3 ms·

> The law prioritises people who sign up for something they don't want (e.g. as a contractor, but wants to be perm), over people who sign up for something they

> The law prioritises people who sign up for something they don't want (e.g. as a contractor, but wants to be perm), over people who sign up for something they do want (i.e. as a contractor, who wants to be a contractor). I don't think that's a fair statement of the situation. The law is attempting to punish companies who intentionally mislabel the tax status of their employees. (for example, Uber claiming their drivers are "self-employed", when they're effectively just doing modern Piecework). Not arguing that the law is perfect, but the goal here is noble, and the idea is sound. Without new laws like this, nothing stops all employers from lying to the IRS about all employees and just making every employee anywhere a "self-employed contractor". > How do you know where you stand, as an individual or a business, if this stuff can just be changed? You read the rules? Nothing major has been changed, they're just closing previously exploited loopholes. This only really applies to you if you are an employee at a company that's trying to evade paying their taxes by labeling you a contractor. It doesn't prevent contractors from contracting (unless they're in some kind of weird edge case).

robertlagrant 3y ago
> for example, Uber claiming their drivers are "self-employed", when they're effectively just doing modern Piecework Self-employed is the legal status they have with Uber. Like I could be an IT contractor. I'd be self employed, and I might have several customers at a time. How is that mislabelling? I could do Uber and Lyft at the same time and Uber's HR department wouldn't come after me for working for Lyft, because I'm a free agent. Because I'm self-employed. > but the goal here is noble, and the idea is sound This is as ever the problem. Achieving noble goals (not that I think this goal is noble, to my understanding of it), even in a perfect world where the implementation might not be terrible, still has tradeoffs. Pretending the tradeoffs don't exist is silly - the nobility will wear off and the reality of the law will set in soon, and last for a long time. > nothing stops all employers from lying to the IRS about all employees and just making every employee anywhere a "self-employed contractor" People who sign a contract to be a permanent employee are not going to be classified to the IRS as self-employed. That is already a law. As far as I understand it, this law is about people voluntarily signing up as self-employed, with the associated pros and cons of that arrangement, and then deciding they want the legal system to force their employer to change the arrangement they previously agreed to. Now do Uber drivers have to be employees, regardless of what they want? > This only really applies to you if you are an employee at a company that's trying to evade paying their taxes by labeling you a contractor. Well, I disagree that it's a mislabelling. It goes deeper than taxes; it's the fundamental relationship between drivers and Uber. Should YouTubers all be classed as employees of YouTube, even though they agreed to the current arrangement, and can earn money on other platforms with no repurcussions? I do agree that the ruling might've been motivated by wanting to collect more taxes, but I can't say for sure. It seems much more framed as "I signed up as a self-employed person, with the associated pros and cons, but I want benefits now with no compensating adjustment."
- deleted 3y ago
  [deleted]

robertlagrant 3y ago

> for example, Uber claiming their drivers are "self-employed", when they're effectively just doing modern Piecework Self-employed is the legal status they have with Uber. Like I could be an IT contractor. I'd be self employed, and I might have several customers at a time. How is that mislabelling? I could do Uber and Lyft at the same time and Uber's HR department wouldn't come after me for working for Lyft, because I'm a free agent. Because I'm self-employed. > but the goal here is noble, and the idea is sound This is as ever the problem. Achieving noble goals (not that I think this goal is noble, to my understanding of it), even in a perfect world where the implementation might not be terrible, still has tradeoffs. Pretending the tradeoffs don't exist is silly - the nobility will wear off and the reality of the law will set in soon, and last for a long time. > nothing stops all employers from lying to the IRS about all employees and just making every employee anywhere a "self-employed contractor" People who sign a contract to be a permanent employee are not going to be classified to the IRS as self-employed. That is already a law. As far as I understand it, this law is about people voluntarily signing up as self-employed, with the associated pros and cons of that arrangement, and then deciding they want the legal system to force their employer to change the arrangement they previously agreed to. Now do Uber drivers have to be employees, regardless of what they want? > This only really applies to you if you are an employee at a company that's trying to evade paying their taxes by labeling you a contractor. Well, I disagree that it's a mislabelling. It goes deeper than taxes; it's the fundamental relationship between drivers and Uber. Should YouTubers all be classed as employees of YouTube, even though they agreed to the current arrangement, and can earn money on other platforms with no repurcussions? I do agree that the ruling might've been motivated by wanting to collect more taxes, but I can't say for sure. It seems much more framed as "I signed up as a self-employed person, with the associated pros and cons, but I want benefits now with no compensating adjustment."

deleted 3y ago
[deleted]