This California Law Is Ripping Away American Dreams. The Left Wants to Take It Nationwide

[suranceman]

Well, that's just the thing. They don't really agree to the terms of the work because they don't understand them. They make much less, spend more, and work more than they understood, which is why you rarely see people drive Uber for more than a few months. And your statement "two consenting adults engaging in an employment arrangement they both agree to" is false, both because it's not an employment agreement, that's the whole issue, and because the independent contractor doesn't really agree to it - they don't even understand it.

The hope would be that the workers are better protected as employees. I've talked to a lot of people that have gig jobs, and have yet to speak to anyone that fully understands any major facet of the work they are doing or costs.

Jesus man how can you completely abdicate someone's responsibility to take personal responsibility for their actions.

Change my word from "employment agreement" to "contracted work" and the statement I made is 100% true.

The 1099 worker may not understand everything (which is 100% their fault), but they understand enough where they WILLING agree to the conditions of said work.

And guess what, if they don't like the arrangement, they are free to walk anytime they want.

But more to point. If 2 mentally competent consenting adults agree to an arrangement that violates no laws, why is there a need for a third party to interfere?

 

[Markthebroker]

Jesus man how can you completely abdicate someone's responsibility to take personal responsibility for their actions.

I don't. Normally I'm not a fan of big government. I'm a libertarian, and I generally always want to see more freedom, more free market, less government. I've just met so many people that don't understand any facet of what their doing with these gig jobs, the costs, risks, etc. and its really very sad to me. Plus there are a lot of transportation businesses that have been playing by the rules, properly paying their taxes, employees, etc. and they are being put out of business by these snakes.

But more to point. If 2 mentally competent consenting adults agree to an arrangement that violates no laws, why is there a need for a third party to interfere?

Since the income and costs aren't clear, I wouldn't consider this an agreement between two competent consenting adults. Furthermore, based on the old laws, employing these Uber drivers as independent contractors is possibly illegal. With the new laws, it is illegal.

Basically, with the new laws, if someone is truly an independent contractor, or truly a business owner, they can be classified as such. If someone is truly an employee, they will be classified as such. Don't like it? Spend a minimal amount of cost and paperwork to setup a business entity.

 

[suranceman]

I don't. Normally I'm not a fan of big government. I'm a libertarian, and I generally always want to see more freedom, more free market, less government. I've just met so many people that don't understand any facet of what their doing with these gig jobs, the costs, risks, etc. and its really very sad to me. Plus there are a lot of transportation businesses that have been playing by the rules, properly paying their taxes, employees, etc. and they are being put out of business by these snakes.



Since the income and costs aren't clear, I wouldn't consider this an agreement between two competent consenting adults. Furthermore, based on the old laws, employing these Uber drivers as independent contractors is possibly illegal. With the new laws, it is illegal.

Basically, with the new laws, if someone is truly an independent contractor, or truly a business owner, they can be classified as such. If someone is truly an employee, they will be classified as such. Don't like it? Spend a minimal amount of cost and paperwork to setup a business entity.

So what responsibility do these contractors have?

 

[Markthebroker]

So what responsibility do these contractors have?

Pretty much the same as always.

The new laws have just helped define what an employee is and what an independent contractor is. Again, I'm generally a fan of less government and more freedom. I've just seen firsthand what happens when the average person tries to take on an independent contractor "opportunity". As sad as it makes me to say, the average individual just isn't adept enough to understand and look out for themselves without being protected as an employee. It pains me to say it, but there it is.

 

[toolbelt]

The contracts are written by a team of corporate lawyers and signed by a person looking for secondary income to make ends meet. Does that sound like two equal consenting adults? If the signing parties also had a team of lawyers, Uber etc would never have gotten off the ground.

 

[suranceman]

I quite frankly am shocked insurance professionals (many are 1099) think the government needs to step in and create more rules about what constitutes a contractor vs employee. The present rules are already very strict that heavily favor the w2 model.

If the rules they're proposing went national, the insurance industry (and many others) would also be affected. Millions of businesses who offer contracting work to free citizens would be forced to make them w2 employees. That will have severe dire effects on all those business and the workers who agree to perform services for them.

I cannot comprehend how you two think the government needs more regulation about this.

Let me break this down for you.

A worker goes out of his way to work for companies like Uber, Grubhub etc etc to work for them. The workers choose to inquiry about working for them.

They are presented with a compensation offer based on the work done. The offer isn't such a mystery that a high school educated person cannot understand it(I've read them).

