I am entertained by poorly translated things. I have no idea what this shirt means or what the designer thought it would mean. I saw this one in Italy.
I can’t help but wonder what the reaction would be if I wore this shirt in the U.S. Would people say anything to me? I was tempted to ask the wearer about it or to try to buy it from her, but I chickened out.
Last week, the U.S. Supreme Court kind of chickened out too.
A petition had been filed with the Court, asking it to invalidate California’s AB5, its stringent independent contractor law. The petition argued that the law singles out certain businesses and therefore violates the Equal Protection Clause of the U.S. Constitution.
As you may recall, AB5 is the California law that makes it much harder to maintain independent contractor status. The law presumes that most workers are employees and requires a hiring party to satisfy a three-part ABC Test to classify someone as a contractor.
The law, however, does not apply the same standards to everyone. The law exempts loads of industries and types of workers from the ABC Test, and — if we’re being honest here — the law was really targeted toward rideshare and delivery companies.
And that’s exactly what the rideshare and delivery companies argued.
In June 2024, the Ninth Circuit voted to preserve the law, and the case (called Olson v. State of California) was appealed to the U.S. Supreme Court. The Supreme Court, however, can decide which cases to hear and does not have to give a reason for declining to hear a case.
Last week, the Supreme Court declined the petition, opting not to hear the case. The Court provided no reason.
A year earlier, in July 2023, the U.S. Supreme Court denied a different petition asking it to review AB5. The earlier petition, in Mobilize the Message LLC v Bonta, argued that the law’s restrictions on freelance work violated the first Amendment.
For some companies, the Supreme Court’s decision last week not to hear the Olson case will have limited effect. The passage of Prop 22 in late 2020 exempted certain rideshare and delivery app companies from having to comply with AB5. (Prop 22 was also challenged in court and survived.) But AB5 and its ABC Test, later recodified in AB2257, remain in effect for many industries and businesses.
This most recent petition to the Supreme Court alleged that AB5 violated the Equal Protection Clause by unfairly singling out certain industries. I think the evidence is plain that this is what motivated the law, but whether that motivation rises to the level of an Equal Protection violation is another matter.
But no matter. The Supreme Court can decline to hear the appeal, and that’s exactly what it did.
AB5 remains on the books, and I can now start thinking about how I could turn all of this into a poorly translated t-shirt.
Don’t tell anyone, but there is a motorcycle toward the front of this photo. I know, it blends right in and is hard to see because it’s camouflaged. But look carefully and you’ll see it.
I saw it recently while in Bellagio on our vacation to Italy. Yes, I have better photos, but this one helps me make a point about blending in.
The California legislature has decided to blend in too, adopting a freelancer protection bill that is similar to laws already in place in New York State, Illinois, and several cities.
The law has no bearing on the determination of whether someone is an employee or independent contractor. But if the worker is a contractor and other criteria are met, then the requirements of the law must be followed by the party retaining the independent contractor.
If you’ll be retaining a freelancer in California, here’s what you need to know. As a reward for reading to the end, I’ve included some tips and a better photo.
Applies if:
Retention of individual IC or single member entity,
Retained to provide “professional services” (as defined in Labor Code sec 2778), and
$250 in services to be provided within 120 days
But not applicable if:
The hiring party is an individual and the work is for the hiring party’s personal benefit or benefit of the family (e.g., n/a to babysitter, dog walker)
Requirements:
Written contact that includes:
Name and address of each party
Itemized list of services and value
Rate and method of compensation
Date when payment is due or mechanism for determining when payment is due
Date when IC must submit invoice to allow for timely payment
Payment to IC is due on the date specified in contract or, if no date is specified, then 30 days after work is completed
Once work is completed, hiring party cannot require freelancer (a) to accept less in payment, (b) to provide more goods or services, or (c) to grant more IP rights than agreed to in the contract
Other provisions:
The law does not limit existing contract law or prevent an IC from enforcing a verbal contract or recovering under promissory estoppel
Waivers are void
Retaliation prohibited
Civil action permitted; recovery to include attorneys fees and costs
Damages:
If IC requested and was denied a written contract, then additional $1000
If hiring party failed to timely pay, then 2x unpaid portion
Damages equal to value of contract for other violations
Hiring party must provide IC with a copy of the contract
Hiring party must retain contract for 4 years
Tips:
Clarify intellectual property rights in contract; don’t leave that until later or assume there is a handshake understanding of who will own the IP
Specify a due date for payment or a process for determining when payment is due
Define when the work is completed, and define it in a way that requires specifications to be met. This is to protect against poor workmanship and to try to preserve the right to pay less for a shoddy output.
And here’s a more representative photo from the Italy vacation. This is at Alpe di Suise in the Dolomites.
My impression of European electrical outlets is that they seem surprised, as if they don’t know what might be coming. I saw this one in our Airbnb in Lake Como.
Am I wrong? Didn’t think so.
The outlet should not be surprised at what’s coming. And DOL Acting Director Julie Su should not have been surprised either when she was issued a subpoena by the House Committee on Education and the Workforce.
The committee, chaired by Rep. Virginia Foxx (R-NC) has been at odds with the DOL for some time. In particular, Foxx et al. have doubts about the legitimacy of the Su-led DOL’s belief that independent contractor misclassification is rampant. The Committee believes that the DOL is being too aggressive in seeking to find misclassification in relationships that are, in reality, properly classified as independent contractor relationships.
In March, the Committee sent the DOL a series of inquiries about its enforcement efforts. But the DOL largely evaded the questions. After ongoing back and forth, the Committee has finally issued a subpoena to the DOL, demanding production of specific information about the DOL’s enforcement activities.
More specifically, the subpoena requests documents sufficient to show, since January 20, 2021:
The number of instances of misclassification that Wage and Hour Division (WHD) inspectors have found.
The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has initiated.
The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has jointly undertaken with the NLRB.
The number of misclassification enforcement investigations that WHD has jointly undertaken with the FTC.
Responses to the subpoena are due October 7th. I don’t expect we’ll see direct answers.
Don Henley used to hurry a lot, he used to worry a lot, he used to stay out till the break of day.
But you don’t need to carry on that way. — at least when it comes to reducing your company’s risk of independent contractor misclassification. Here are four steps you can take that will proactively reduce risk, in the long run:
1. Review & Modify Actual Practices
Courts answer the question of Who Is My Employee? By reviewing the actual facts, not what the parties intend or what the contract says. Make sure the facts on the ground are consistent with economic independence of the contractor and a lack of control by the hiring party. Change the facts when you can.
2.Create a Vendor Qualification Questionnaire
Require vendors to make a set of written representations that support their status as independent contractors. Then rely on this set of representations when deciding whether to retain each contractor. These representations also help to pin down a contractor who later claims to be an employee.
3.Create a Gatekeeper Process
Sometimes contractors are retained by operations people who don’t know the first thing about misclassification and related legal risks. A gatekeeper process requires all retentions of independent contractors to flow through a designated person who can issue-spot and evaluate whether the proposed retention is consistent with independent contractor status. The gatekeeper has the discretion to approve or deny requests to retain a contractor.
4.Draft Customized Contracts
Any independent contractor agreement you find on the internet is pure garbage. Contracts should be customized:
To memorialize the specific facts that support independent contractor status in the relationship
To prohibit the exercise of control by the hiring party over various aspects of the relationship
To impose indemnity obligations and insurance requirements, and
To make it more difficult for a contractor to challenge the independent contractor classification
Taking proactive steps like these can help you to answer this question in the affirmative, when facing an independent contractor classification challenge: Who is gonna make it? We’ll find out, in the long run.
A 32-year old man was attacked by a brown bear earlier this month while hunting near Cooper Landing, Alaska. The man survived the bear attack, but then his hunting buddy shot him in the leg when trying to kill the bear. Thanks, buddy!
(No, it was not Dick Cheney.)
Nature makes its way into independent contractor status tests too, sometimes — relative nature, that is. Today’s post is about a test sometimes used in workers compensation cases.
In D.C., the test for whether someone is an employee under the workers’ comp law is a “relative nature of the work test.” States that have adopted this broad test have moved away from the more common “right to control” test.
Under this test, an employment relationship is found when (1) the work being done is an integral part of the regular business of the employer and (2) the worker, relative to the employer, does not furnish an independent business or professional service.
Here’s how D.C. courts interpret the two parts.
The first part focuses on the “nature and character of the claimant’s work or business” and requires consideration of three factors: (a) the degree of skill involved in the work in question; (b) the degree to which it is a separate calling or business; and (c) the extent to which it can be expected to carry its own accident burden.
The second part of the test focuses on the relation of the claimant’s work to the employer’s business and also requires consideration of three factors: (a) the extent to which the claimant’s work is a regular part of the employer’s regular work; (b) whether it is continuous or intermittent; and (c) whether its duration is sufficient to amount to the hiring of continuing services, as distinguished from contracting for the completion of a particular job.
In states that use this type of workers comp test, more relationships will be captured than under other, more traditional worker classification tests.
But this might not be a bad thing. The benefit of workers comp coverage for businesses is that it protects them from tort liability. In industries like construction, where injuries can be serious, coverage can be helpful. The disadvantage is that workers comp is no-fault, and you’re required to pay for the coverage.
So next time you’re hunting to see whether you might need to provide workers comp coverage to your contractor or causal laborer, remember that some states have pretty broad tests. Not broad enough to get coverage if your hunting buddy shoots you in the leg, but you get the idea.
In this video, Muhammad Rashid of Pakistan, crushes 39 cans in 30 seconds. With his head. (I like the little fist pump he gives at the end.)
Why would a person do this? To get attention, I imagine. It caught my attention.
The House Committee of Education and the Workforce may also be trying to solicit a bit of attention, but I do want to know the answers to the Committee’s questions.
On August 8, they sent this letter to Acting Secretary of Labor Julie Su, asking her for information about the DOL’s enforcement activity under its new independent contractor rule. The Committee would like the DOL to answer three questions:
1) Since January 20, 2021, how many instances of misclassification have Wage and Hour Division (WHD) inspectors found? Please provide the total number of instances across each occupation that has been subject to investigation.
2) Please provide the number of misclassification enforcement investigations WHD has initiated for each specific industry sector since January 20, 2021.
3) Has DOL initiated any investigations related to misclassification based on its coordination with the National Labor Relations Board and the Federal Trade Commission? If so, please provide the number of investigations DOL has undertaken, broken down by each specific industry segment.
Committee Chair Virginia Foxx (R-not from Virginia) writes that she asked Su these questions when Su appeared before the Committee on May 1, but Su failed to answer. The letter begins by knocking Su around a bit, alleging that the DOL with its new independent contractor rule is trying to destroy all independent contractor relationships.
Maybe yes, maybe no. I don’t know where this letter falls on the continuum of publicity stunt vs. actual relevance for policy making, but I think these are good questions. It would be hopeful for businesses to know whether the DOL’s enforcement strategy has shifted since enactment of the new rule. And if so, how.
The Committee might get the answers it seeks, or it might just be banging its head against the wall cans. But it never hurts to ask.
What Mr. Rashid was doing, on the other hand, does hurt. Or it should hurt. And if it doesn’t hurt, then maybe that tells us something too. Also, I think Mr. Rashid owes someone the cost of 39 beers.
That’s because I just read the 65-page opinion in Johnson v. NCAA. The issue before the Third Circuit Court of Appeals was whether college athletes could plausibly be employees under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA).
A massive class action had been brought, and the NCAA and other defendants filed a motion to dismiss. The district court denied it, allowing the case to move forward. The NCAA was allowed an immediate appeal, but the Third Circuit has affirmed and allowed the case to proceed.
Here’s why I am whelmed.
I am underwhelmed by the Third Circuit’s legal analysis, which has more faults than a novice tennis player learning to serve. I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from an eventual finding that college athletes are, in fact, employees.
Overwhelmed plus underwhelmed must equal whelmed, right?
