ADVERTISEMENT

California has a terrible labor law. The Biden administration wants to take it national...

The Tradition

HR King
Apr 23, 2002
123,504
97,114
113
Three years ago this month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law, essentially outlawing freelance journalism and most other independent contracting. Opponents of the bill warned the law would devastate the longstanding careers of many independent businesspeople in the Golden State. Three years later, it’s clear the critics had it right: AB5 has proven to be among the most ill-conceived state labor policies in recent memory.

If AB5’s restrictions were limited to California, that would be bad enough. But the Biden administration appears determined to bring these destructive labor restrictions to the national stage in the form of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). Policymakers should pay heed to the damage AB5 has wrought in California and stop this disastrous policy in its tracks.

AB5 created a three-part “ABC” test used to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The key provision of the test is that anyone performing work within the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business” must be classified as an employee, rather than a contractor.

The outcome was predictable: Many businesses and nonprofit enterprises that relied on independent contractors stopped using those workers — both because workers who had built self-sufficient careers did not want to trade the freedom of freelance work for the false benefits of employment, and because many companies couldn’t afford to convert them to full-time employees.

Countless self-employed Californians suddenly lost work opportunities and faced steeply declining incomes. Making matters worse, AB5 took effect in January 2020, mere weeks before Newsom locked down the state in response to COVID-19. Just when Californians most needed the freedom and flexibility that independent contracting provides, they were frozen out of the labor market.

AB5’s opponents — an array of workers and groups who crossed partisan and ideological boundaries — begged the legislature to reconsider upending California’s freelance economy. Lawmakers handed out exemptions to the politically connected; union leaders were put in charge of deciding which professions got an exemption. Mostly, lawmakers ignored workers’ concerns. They passed the bill with dozens of exemptions, and when the dire consequence everyone predicted came to pass, the legislature added dozens more the following session.

AB5 is so cut through with exemptions, it is defined more by what it doesn’t apply to than what it does cover. The ABC test is a single section containing just 325 words. The dozens of exemptions to the test span 10 sections and include 6,902 words. There are now more than 75 exemptions to a law that was supposed to define labor rules for the entire state.

Legislators knew AB5 would have a crippling effect on so many Californians’ ability to make a living. But even now that they’ve made Swiss cheese out of the law, they are too stubborn to simply acknowledge their fundamental mistake and repeal it.

I’ve been intimately involved in the fight against AB5, working with writers and visual journalists to challenge the law’s unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. Unfortunately, we fell short in that effort when the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal this summer.

That was disappointing, but we’ll continue to fight. All workers deserve the freedom and flexibility that AB5 took away, and we are determined to keep working to get this law off the books. But if you’re a self-employed contractor or freelancer outside California, you have nothing to worry about, right? Don’t be so sure.

The Biden administration repeatedly has called for an AB5-style labor regime at the national level under the guise of the PRO Act, which is framed as a proposal to expand labor protections for workers who want to organize a union. However, the bill includes the same stifling three-part test to separate independent contractors from employees, following the worst parts of the AB5 model.

The PRO Act passed the House in 2019 and 2021, and President Biden renewed the call for Congress to enact the legislation this month in a Labor Day proclamation. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous “pro-worker” packaging of the PRO Act. It essentially would subject every independent worker in the United States to California’s disastrous AB5 approach to labor relations.

What’s grimly fascinating about AB5 is that it’s a labor law that neither workers nor employers like very much. But it seems beloved by politicians, organized labor leaders, and progressive activists, all of whom appear determined to ignore the lessons of California and force this damaging policy onto the national economy. It’s time for members of Congress who value labor flexibility and free markets, Democrats and Republicans alike, to drive a stake through the heart of the PRO Act once and for all.

 
Three years ago this month, California Gov. Gavin Newsom signed California Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) into law, essentially outlawing freelance journalism and most other independent contracting. Opponents of the bill warned the law would devastate the longstanding careers of many independent businesspeople in the Golden State. Three years later, it’s clear the critics had it right: AB5 has proven to be among the most ill-conceived state labor policies in recent memory.

If AB5’s restrictions were limited to California, that would be bad enough. But the Biden administration appears determined to bring these destructive labor restrictions to the national stage in the form of the Protecting the Right to Organize Act (PRO Act). Policymakers should pay heed to the damage AB5 has wrought in California and stop this disastrous policy in its tracks.

