintain the service that allows them to do their part aka assist the worker in completing the project. 6. Is there a continuing relationship between your company and the individual? (should be no if independent) Yes 7. Must the individual work set hours? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 8. Is the individual required to work full time at your company? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 9. Is the work performed on company premises? (should be no if independent) No 10. Is the individual required to follow a set sequence or routine in the performance of his work? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 11. Must the individual give you reports regarding his/her work? (should be no if independent) Not sure, but I'll say yes since they rate riders. I don't care too much about this one. 12. Is the individual paid by the hour, week, or month? (should be no if independent) By the ride, so I guess no. 13. Do you reimburse the individual for business/travel expenses? (should be no if independent) No 14. Do you supply the individual with needed tools or materials? (should be no if independent) Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material. 15. Have you made a significant investment in facilities used by the individual to perform services? (should be no if independent) Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material. 16. Is the individual free from suffering a loss or realizing a profit based on his work? (should be no if independent) No 17. Does the individual only perform services for your company? (should be yes if independent) No 18. Does the individual limit the availability of his services to the general public? (should be yes if independent) Not sure, maybe? Is this an insurance thing? 19. Do you have the right to discharge the individual? (should be yes if independent) Yes 20. May the individual terminate his services at any time? (should be yes if independent) Yes "In general "no" answers to questions 1-16 and "yes" answers to questions 17-20 indicate an independent contractor. However, a simple majority of "no" answers to questions 1 to 16 and "yes" answers to questions 17 to 20 does not guarantee independent contractor treatment. Some questions are either irrelevant or of less importance because the answers may apply equally to employees and independent contractors." These are taken from: https://galachoruses.org/sites/default/files/IRS-20-questions-W2-vs-1099.pdf https://galachoruses.org/sites/default/files/IRS-20-question... Overall, I would say they don't meet the definition of independent contractor by a long margin, even excluding some of the iffy ones.
- cool_dude85 4y ago
  >4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services? (should be no if independent) >Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way. This means, can the uber driver sub out his drive to someone else as long as the customer gets from A to B? Answer to the DoL question is yes.
  - diob 4y ago
    That's what I was thinking. It depends though, because sometimes there are not enough drivers, so technically it can go either way. I think this is why defining a key part of your workforce as not a key part (aka gig) is tricky at best.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      Late reply, but I think we're talking here about after the ride is accepted. So if I'm driving, and I accept the ride to take the customer from A to B, I can't call up my buddy and have him do the drive for a 50% cut. It matters to Uber exactly who is driving.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Have you asked gig workers their opinions on this issue? You should, because many of them aren't asking to be classified as w-2/FT employees. They enjoy the flexibility these gig jobs give them. They often have other side hustles and pursuits, and don't want to spend 100% of their working time for Uber or DoorDash. This isn't some grassroots effort, this is being pushed by politicians and union organizers (more members = more $$).
  - diob 4y ago
    Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what you brought up originally.
    - Eumenes 4y ago
      We can go back and forth on the yes/no for the questionnaire, but its up for interpretation which is why this will probably go to the Supreme Court one day. I disagree with how you interrupted a few of them, but even looking at that, you seem to mostly agree with mine. This was helpful: https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf See, #1 to me is an obvious no (you pick when to work, you don't have to work the same area of town). If you worked for a taxi company as w2, they may tell you to work a certain neighborhood or only to/from the airport. #3 is a yes. #4 is no (you can't subcontract out your uber work, because its dependent on your DL/driving record). #5 - probably a no. "hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker" it would clearly state, providing a service (an app), but it means actual people. #6 should be no - what makes the relationship continuing? #7 is no (some drivers pick nights, or weekends, or after class), #8 is no (there are many less than FT drivers) #18 should be yes -- they can work for other gig work apps that do similar things at the same time, not just 1 company, thus servicing more of the general public I am happy to not be a lawyer :)
dangus 4y ago
I don’t understand how becoming classified as a W-2 employee automatically turns you into a union member that would supposedly do all the scary bad stuff you’re describing. The majority of W-2 employees are not a member of a union in the US. I also think it’s funny to consider a labor voting bloc and lobbying infrastructure to be some kind of a bad thing and at the same time having plenty of tolerance for all the voting and lobbying efforts of corporate interests. God forbid we have a workers’ lobbying bloc, wouldn’t want to get in the way of all the other lobbyists and corporate-owned political influencers. We’re bombarded with constant threats by the ownership class that any sort of political policy that helps the common person will result in all of us losing our jobs and the economy crumbling, and we’re told that unions are going to be “weaponized” (as you called it) to wreck the political system. Meanwhile, there’s dozens of examples of industry organizations using their influence to enshrine terrible policy into law: gun manufacturers and the NRA keeping guns easy to purchase and selling the message of fear, food manufacturers keeping nutritional, labeling, and advertising standards loose, the automobile industry stopping the expansion of public transit, the agricultural industry giving us laws outlawing oversight of humane practices, numerous companies fighting right to repair legislation, and the list just flows on and on like Niagara Falls. All of that stuff is totally fine but as soon as an organization controlled by workers wants to lobby and influence policy, that’s bad!
- Eumenes 4y ago
  I agree, lobbyists are out of control and would love to take money out of politics. However, Biden admin is trying to take California's AB5 national. This is obvious. Its the same people pushing for it. Alot of people, across all political opinion and backgrounds, oppose these labor laws. To me, this is less about gig work and unionization, and more about independent contractor freedom. Big government doesn't like self employment. The union piece is just a bone the politicians will throw to repay some favors. I'm worried that one day, all workers will have to be classified as w-2, which is a boon to corporate interests, and the feds. This is why I oppose this, because it'll set some new precedent. Its already happened in places like Australia, where their federal government brokered a deal between Uber and a large union. I imagine the architects behind this idea have a very similar plan in mind. Look at police and teacher unions in the US - total disaster. Those have very close ties to the government, as will this. This isn't some grassroots unionization effort. I view this gig worker classification as an extension of that, given the federal governments zeal for this issue. https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber-strikes-landmark-deal-on-gig-economy-employment-standards/411429 https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber...

