Posted on 03/17/2020 11:16:12 AM PDT by grundle
CALIFORNIA IS DEAD WRONG WITH AB 5 – HERE’S WHY
Did you know that booth rental in California is currently illegal? Now that I have your attention, let’s get into how the State of California is poised to kill a portion of our industry, and how you can help fix it. The beauty industry needs your help. The Dynamex Decision
In April of 2018, the California Supreme Court handed down a decision that determines who can be labelled an independent contractor in that state. If the worker doesn’t pass the ABC test, then the worker must be classified as an employee. The ABC test states:
(A) that the worker is 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; (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity.
Because most beauty industry members work alongside other independent providers, we don’t pass the “B” criterion laid out by this decision. That means if you currently rent space inside of a salon, you must become an employee of that salon to comply with this new law. Even if you are the only nail technician and the salon you rent from doesn’t offer nail services, what you offer is not considered “outside of the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.” oppose AB 5 in california dynamex
You can be an employee of the salon, or you can rent an expensive salon suite, or you can rent a space in an office complex as long as you have your own establishment license. Otherwise you are in an illegal situation and in violation of California law, effective April 2018. Proposed California Law AB 5
In reaction to the Dynamex decision, a bill was proposed by California State Assembly Member Lorena Gonzalez (D- San Diego) that would add Section 2750.3 to the Labor Code. This act clarifies the court’s decision and exempts certain professions from having to pass the ABC test. Like the Dynamex decision, this affects many industries in California, not just beauty (ie. doctors, rideshare drivers, freelancers and those likely to be a part of the “gig economy” etc.) Some of these groups have powerful lobbies to represent them and have been able to ensure that they will be exempt from this law. As currently written, this law would exempt doctors, real estate agents, and even hairstylists from the requirement of being employed by the business where they work. Recent pressure from estheticians and electrologists will likely result in a revision to include them in the bill, leaving manicurists as the sole beauty license category to remain affected.
Apparently Assembly Member Gonzalez and other California legislators believe that nail salon owners are some of the biggest offenders when it comes to employee misclassification, contributing to human, sex, and labor trafficking. Interest groups like the California Healthy Nail Salon Collaborative perpetuate the stereotype that the overwhelming majority of manicurists in California are marginalized “immigrant women” (their term) who are being exploited and will benefit from these forced employment “protections.” Why This is Wrong
The State of California (where I hold a valid manicurist license) knows that the independent contractor classification can be perceived as a loophole for employers to avoid paying employment taxes and offering benefits. These bad actors are present throughout the country, the state, and every industry – not just nails. These employers are either ignorant of the law, or are willfully negligent while the Department of Labor and the IRS can only catch so much. oppose AB 5 in california dynamex
Solving the problem of employment misclassification by forcing licensees into an employment situation is not a viable option.
EMPLOYERS CANNOT BE BOTH THE PROBLEM AND THE SOLUTION!
If the state of California is concerned with protecting workers’ rights, it must enforce the labor laws currently on the books instead of assuming the misclassification offenders will suddenly do the right thing with the addition of another law.
If a misclassified manicurist wants to leave his or her current salon, there are now fewer options to make a living. One can only move from salon to salon as a W2 employee, or work alone without the benefit of the foot traffic or safety of an existing beauty business. The barriers to entry to our business are already great. AB 5 is an unnecessary hardship that will leave manicurists footing the bill for the entire beauty industry’s bad behavior. oppose AB 5 in california dynamex
The only thing that matters is herding them into labor unions so their paychecks can be skimmed for union dues/Democrat contributions.
Exactly.
It’s basically saying being a self employed independent contractor is illegal. For years in my younger life I was an independent carpenter contractor working for several General Contractors. I enjoyed the varied work, the freedom. So much for being the master of your own boat.
Yep.
don’t forget workers comp insurance payments!
So sad. But they love the People’s Republic on California. This is such a small price to pay for all the benefits.
Hair salons use the same model.
you don’t get it, we need all those people Paying in to the Unemployment Insurance Fund, and most importantly, the WORKERS FRAUD SYSTEM!
It was not a union problem. It was not caused by Lorena Gonzalez. The Democrats as a whole own it. Anyone who is affected by it and continues to vote D is insane.
“...Anyone who is affected by it and continues to vote D is insane....”
Here...let me fix this: “Anyone who votes communist “D” is insane...Anyone, Anywhere.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.