AB5 created a three-part “ABC” test used to determine whether a worker is an independent contractor or employee. The key provision of the test is that anyone performing work within the “usual course of the hiring entity’s business” must be classified as an employee, rather than a contractor.

The outcome was predictable: Many businesses and nonprofit enterprises that relied on independent contractors stopped using those workers — both because workers who had built self-sufficient careers did not want to trade the freedom of freelance work for the false benefits of employment, and because many companies couldn’t afford to convert them to full-time employees.

Countless self-employed Californians suddenly lost work opportunities and faced steeply declining incomes. Making matters worse, AB5 took effect in January 2020, mere weeks before Newsom locked down the state in response to COVID-19. Just when Californians most needed the freedom and flexibility that independent contracting provides, they were frozen out of the labor market.

AB5’s opponents — an array of workers and groups who crossed partisan and ideological boundaries — begged the legislature to reconsider upending California’s freelance economy. Lawmakers handed out exemptions to the politically connected; union leaders were put in charge of deciding which professions got an exemption. Mostly, lawmakers ignored workers’ concerns. They passed the bill with dozens of exemptions, and when the dire consequence everyone predicted came to pass, the legislature added dozens more the following session.

AB5 is so cut through with exemptions, it is defined more by what it doesn’t apply to than what it does cover. The ABC test is a single section containing just 325 words. The dozens of exemptions to the test span 10 sections and include 6,902 words. There are now more than 75 exemptions to a law that was supposed to define labor rules for the entire state.

Legislators knew AB5 would have a crippling effect on so many Californians’ ability to make a living. But even now that they’ve made Swiss cheese out of the law, they are too stubborn to simply acknowledge their fundamental mistake and repeal it.

I’ve been intimately involved in the fight against AB5, working with writers and visual journalists to challenge the law’s unconstitutional restrictions on free speech. Unfortunately, we fell short in that effort when the Supreme Court declined to hear our appeal this summer.

That was disappointing, but we’ll continue to fight. All workers deserve the freedom and flexibility that AB5 took away, and we are determined to keep working to get this law off the books. But if you’re a self-employed contractor or freelancer outside California, you have nothing to worry about, right? Don’t be so sure.

The Biden administration repeatedly has called for an AB5-style labor regime at the national level under the guise of the PRO Act, which is framed as a proposal to expand labor protections for workers who want to organize a union. However, the bill includes the same stifling three-part test to separate independent contractors from employees, following the worst parts of the AB5 model.

The PRO Act passed the House in 2019 and 2021, and President Biden renewed the call for Congress to enact the legislation this month in a Labor Day proclamation. Don’t be fooled by the innocuous “pro-worker” packaging of the PRO Act. It essentially would subject every independent worker in the United States to California’s disastrous AB5 approach to labor relations.

What’s grimly fascinating about AB5 is that it’s a labor law that neither workers nor employers like very much. But it seems beloved by politicians, organized labor leaders, and progressive activists, all of whom appear determined to ignore the lessons of California and force this damaging policy onto the national economy. It’s time for members of Congress who value labor flexibility and free markets, Democrats and Republicans alike, to drive a stake through the heart of the PRO Act once and for all.


 
The Biden Labor Department released a proposal Tuesday that could pave the way for regulators and courts to reclassify gig workers as employees rather than independent contractors.

The proposed rule, if adopted, could raise costs for companies like Lyft, Uber, Instacart and DoorDash that rely on contract workers to pick up shifts on their own schedules. Shares of Lyft fell 12% on Tuesday, while Uber dropped 10.4% and DoorDash shed 6%.

The companies have argued that flexible schedules are attractive to workers, pointing to surveys showing the popularity of the model, which they say is made possible by the use of independent contractor status. Some labor experts and activists have disagreed, however, saying the companies use the contractor model to reduce their own costs while denying workers important protections such as health-care benefits, overtime pay and the ability to organize into unions.

In 2020, a California law went into effect requiring many companies to reclassify contract workers as employees, but later that year, voters approved a proposition that exempted app-based ride-hailing and delivery companies from the law.

Last year, the Biden administration rescinded a rule created under Trump’s Labor Department that would have made it easier for gig companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees. But after a legal challenge, a court reinstated the Trump-era rule.

Biden’s Labor Department said in its notice in the Federal Register that it had considered waiting longer to see how the Trump-era rule played out. But it decided to move ahead with the proposed regulation instead because it believes keeping the earlier rule in place “would have a confusing and disruptive effect on workers and businesses alike due to its departure from case law describing and applying the multifactor economic reality test as a totality-of-the-circumstances test.”