diob 4y ago

This is a strange take, and looking at the checklist, it isn't even true what you've claimed. Let's take a gander: Following are the 20-points that have been established: 1. Must the individual take instructions from your management staff regarding when, where, and how work is to be done? (should be no if independent) Yes, down to the routes given. Drivers cannot go their own path, they typically have to use the instructions from the app. In addition, when / where is often forced by taking away work privileges from those who turn down work at any time. 2. Does the individual receive training from your company? (should be no if independent) No 3. Is the success or continuation of your business somewhat dependent on the type of service provided by the individual? (should be no if independent) Yes 4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services? (should be no if independent) Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way. 5. Have you hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker in completing the project stated in the contract? (should be no if independent) Iffy, this one is interesting since they do hire folks to maintain the service that allows them to do their part aka assist the worker in completing the project. 6. Is there a continuing relationship between your company and the individual? (should be no if independent) Yes 7. Must the individual work set hours? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 8. Is the individual required to work full time at your company? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 9. Is the work performed on company premises? (should be no if independent) No 10. Is the individual required to follow a set sequence or routine in the performance of his work? (should be no if independent) Iffy, individuals have to accept jobs or they're subject to ejection from the platform. 11. Must the individual give you reports regarding his/her work? (should be no if independent) Not sure, but I'll say yes since they rate riders. I don't care too much about this one. 12. Is the individual paid by the hour, week, or month? (should be no if independent) By the ride, so I guess no. 13. Do you reimburse the individual for business/travel expenses? (should be no if independent) No 14. Do you supply the individual with needed tools or materials? (should be no if independent) Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material. 15. Have you made a significant investment in facilities used by the individual to perform services? (should be no if independent) Iffy, since the platform is a tool / material. 16. Is the individual free from suffering a loss or realizing a profit based on his work? (should be no if independent) No 17. Does the individual only perform services for your company? (should be yes if independent) No 18. Does the individual limit the availability of his services to the general public? (should be yes if independent) Not sure, maybe? Is this an insurance thing? 19. Do you have the right to discharge the individual? (should be yes if independent) Yes 20. May the individual terminate his services at any time? (should be yes if independent) Yes "In general "no" answers to questions 1-16 and "yes" answers to questions 17-20 indicate an independent contractor. However, a simple majority of "no" answers to questions 1 to 16 and "yes" answers to questions 17 to 20 does not guarantee independent contractor treatment. Some questions are either irrelevant or of less importance because the answers may apply equally to employees and independent contractors." These are taken from: https://galachoruses.org/sites/default/files/IRS-20-questions-W2-vs-1099.pdf https://galachoruses.org/sites/default/files/IRS-20-question... Overall, I would say they don't meet the definition of independent contractor by a long margin, even excluding some of the iffy ones.

