These are not complex jobs I'm talking about, and not one or two or 5 employees. I'm talking in the name of a hundred or more, and one of the companies, Northwestern Mutual, just renews the contract every 12 months. It is cost cutting, pure and simple. And around here, that is not unusual. Now if it was something more specialized, I would understand, as I have a couple of friends who are very skilled in a specialized way (one security, one database/sql). But I'm not talking about specialized projects, I'm talking about employees similar to Uber/Lift drivers.
Temp agencies. They can be the official employers and satisfy the law, but then companies can hire those employees on temporary basis. It will cost more money per hour, but it may be a way to go around the law.
There are agencies, but it's not in the interest of independent contractors to have to go through a middle man who will eat a large portion of their earnings, when they have up to now been able to serve their clients directly. I use agencies sometimes as a last resort, for difficult to find languages, and they charge more and the interpreter gets less. It makes their livelihood much less viable, which seems to be the opposite of what the legislature presumably intended.
Now may be a good time to point out that there is a fairly lengthy list of exemptions from California's law, many of which are included in the list of professions that you listed in your previous post as being adversely impacted by the law.
A shit lot of waivers. Is almost as it were the USSF D2 standards. It just wonders, why have it if basically everyone and their mama is going to get a waiver. Well, we know the answer is Uber and Lyft. Sure, that is what may happen, but that may be the unintended consequence of this law, create more 'middle women' companies.
Which professions that I listed? The only professions I listed in my post was translators and interpreters and they are not exempted.
Because the alternative was worse? Despite what ASF is saying about the new law, it is more limited in which workers it classifies as independent contractors than a ruling by a CA SC that created a three step "test" to determine if a worker is an employee or IC. https://www.sandiegouniontribune.com/business/economy/sd-fi-eaton-20180514-story.html If the CA assembly hadn't passed AB5, the ruling would have covered significantly more people.
Unintended? It will most likely benefit "middle-women" who gave generous contributions to the legislators who passed the bill, most likely agencies related to the insurance industry.
Oddly enough, translators and interpreters would qualify based on that definition. And yet they were denied an exemption. Something is definitely rotten here.
So can you think of any reason why some professions are exempted and others are not? It seems arbitrary, unless we introduce donations by special interests as a factor. How are licensed hairdressers different than certified legal interpreters?
I'm not sure interpreters in the situation you are describing would be included tho? Everything I've seen seems to indicate that AB5 codifies the three step test, adds additional employee benefits that are included, and exempts a list of occupations that would normally meet the three step test. The interpreter example seems to fail at least test B of the three step test.
Probably a bad example since hairdressers have to meet certain standards to be exempted by AB5.. They have to control their pricing and scheduling and are paid directly by their clients. However, a hairdresser that is working in a barbershop that sets their prices, does the scheduling for them, and/or takes payment from their customers would not be exempt from AB5. A better example would probably be why a Realtor would be exempted, but an interpreter not.
The worker performs work outside the scope of the hiring entity's business? If you are an injured worker and you hire an attorney, the fact that you don't speak English or are deaf, and need an interpreter is outside the scope of the attorney's business, even though it is obviously necessary. Likewise at a hospital. The interpreter is not within the scope of health care, but he is still essential to a non-English speaker or a deaf person. On the other hand, if you go to a hair salon, a hairdresser is much more within the scope of the entity's business, with is to cut or style hair. I don't understand the criteria they used. Do you? And, to put it another way, if they come up with a law, and they feel the need to provide exemption for so many different professions because they have to accept that the contractor model works well, and yet as we see still other professions are falling through the cracks, it probably isn't a very good legislation to begin with.
And, interpreters always control their pricing and scheduling and are paid directly by their clients.
Again, I think it hangs on whether AB5 includes the three step test or not, doesn't it? Most of the articles that I've seen indicate that it does include the three step test. If it does, then interpreters working in the situation you described would be "exempt" from the law because they would fail step B of the test, so there is no reason to specifically call them out in the law as being exempt. The reason why hairdressers are specifically exempted is because they would normally "pass" the test and, therefore, should be counted as employees under the test.
I've been talking to interpreters who work for me -or rather for my employer, the state of California- as contractors, as well as in the private sector, and they are getting organized and are very much involved in this fight. They have been told by the legislature and the governor's office that they are not exempt. They are still fighting, though, and it's likely that there will be a court challenge if they don't get an exemption. I understand a Republican legislator tried to pass an amendment to exempt interpreters and translators, but it went nowhere. As I said, the interpreters were told by the legislation's sponsors that they needed support from CFI, the interpreters union, to be considered for an exemption, and they couldn't get that because the union refused to help. Of course, the union doesn't represent contractors, only court employees, so it doesn't make sense to me.
It could also be because it is a new law and companies are erring on the side of “employee” rather than “independent contractor”. I’m not sure how an interpreter would fall under the definition of a law firms core functions. That isn’t to say it isn’t going to take a lawsuit to sort things out.
It might. The consensus among many interpreters is that they think the insurance industry is trying to use this law to set up agencies that will control their industry and make the profession less profitable for them. Insurance company controlled agencies have been trying to get into the the industry, especially with workers comp cases, but they tend to lowball interpreters and have not been able to muscle in as much as they would like. Whether they are involved or not in this effort, obviously this law will help them a lot. Others interpreters seem to think that if they incorporate they will be able to work independently. There is a lot of confusion, and I do think unless the legislature clarifies things it will end up in court. And, I would imagine this is not the only profession that is adversely affected and that will likely challenge the law. I just speak of this one because it's the one I know about.
Creating an “Interpretation Services” company would seem to satisfy step c of the test, but I would think that would be ancillary to step B. But the whole point of the test is so that the state doesn’t have to list every profession because, invariably, there are constantly no professions being created and it is silly to require the legislature to update the list of professions that “fail” the test. On the other hand, the list of professions that “pass” the test, but should still be exempted is, in theory, fairly short and more static.
To be clear, I did't say the law was bad in intention, rather it was too big, and there are lawmakers themselves saying they won't know the consequences and benefits. https://www.latimes.com/california/...-employees0independent-contractors-california To classify someone as an independent contractor, the court said, businesses must show that the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer; performs work that is outside the hirer’s core business; and customarily engages in “an independently established trade, occupation or business.” That is a massively broad definition. https://www.latimes.com/local/lanow/la-me-ln-independent-contract-20180430-story.html Instead, an independent contractor would be understood to be working “in his or her own independent business,” Cantil-Sakauye wrote. The court offered examples: A plumber temporarily hired by a store to repair a leak or an electrician to install a line would be an independent contractor. But a seamstress who works at home to make dresses for a clothing manufacturer from cloth and patterns supplied by the company, or a cake decorator who works on a regular basis on custom-designed cakes would be employees. Even from the State SCOTUS, this is broad definition of what an employee is or is not. I mean, that Seamstress or cake decorator could work for anyone. But if they are employees of someone else, they can't. And yes there's a BUNCH of exceptions...but why the hell make the law so broad then? And what about new industries that pop up? UberEats/Door Dash wasn't around 5 years ago. My request is to make a better, more targeted, law - and give more freedom to those don't WANT to be considered full time employees.