Posted on 09/11/2019 9:10:22 AM PDT by C19fan
California lawmakers passed a landmark bill on Tuesday that threatens to reshape how companies like Uber and Lyft do business.
But shares of Lyft popped more than 5.8% on Wednesday morning, while Uber climbed more than 3.1% after California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he’s still engaged in talks with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible negotiations around the bill. Newsom recently voiced his support for the bill.
The legislation, known as Assembly Bill 5 (AB5), would require gig economy workers to be reclassified as employees instead of contractors. The bill passed in a 29 to 11 vote in the State Senate and now moves on to the State Assembly, where if it passes, it will land on Newsom’s desk.
(Excerpt) Read more at cnbc.com ...
Car companies - super heavy equipment, difficult to relocate
Tech companies - light equipment, easy to move
What will happen to Calif when it dawns on them that it’s not wise or even profitable to be HQ’ed there..?
“landmark”
Not “controversial”?
Depends on the political inclinations of the so-called “reporters” apparently.
I heard a group of Uber drivers on the news, and they were opposed to this.
They said that they appreciate the freedom to set their own working schedule, and that’s part of why they work for Uber. They expressed concerns that if they were employees, then they would have their hours of work limited, and be assigned scheduled shifts.
Some were especially concerned about the limited hours, since they would likely be banned from working more hours if it put them into the time and a half category.
While I am all for a review of ERISSA and closing up a lot of those loopholes, this does bother me.
1. ERISSA is a federal law and it should be updated or replaced at the Federal level.
2. CA will have every good intention on this effort. Based upon their 3 decade track record, it will be a policy disaster. Our corporate masters will then use it to smear anyone that brings up legitimate ERISSA reform; our bosses just lub themselves cheap (or better yet!) free labor. Kind of sucks for the rest of us though...
Unions hate Uber and Lyft because the drivers are not employees, and therefore cannot be unionized.
All these gig type jobs concern me as it is a sign there is a large pool of cheap labor that can support these businesses. I never thought I would see the day in a developed country where you can pay a little extra for someone to get your groceries and deliver them to you. But that is the result of de facto open borders and free trade with China.
Kalifornia has gone full Marxist.
I heard this bill will also affect people who deliver newspapers.
Years ago, I had a paper route, delivering the San Diego Union-Tribune.
I was an independent contractor as a paper deliverer.
This was many years ago, however, I recall making some good money, and getting some good tips. I recall being able to take tax deductions for expenses , such as car expenses and office supplies.
The downside financially, was having to pay the higher self employed social security tax rate.
I was responsible for billing and collections as a contractor.
If news carriers become employees , I can forsee the income to the carriers going down.
Face it, there will be trade offs, if the state of California decides that “gig” workers are really employees, subject to the full spectrum.of labor laws affecting employees.
What’s to stop drivers from setting up some type of underground concierge service? That’s exactly what’s going to happen if this bill passes.
This is coming to Newsome’s desk. Gonna enjoy watching him sweat it out over whether to veto or not.
California Uber Alles
I read hair stylists who are often independent contractors who rent the chair space will be affected.
From bill text:
The bill would require an employer with 10 or more employees to offer additional hours of work to an existing nonexempt employee before hiring an additional employee or subcontractor, except as specified, would require an employer to post a notice of employee rights,
This is really not the case. You're paying even as an employee. The "bucket of money" that your position has allocated to it includes the "employer" contribution to SS/MCARE. If they didn't pay that, it could (and should) end up in your paycheck.
“I never thought I would see the day in a developed country where you can pay a little extra for someone to get your groceries and deliver them to you.”
That’s exactly the kind of country where I’d expect it to happen.
Most of my clients are in D.C. but the one California transcription firm I work for is a small company that will not and cannot make employees out of us. I will LOSE that source of income if AB 5 is signed into law.
This is yet another example of worthless politicians costing jobs under the guise of "helping" workers, like the $15/hr minimum wage. I couldn't loathe these people more.
Fascism, pure and simple. Individuals can own the means of production, but the collective, in this case the state gov., “allows” the owner to run the business only if rules are followed.
“Most of my clients are in D.C. but the one California transcription firm I work for is a small company that will not and cannot make employees out of us.”
I wonder how difficult it would be for that firm to move to some other nearby state?
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.