It is not crushing freelancers. It clarifies that freelancers are workers who: Are free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the...
It is not crushing freelancers. It clarifies that freelancers are workers who:
Are free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact
Performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business
Is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity[16]
So if you're a lawyer doing work for a publishing company? No problem! If you're a graphic designer doing the layout for their magazine and being managed by the Head Editor? Maybe you should be covered by worker protections such as unemployment insurance and paid time off (both of which California requires is given to all employees, but not contractors.)
Essentially, this article is arguing that it's bad that we require that workers are properly compensated and protected because with those protections in place, some companies will decide to take advantage of people elsewhere as opposed to being responsible for their employees.
I hesitated to post the headline because of that word "crushing" which is emotional, not factual. But we do need reporting about how people are affected by this new law. We aren't going to figure...
I hesitated to post the headline because of that word "crushing" which is emotional, not factual. But we do need reporting about how people are affected by this new law. We aren't going to figure out what's happening for freelancers and other workers from general principles or the wording of the law. Even if you have personal experience, you don't know what other people are seeing.
What you describe is what the law is supposed to do. But an argument about general principles doesn't invalidate reporting of what's actually happening.
This is a tough one because the very news organizations we depend upon to provide factual reporting are going to be affected in one specific way by this law. Those companies are going to pay more...
This is a tough one because the very news organizations we depend upon to provide factual reporting are going to be affected in one specific way by this law. Those companies are going to pay more and have less flexibility. Should we expect articles from those very companies talking about the benefits for the workers? Perhaps once people have settled into it as a thing that is as opposed to a thing that's coming we can get a fair description of the actual effects, but for the moment it's all doomsaying.
Thinking of this in terms of "works" versus "doesn't work" seems excessively binary? The law is likely to have complicated effects, improving some people's lives but making others worse. It's...
Thinking of this in terms of "works" versus "doesn't work" seems excessively binary? The law is likely to have complicated effects, improving some people's lives but making others worse. It's probably too soon to say whether things will be better or worse for most people.
Until every state has a law like this. Then these companies can't just keep running to states that don't have protections like this in place. Until then, it will hurt people who live in areas with...
The law is likely to have complicated effects, improving some people's lives but making others worse.
Until every state has a law like this. Then these companies can't just keep running to states that don't have protections like this in place. Until then, it will hurt people who live in areas with these laws.
But take the question one step further. Once we have appropriate protections across the USA, companies will (and do) go further, taking advantage of people in yet further places where there are...
But take the question one step further. Once we have appropriate protections across the USA, companies will (and do) go further, taking advantage of people in yet further places where there are even fewer protections. Is that then ok, because those people aren't Americans? Certainly not. Much like state-level solutions are incomplete because corporations exist across states, nation level solutions are incomplete because corporations exist across nations. We certainly need state level solutions in the face of higher level indifference, but it's also valuable to recognize the limitations of said solution.
You're right. That's the same issue we faced with manufacturing and minimum wage/worker protections. It added to the cost of making things in America and now companies just go elsewhere. But...
You're right. That's the same issue we faced with manufacturing and minimum wage/worker protections. It added to the cost of making things in America and now companies just go elsewhere.
But rather than having things like that stop us, we should be pushing for worker protections across the world, regardless of borders.
And I absolutely acknowledge that as someone who is not impacted by this law, it is very easy for me to say these things. It's an entirely different thing for someone who's livelihood is impacted by the unequal application of these types of laws.
Legislators didn’t seem to understand that companies often hire people from out of state as remote freelancers, putting freelancers in California at a disadvantage, notes Steve King, partner in Emergent Research in Walnut Creek, California, which studies the freelance economy.
“It’s hit writers first,” says King, pointing to a number of articles that California-based freelance writers have published about the difficulty in getting assignments since AB 5, as well as freelance job postings that now exclude California freelancers.
It is not crushing freelancers. It clarifies that freelancers are workers who:
So if you're a lawyer doing work for a publishing company? No problem! If you're a graphic designer doing the layout for their magazine and being managed by the Head Editor? Maybe you should be covered by worker protections such as unemployment insurance and paid time off (both of which California requires is given to all employees, but not contractors.)
Essentially, this article is arguing that it's bad that we require that workers are properly compensated and protected because with those protections in place, some companies will decide to take advantage of people elsewhere as opposed to being responsible for their employees.
I hesitated to post the headline because of that word "crushing" which is emotional, not factual. But we do need reporting about how people are affected by this new law. We aren't going to figure out what's happening for freelancers and other workers from general principles or the wording of the law. Even if you have personal experience, you don't know what other people are seeing.
What you describe is what the law is supposed to do. But an argument about general principles doesn't invalidate reporting of what's actually happening.
Maybe there are other, better articles?
This is a tough one because the very news organizations we depend upon to provide factual reporting are going to be affected in one specific way by this law. Those companies are going to pay more and have less flexibility. Should we expect articles from those very companies talking about the benefits for the workers? Perhaps once people have settled into it as a thing that is as opposed to a thing that's coming we can get a fair description of the actual effects, but for the moment it's all doomsaying.
Thinking of this in terms of "works" versus "doesn't work" seems excessively binary? The law is likely to have complicated effects, improving some people's lives but making others worse. It's probably too soon to say whether things will be better or worse for most people.
Until every state has a law like this. Then these companies can't just keep running to states that don't have protections like this in place. Until then, it will hurt people who live in areas with these laws.
But take the question one step further. Once we have appropriate protections across the USA, companies will (and do) go further, taking advantage of people in yet further places where there are even fewer protections. Is that then ok, because those people aren't Americans? Certainly not. Much like state-level solutions are incomplete because corporations exist across states, nation level solutions are incomplete because corporations exist across nations. We certainly need state level solutions in the face of higher level indifference, but it's also valuable to recognize the limitations of said solution.
You're right. That's the same issue we faced with manufacturing and minimum wage/worker protections. It added to the cost of making things in America and now companies just go elsewhere.
But rather than having things like that stop us, we should be pushing for worker protections across the world, regardless of borders.
And I absolutely acknowledge that as someone who is not impacted by this law, it is very easy for me to say these things. It's an entirely different thing for someone who's livelihood is impacted by the unequal application of these types of laws.
From the article: