Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the GIGantic-decision dept.

In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models.

Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work.

"It's a massive thing — definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/economy/gig-economy-ruling.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:33PM (3 children)

    by Thexalon (636) on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:33PM (#675108)

    It's true, they do work less than Americans do. And here's why: Workers unionized in the late 1980's and demanded a shorter work week. Just like how US wage-earners won the 40-hour work week slowly from the 1880's to the 1930's.

    --
    The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
    Starting Score:    1  point
    Karma-Bonus Modifier   +1  

    Total Score:   2  
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:42PM (2 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03 2018, @03:42PM (#675112) Journal

    And here's why: Workers unionized in the late 1980's and demanded a shorter work week.

    Japan has been heavily unionized since the 1950s. The unions just work with the businesses instead of against them.

    • (Score: 2) by Thexalon on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:02PM (1 child)

      by Thexalon (636) on Thursday May 03 2018, @04:02PM (#675125)

      Unions necessarily work against the businesses. It's inherent to the relationship. Workers, and by extension their unions, want to maximize wages/salary/benefits and minimize the work required to earn them. Bosses, and by extension the business, want to minimize wages/salary/benefits and maximize the work required to earn them. Those are diametrically opposed positions, by their very nature.

      Bosses do a lot of things to try to hide that aspect of the relationship, but it's always there.

      Don't believe me? Ask for a raise, right now.

      --
      The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday May 18 2018, @12:18AM

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday May 18 2018, @12:18AM (#680940) Journal

        Unions necessarily work against the businesses.

        No, that's not true. As I noted, Japanese labor unions are such a counterexample.

        Workers, and by extension their unions, want to maximize wages/salary/benefits and minimize the work required to earn them. Bosses, and by extension the business, want to minimize wages/salary/benefits and maximize the work required to earn them. Those are diametrically opposed positions, by their very nature.

        Everyone has this conflict of interest. A lot have figured out how to cooperate with others who have different interests.

        And the positions aren't diametrically opposed. After all, they have a common interest in the business succeeding.