They WILLING agree to said terms and start performing the services.

Then after a period of time, if they discover the time spent is not worth the profit they're making, they are free to leave anytime they want.

And you think this is all unacceptable even though the worker A) initiated this B) agreed to it C) is free to stop the work anytime they want.

By this standard, all insurance agents must be w2. After all, over 90% of insurance agents fail so we must protect them. We must create rules around what is the minimum commission rate an agent can make. Oh and we must regulate what you can charge for a lead. Oh and we must regulate how many hours they work and if they work more than 8 hours then their commission rate must go up. Oh and we can't allow vector. The worker sold the deals. It's not their fault the policy cancelled. Why should he have to pay back the commissions paid? Oh and we must regulate how far an agent has to drive for appointments. After all, they need to be able to get home to their family each night for dinner. Oh and we must limit how much of an override an upline can get.

This is where your logic goes. This is not a slippery slope. The left pushes for this shit constantly and this is exactly where it will take us. And it doesn't just apply to insurance. It applies to every industry that has contractors.

Choice is all the protection they need.

 

[toolbelt]

I quite frankly am shocked insurance professionals (many are 1099) think the government needs to step in and create more rules about what constitutes a contractor vs employee. The present rules are already very strict that heavily favor the w2 model.

If the rules they're proposing went national, the insurance industry (and many others) would also be affected. Millions of businesses who offer contracting work to free citizens would be forced to make them w2 employees. That will have severe dire effects on all those business and the workers who agree to perform services for them.

I cannot comprehend how you two think the government needs more regulation about this.

Let me break this down for you.

A worker goes out of his way to work for companies like Uber, Grubhub etc etc to work for them. The workers choose to inquiry about working for them.

They are presented with a compensation offer based on the work done. The offer isn't such a mystery that a high school educated person cannot understand it(I've read them).

They WILLING agree to said terms and start performing the services.

Then after a period of time, if they discover the time spent is not worth the profit they're making, they are free to leave anytime they want.

And you think this is all unacceptable even though the worker A) initiated this B) agreed to it C) is free to stop the work anytime they want.

By this standard, all insurance agents must be w2. After all, over 90% of insurance agents fail so we must protect them. We must create rules around what is the minimum commission rate an agent can make. Oh and we must regulate what you can charge for a lead. Oh and we must regulate how many hours they work and if they work more than 8 hours then their commission rate must go up. Oh and we can't allow vector. The worker sold the deals. It's not their fault the policy cancelled. Why should he have to pay back the commissions paid? Oh and we must regulate how far an agent has to drive for appointments. After all, they need to be able to get home to their family each night for dinner. Oh and we must limit how much of an override an upline can get.

This is where your logic goes. This is not a slippery slope. The left pushes for this shit constantly and this is exactly where it will take us. And it doesn't just apply to insurance. It applies to every industry that has contractors.

Choice is all the protection they need.

So if your boss walks up to your desk one day, after you've gained the corporation a huge portfolio and fires your ass, its ok? Are you suggesting there shouldn't be any employment laws, or just the ones that don't personally benefit you?

 

[suranceman]

So if your boss walks up to your desk one day, after you've gained the corporation a huge portfolio and fires your ass, its ok? Are you suggesting there shouldn't be any employment laws, or just the ones that don't personally benefit you?

Yes that should be fine.

FYI, current employment law dictates that at will employees who are w2 can release an employee anytime they want for any no discriminatory reason (such as due to gender or race etc). Also, employees can leave anytime they want for any reason and the employer can't stop them. This is current employment law. If the employee was under contract, that would be different due to the contract. Most w2 employees aren't under contract though. They are usually at will.

Only in your wildest leftist dreams is there a world where no corporation treats an employee badly in the way you just cited in your example. Thankfully, most businesses don't do that. They are in business to make money and when an employee produces a profit, most of them tend to value that.

And, none of my commentary is about policy that affects me alone. The proposed 1099 contractor changes will have drastic and dire affects to every industry that has contractors.

 

[toolbelt]

at will employees who are w2 can release an employee anytime they want

Without having to provide any notice or termination pay in lieu of notice, regardless of length of service, and without cause?? That is harsh. Which Eastern European Communist block nation are you located in, anyways?

 

[suranceman]

Without having to provide any notice or termination pay in lieu of notice, regardless of length of service, and without cause?? That is harsh. Which Eastern European Communist block nation are you located in, anyways?

This is current US law bro.