The proposed rule would allow the determination of whether to classify a worker as a contractor or employee to rely on a more holistic assessment, including whether the work is an “integral” part of the employer’s business. The goal is to protect workers from being classified improperly while providing consistency for businesses that wish to employ independent contractors, the agency wrote.

The new proposed rule will still need to make its way through the formal regulatory process, including allowing time for the public to submit comments, before it is adopted.

Uber’s head of federal affairs, CR Wooters, said in a statement that the proposed rule “takes a measured approach, essentially returning us to the Obama era, during which our industry grew exponentially. In a time of deep economic uncertainty, it’s crucial that the Biden administration continues to hear from the more than 50 million people who have found an earning opportunity with companies like ours.”

In a blog post Tuesday, Lyft wrote that there “is no immediate or direct impact on the Lyft business at this time,” noting the 45-day public comment period. It added that the rule “Does not reclassify Lyft drivers as employees,” and also doesn’t force it to change its business model. Lyft said the rule simply reverts the standard to that used under the Obama administration, which previously applied to its company “and did not result in reclassification of drivers.”

 
If you make the majority of your money through a single employer, or through a couple employers, you are most likely an employee and not a contracted worker. Personally I think the drivers of Lyft, Uber and Door Dash are likely employees. I have a lot of amish and they generally run everyone through a 1099, the difference is they are 4029 exempt (meaning they don't pay into medicare or social security nor do they receive the benefits), however where they will begin to run into problems is when they hire drivers to drive them. So are they employees or not, if its their primary employment they are not contracted workers they are employees. Now who carries the liability insurance makes a difference, along with a few other items along with the contract. Now the Amish work around is to be a partnership 1065, and have the partners as 1% or more minority partners. They receive Guaranteed payments (wages). The partnership doesn't pay the self employment taxes on the wages, but the partner does. Now the partner can still take expenses that are not covered by the partnership similar to a schedule C business but this has to be agreed to with the Partnership. It is semi complicated for those not familiar, but the long and short of it is these drivers likely should have always been employees, and there is virtually no possibility these businesses want to change from a C corp to achieve the tax benefits of becoming a partnership. A partnership becomes very messy, especially the more partners there are. I have one partnership that has 400 partners and it is an absolute nightmare. 1 calculation change changes everything. Having partners coming and going regularly really complicates things.
 
If you make the majority of your money through a single employer, or through a couple employers, you are most likely an employee and not a contracted worker. Personally I think the drivers of Lyft, Uber and Door Dash are likely employees. I have a lot of amish and they generally run everyone through a 1099, the difference is they are 4029 exempt (meaning they don't pay into medicare or social security nor do they receive the benefits), however where they will begin to run into problems is when they hire drivers to drive them. So are they employees or not, if its their primary employment they are not contracted workers they are employees. Now who carries the liability insurance makes a difference, along with a few other items along with the contract. Now the Amish work around is to be a partnership 1065, and have the partners as 1% or more minority partners. They receive Guaranteed payments (wages). The partnership doesn't pay the employment wages, but the partner does. Now the partner can still take expenses that are not covered by the partnership similar to a schedule C business but this has to be agreed to with the Partnership. It is semi complicated for those not familiar, but the long and short of it is these drivers likely should have always been employees, and there is virtually no possibility these businesses want to change from a C corp to achieve the tax benefits of becoming a partnership. A partnership becomes very messy, especially the more partners there are. I have one partnership that has 400 partners and it is an absolute nightmare. 1 calculation change changes everything. Have partners coming and going regularly really complicates things.

Thanks?
 
The fact what I wrote confuses you, shows you that clarification to the law is likely needed. That is germane employment and tax language, yet the average individual or employer is confused (like you).

The fact is the current laws are gray in my opinion on who is an employee or a contractor, you could have 4 different IRS agents review the case and they could easily be split 2-2, on employee vs contractor. To me the language needs to be clearer, but I am not sure what is needed to achieve that.
 
Last edited:
  • Like
Reactions: Gimmered
The fact what I wrote confuses you, shows you that clarification to the law is likely needed. That is germane employment and tax language, yet the average individual or employer is confused (like you).

No, it was just super-specific about the Amish. Kinda wonky.
 
No, it was just super-specific about the Amish. Kinda wonky.
That is because their current payment schedule and using 1099's more resembles a lift or uber driver, than say someone running Mowing business and receiving 1099's from 30 different people they mow for. What we are talking about is individuals who are really working for 1 employer and trying to claim they are 1099 contracted employees. I deal with Amish taxes as 70% of my clientele so this is a topic that comes up frequently. Everyone is just trying to avoid paying taxes. Those self employment taxes make a huge difference. Just ask a regular contractor trying to compete against an amish crew or another company that is not paying medicare and social security taxes and unemployment insurance for a bid. In general the amish or other company can come in lower for the bids because of not paying the self employment taxes and insurance.

The fact you think more guidance in this area is not needed is mind boggling.
 
The vast majority of moving companies 1099 their guys. Complete BS. When my son started his business in Omaha, he brought his guys in as employees. Handles their taxes, pay social security, overtime, workers comp, and still offers insurance coverage.
Why this matters to his customers is if by chance they were to get hurt in someone's house, his workman's comp covers it. As an IC it is on your homeowners policy.

I'm not saying this law is the way to go, but what people are getting away with is pure crazy. There needs to be a crack down on these companies.
 
  • Like
Reactions: bunsen82
Just say its 15-20% on top of wages once it is all said and done. Its a huge difference. These companies should be paying FICA.

It goes well beyond ride share and grocery delivery services. All sorts of folks are classified as independent contractors and that classification could be jeopardized by the DOL's proposed rulemaking.

Also, keep in mind that many of these people DO NOT want to be considered employees.
 
It goes well beyond ride share and grocery delivery services. All sorts of folks are classified as independent contractors and that classification could be jeopardized by the DOL's proposed rulemaking.

Also, keep in mind that many of these people DO NOT want to be considered employees.
No they like deducting some personal expenses as business expenses. They expense their phone bill, meal expenses for work which are 100% deductible now, home office expense or a portion of internet, real estate taxes, and utility bills, some uniform or clothing expense. Being a schedule C contracted employee is a good deal for these individuals. It all comes down to portion of income. If more than 60% of income is coming from a single business you are most likely an employee of that company. If they can dictate what time you work, if you are getting paid on a similar schedule to other employees you are most likely an employee. It is just people have been getting away with this for a long time. Again clarification to needs to occur in this area and that opinion is coming from a tax professional.

That is not to say they can be an employees and then have a schedule C side business on the side, but then you have to deal with scheduling and non compete rules from the company.
 
No they like deducting some personal expenses as business expenses. They expense their phone bill, meal expenses for work which are 100% deductible now, home office expense or a portion of internet, real estate taxes, and utility bills, some uniform or clothing expense. Being a schedule C contracted employee is a good deal for these individuals. It all comes down to portion of income. If more than 60% of income is coming from a single business you are most likely an employee of that company. If they can dictate what time you work, if you are getting paid on a similar schedule to other employees you are most likely an employee. It is just people have been getting away with this for a long time. Again clarification to needs to occur in this area and that opinion is coming from a tax professional.

Yeah, I know the general principles.

Now think realtors. They generally work for a single broker. They're ALL contractors. How's that going to disrupt an entire industry?
 
Yeah, I know the general principles.

Now think realtors. They generally work for a single broker. They're ALL contractors. How's that going to disrupt an entire industry?
Personally I can see realtors or hair stylists still being contracted employees. However personally I would be ok if they changed to W-2 wages. In both professions their income is dictated by how hard they work and how good they are at their profession and the demand for their services in their area. It is extremely variable and even though they work under an umbrella they have their own clients. Also my rule of thumb still works, technically they work for the clients not the broker, In General these individuals are not receiving more than 60% of their income year over year from a single client. In my opinion the difference between those 2 and say ride sharing is the trade skill or licensure as well as the liability insurance. in many cases these ride sharing individuals are not carrying the proper liability insurance. Of course there will be other professions to have discussions about.
 
Last edited:
How about military contractors? I'm sure the government will carve out an exemption for any sort of employee rule for them.
 
How about military contractors? I'm sure the government will carve out an exemption for any sort of employee rule for them.
I edited my above comment, I think the major differentiator is a specific trade skill or licensure and the liability insurance.

Lyft and Uber lose in my case as they cover the insurance whenever the app is on or driving a client. Uber is carrying the primary insurance in this case.
 
Last edited:
ADVERTISEMENT
ADVERTISEMENT