these precedents have been in place for years, this is just covering "gig workers" with the same protections contractors have had for a very long time. For eve

these precedents have been in place for years, this is just covering "gig workers" with the same protections contractors have had for a very long time. For everyone else, this person is just spreading FUD. I think it was in the early aughts when these tests first started to go into effect because companies would have 95%+ of their workforce be contractors as a means to avoid taxes but would treat them like employees (setting their hours, etc). It turns out the government doesn't like it when you try to avoid paying taxes, so these tests went into effect. This is just an extension of that to cover gig workers and the largest point of contention is going to be whether or not these gig workers can _regularly_ turn down work without being "fired". tech companies here are trapped between a rock and a hard place. Either they're working with contractors who can turn down work without negative repercussions and risk not serving customers or they admit these workers don't actually have a choice because they need to serve customers in a timely fashion.