cool_dude85 4y ago
>4. Must the individual personally perform the contracted services? (should be no if independent) >Not sure what this one means, so I'll give it either way. This means, can the uber driver sub out his drive to someone else as long as the customer gets from A to B? Answer to the DoL question is yes.
- diob 4y ago
  That's what I was thinking. It depends though, because sometimes there are not enough drivers, so technically it can go either way. I think this is why defining a key part of your workforce as not a key part (aka gig) is tricky at best.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    Late reply, but I think we're talking here about after the ride is accepted. So if I'm driving, and I accept the ride to take the customer from A to B, I can't call up my buddy and have him do the drive for a 50% cut. It matters to Uber exactly who is driving.
Eumenes 4y ago
Have you asked gig workers their opinions on this issue? You should, because many of them aren't asking to be classified as w-2/FT employees. They enjoy the flexibility these gig jobs give them. They often have other side hustles and pursuits, and don't want to spend 100% of their working time for Uber or DoorDash. This isn't some grassroots effort, this is being pushed by politicians and union organizers (more members = more $$).
- diob 4y ago
  Yeah, but I'd rather focus on what you brought up originally.
  - Eumenes 4y ago
    We can go back and forth on the yes/no for the questionnaire, but its up for interpretation which is why this will probably go to the Supreme Court one day. I disagree with how you interrupted a few of them, but even looking at that, you seem to mostly agree with mine. This was helpful: https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf https://www.argbackoffice.com/arg/1099_irs_checklist.pdf See, #1 to me is an obvious no (you pick when to work, you don't have to work the same area of town). If you worked for a taxi company as w2, they may tell you to work a certain neighborhood or only to/from the airport. #3 is a yes. #4 is no (you can't subcontract out your uber work, because its dependent on your DL/driving record). #5 - probably a no. "hired, supervised, or paid individuals to assist the worker" it would clearly state, providing a service (an app), but it means actual people. #6 should be no - what makes the relationship continuing? #7 is no (some drivers pick nights, or weekends, or after class), #8 is no (there are many less than FT drivers) #18 should be yes -- they can work for other gig work apps that do similar things at the same time, not just 1 company, thus servicing more of the general public I am happy to not be a lawyer :)

dangus 4y ago

I don’t understand how becoming classified as a W-2 employee automatically turns you into a union member that would supposedly do all the scary bad stuff you’re describing. The majority of W-2 employees are not a member of a union in the US. I also think it’s funny to consider a labor voting bloc and lobbying infrastructure to be some kind of a bad thing and at the same time having plenty of tolerance for all the voting and lobbying efforts of corporate interests. God forbid we have a workers’ lobbying bloc, wouldn’t want to get in the way of all the other lobbyists and corporate-owned political influencers. We’re bombarded with constant threats by the ownership class that any sort of political policy that helps the common person will result in all of us losing our jobs and the economy crumbling, and we’re told that unions are going to be “weaponized” (as you called it) to wreck the political system. Meanwhile, there’s dozens of examples of industry organizations using their influence to enshrine terrible policy into law: gun manufacturers and the NRA keeping guns easy to purchase and selling the message of fear, food manufacturers keeping nutritional, labeling, and advertising standards loose, the automobile industry stopping the expansion of public transit, the agricultural industry giving us laws outlawing oversight of humane practices, numerous companies fighting right to repair legislation, and the list just flows on and on like Niagara Falls. All of that stuff is totally fine but as soon as an organization controlled by workers wants to lobby and influence policy, that’s bad!

Eumenes 4y ago
I agree, lobbyists are out of control and would love to take money out of politics. However, Biden admin is trying to take California's AB5 national. This is obvious. Its the same people pushing for it. Alot of people, across all political opinion and backgrounds, oppose these labor laws. To me, this is less about gig work and unionization, and more about independent contractor freedom. Big government doesn't like self employment. The union piece is just a bone the politicians will throw to repay some favors. I'm worried that one day, all workers will have to be classified as w-2, which is a boon to corporate interests, and the feds. This is why I oppose this, because it'll set some new precedent. Its already happened in places like Australia, where their federal government brokered a deal between Uber and a large union. I imagine the architects behind this idea have a very similar plan in mind. Look at police and teacher unions in the US - total disaster. Those have very close ties to the government, as will this. This isn't some grassroots unionization effort. I view this gig worker classification as an extension of that, given the federal governments zeal for this issue. https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber-strikes-landmark-deal-on-gig-economy-employment-standards/411429 https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber...