Tag: gig economy

Stop the Work Stoppers

Labor Department, gig economy, freelancing

Republican Representative Kevin Kiley of California has introduced H.J. Resolution 116 to block “the rule submitted by the Department of the Labor relating to ‘Employee or Independent Contractor Classification Under the Fair Labor Standards Act.’ ”

116 is a legislative attempt to thwart legislation by regulators.

Labor’s rule is modeled on the AB5 Act passed in California several years ago. Catering to unions, AB5’s idea was to kill the livelihoods of many gig workers or freelancers by making it much harder for companies and independent contractors to deal with each other.

The new rule, too, aims to kill competition with unions and expand the pool of employees who can be unionized.

AB5 caused a firestorm, leading to citizen initiatives, court battles, and victories and setbacks for besieged employers and freelancers. There’s been some backtracking of AB5, in part because sponsoring lawmakers realized that it hurt even favored constituencies. But California is still a land mine for would-be freelancers.

The Labor Department is trying to impose AB5-style reclassification on the national level now that national lawmakers have failed to pass legislation to do it.

These days, the many dictators in our government often regard legislative means of passing legislation as an option only of first resort. If that fails, well, stick it to the people some other way.

So Kiley — and, hopefully, an effective congressional majority — must pass a law saying no, regulators, you may not pass this law in the guise of a regulation.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder and Firefly

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags bureaucracy, deep state, freelancing, gig economy, labor regulation

First Amendment rights general freedom judiciary

High Court Too Busy

California, gig, contractor, speech, censorship

What is the U.S. SupremeCourt thinking by refusing even to listen to arguments about the effects of California’s AB5 law, which effectively outlaws certain kinds of freelancing and gig work, on the right to speak out and petition in California?

The case is Mobilize the Message, LLC v. Bona. Plaintiffs were challenging the constitutionality of AB5 because it bans independent contractors from doing door-to-door canvassing for candidates or initiative campaigns yet allows independent contractors to do the same kind of work if they’re doing it as newspaper carriers or salesmen.

Of course, if AB5 were completely consistent in its assault on independent contractors, that wouldn’t make it any less injurious to political work and freedom of speech. But the separate and unequal provisions of the act do mean that political workers are being forced to abide by different rules than certain nonpolitical contractors.

That’s not right, not just.

As the Institute for Free Speech puts it, “The only distinguishing feature separating the two [kinds of contractors] is the content of the speech they are paid to promote, a distinction that is presumptively unconstitutional under the First Amendment.”

Lead counsel for the plaintiffs, Alan Gura, says that the Court’s decision will “price political speech beyond the reach of many citizens.”

What’s the deal, are the justices too busy?

We’re all busy.

On the other hand, they have a job. A lot of folks in California could use one, too.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Illustration created with PicFinder.ai

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags California, censorship, free speech, gig economy, independent contractors

initiative, referendum, and recall judiciary

The Ultimate Legislature

California, AB5, gig work, freelance driver

Proposition 22 was supported by 59 percent of California voters last November.

The statutory initiative partly reverses the destructive effects of AB5, a law that forced many California gig workers or freelancers to be treated as regular employees who must receive benefits — whether these gig workers like it or not.

One notices at Ballotpedia that all the listed opponents of this measure were politicians, including our current Vice President (then Senator) Kamala Harris as well as socialist Bernie Sanders, while the diverse list of Prop 22’s supporters included: the California Chambers of Commerce along with the Black, CalAsian, and Hispanic Chamber of Commerce, Crime Victims United of California, California Farm Bureau Federation, California NAACP State Conference, California Small Business Association, and Mothers Against Drunk Driving.

The benefits of the so-called gig economy are politically opposed and diversely appreciated.

Unions funded the opposition, though far outspent by the prosperous app companies: Uber, Lyft, Doordash, etc. Those same unions, having failed to win over voters, then filed suit to block implementation of Prop 22.

‘The Court finds,” reads Judge Frank Roesch’s opinion, “that Section 7431 is unconstitutional because it limits the power of a future legislature to define app-based drivers as workers subject to workers’ compensation law.”

Simply. Not. So.

A statutory California initiative can only be changed via a vote of the people, whether that vote happens because the legislature places the change on the ballot or citizens do so through the initiative petition process.

The voters are the ultimate legislature.

Therefore, nothing prevents the elected California Legislature from providing a change to ultimately be decided by the people of California, i.e. the whole legislature, at the ballot box.

For good reason, the judge’s decision is being appealed.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags AB5, California, freelancing, gig economy, Proposition 22

free trade & free markets too much government

Leave California

California, gig economy, freelancing, contractor

Should Uber and Lyft abandon California?

At issue is the anti-freelancer statute AB 5, passed last year in the Golden State, which outlaws independent contractors in many industries.

Including the wildly successful ride-sharing business.

Horrified, threatened, Uber and Lyft have declared their willingness to suspend operations in California if they are forced to reclassify independent contractors as employees.

You see, wage and salary contracts are heavily regulated already, and switching from independent contractors to employees means drivers would be entitled to expensive benefits.

Which would upset the gig economy business model.

A model Democrats hate. This assault on independent contractors is something that Democratic presidential candidate Joseph Biden wants to impose nationwide.

The Democrat-controlled U.S. House passed such legislation in February.

For now, a court order has given the companies a temporary reprieve from another court’s order mandating compliance.

Maybe the dueling decrees will end well for the ride-sharing companies, allowing them to function. Maybe not. There’s also a citizen initiative in the mix. Proposition 22 on the fall ballot would substantially modify AB5 to make it possible for at least some freelancers to do their jobs in the state of nearly 40 million people.

On the other hand, should California officials succeed in imposing their mandate on the ride-sharing firms, Uber and Lyft should follow through on their threat and leave.

The consequences of such attacks on the market should be made as plain as possible as rapidly as possible so that as many people as possible can make the connection between cause and effect.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags California, freelancing, gig economy, ride sharing

national politics & policies too much government

The New New Dealer

Pete Buttigieg, president, election, labor, gig economy, candidate,

Reason magazine’s Nick Gillespie finds “a lot” to like about Pete Buttigieg. He sees a candidate “who at his best represents a new generation in American politics and a principled unwillingness to go along with the most free-spending plans of his rivals for the Democratic presidential nomination.”

I have so far resisted the charms of the Mayor of South Bend, Indiana.

He seems dangerous to me, in part because he cuts quite a figure while appearing so calm and reasonable.

But Mr. Gillespie is not making a case for Buttigieg. The Reason editor has noticed a growing set of downsides to the pol, writing that as Buttigieg “starts to unveil more and more plans — to pack the Supreme Court, say, and to call for national service — he becomes less appealing,” which, if anything, understates the situation.

You see, Buttigieg “wants to destroy the gig economy in order to save it.”

Gillespie provides that “takeaway” from the campaign’s proposal, “A New Rising Tide: Empowering Workers in a Changing Economy.” Gillespie explains that the plan’s “focus is to force more regulations on employers and increase unionization among workers, neither of which is likely to make it easier for the economy to grow or the workplace to ‘more easily adapt’ to the needs of suppliers, workers, or consumers.”

There is a lot about the current labor markets (at record all-time highs, says the President) that definitely would not be helped by a plan to “organize” labor using the old idea of the strike-threat system.

Like a lot of Buttigieg’s positions, they seem warmed-over yesteryear progressivism.

FDR, but modernly packaged.

Making Big Government even bigger.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

PDF for printing

Photo by Lorie Shaull

—

See all recent commentary
(simplified and organized)

See recent popular posts

Tags candidate, election, gig economy, labor, Pete Buttigieg, president

Accountability crime and punishment folly free trade & free markets general freedom ideological culture nannyism national politics & policies

Digs at the Gig Economy

Uber, Lyft, sharing, economy, HIllary, Bernie, illustration

In Texas’s progressive enclave of Austin, the government has regulated Uber and Lyft out of the city.

Massachusset’s uber*-progressive Sen. Elizabeth Warren cautions that the “much-touted virtues”of the “gig economy” that these services represent are actually dark signs of the times, providing workers a false “step in a losing effort to build some economic security in a world where all the benefits are floating to the top 10 percent.”

Vermont’s Sen. Bernie Sanders, the independent candidate for the Democratic Party’s presidential nomination, is also no fan. Why? These services are not regulated.

Sanders’s charge that these person-to-person (P2P) ride-sharing services are “unregulated” is of course the opposite of the truth. They are self-regulated for safety and efficiency in ways that taxi services never were. How much extra value did governments add, with their regulations of the taxicab industry? They just reduced competition and made cabs more expensive.

P2P online cooperation is revolutionary. And “progressives” are stuck in the past, itching to suppress that revolution. “Initially,” writes Jared Meyer in the July issue of Reason, “hostility mostly came from state and municipal governments, at the behest of local special interests.” But as the services became more popular, opposition shifted. To the national Democrats like Sanders, Warren and . . . Hillary Clinton. She promises to “crack down on bosses who exploit employees by misclassifying them as contractors or even steal their wages.”

Par for the course: the Internet provides more opportunity than ever, and all some progressives see are the old socialist fears of “exploitation” and “greed” . . . while they greedily suck up to unions and special interests.

The bright side, Meyer argues, is that they are on the losing side.

This is Common Sense. I’m Paul Jacob.

*I guess the pun here is intended. Or not. You choose, P2P style.

Printable PDF