The word overwhelmedcomes from the Middle English whelmen, which meant “to overturn.” For speakers of Modern English, that’s nothing more than a fun fact, though, because we’d have a really hard time understanding anyone speaking Middle English anyway. Maybe you had to read The Canterbury Tales in school? Cliffnotes, please.
I am underwhelmed by the legal analysis for many reasons.
1. The Third Circuit acknowledges but then disregards the Supreme Court’s instruction in Walling v Portland Terminal that “[a]n individual who ‘without promise or expectation of compensation, but solely for his personal purpose of pleasure, worked in activities carried on by other persons either for their pleasure or profit,’ is outside the sweep of the Act [FLSA].”
2. The Third Circuit acknowledges but the disregards the Department of Labor’s longstanding position and guidance in its Field Operations Handbook, sec. 10b03(e), which says that the activity of college students participating in interscholastic athletics primarily for their own benefit as part of the educational opportunities provided to the students by the school is not ‘work.’”
3. The Third Circuit ignores the long-recognized concept that play is not work. The dictionary definition relied upon by the Supreme Court in the Walling case differentiated “work” from “something undertaken primarily for pleasure, sport, or immediate gratification….”
4. The Third Circuit butchers the well-established Economic Realities Test, which is the standard for determining employee status under the FLSA. The Third Circuit instead advocates for applying the common law test of agency, which, according to the Supreme Court, is not the test.
5. The Third Circuit pays little attention to the fact that students who elect to play sports do so with no expectation of payment, making them volunteers. Volunteers are not subject to the FLSA (whether at U. Tenn. or otherwise).
6. The Third Circuit makes up a new four-part test (out of thin air) for determining when “college athletes may be employees”:
We therefore hold that college athletes may be employees under the FLSA when they (a) perform services for another party, (b) “necessarily and primarily for the [other party’s] benefit,” Tenn. Coal, 321 U.S. at 598, (c) under that party’s control or right of control, id., and (d) in return for “express” or “implied” compensation or “in-kind benefits,”
I am overwhelmed by the massive unintended consequences that would flow from a ruling that 500,000 collegiate athletes across 1,100 schools are employees of their schools.
If these schools had to pay minimum wage and overtime to all college athletes, that would bust their athletic budgets. Sports that do not pay for themselves (essentially all except major football and some basketball programs) would have to be cut.
Remember when Title IX caused schools to cut unprofitable men’s sports like diving and swimming so they could equalize their offerings of men’s and women’s sports? If only football and men’s basketball are profitable, then schools will need to maintain equivalent women’s sports to comply with the mandates of Title IX. That means some women’s sports will survive, at a loss to offset the opportunities given to men in football and basketball, and the other men’s sports will be cut. If we have to pay, then you can’t play.
International students on F-1 visas would have to be cut from their teams, since their visas generally do not allow them to engage in compensable employment. (That’s why international students can’t take NIL money.) Or federal immigration law will need to be changed.
Unless other laws are changed, schools might be required to provide these employees with healthcare benefits, family or medical leave (paid in some states), reimbursement of expenses in some states, unemployment insurance, workers compensation, and a range of other benefits.
If the courts mess this up, which seems very possible, Congress will need to step in and enact a comprehensive set of rules applicable to college athletes.
For now, the immediate impact of this decision is limited. The Third Circuit did not rule that college athletes are employees under the FLSA. They ruled only that it is plausible that circumstances may exist under which college athletes could be employees under the FLSA. Procedurally, all that happened here is that a motion to dismiss was denied.
Next, the parties will fight over class certification, which could cause the case to fall apart, given the massively divergent situations of, say, a D-1 football player at Alabama and a D-3 bowler at Whatsamatta U.
The issue of whether college athletes are employees under federal wage and hour laws, federal labor laws (NLRA), and a myriad of other laws (state and federal) is not going away soon.
My fear, though, is that courts are (1) likely to apply the wrong legal analysis (as the Third Circuit did here, appearing completely lost), (2) likely to misapply laws that were never intended for this situation, and (3) likely to cause a cascade of unintended consequences that will lead to the end of college sports — unless Congress steps in. (Insert joke here.)
Five fisherman from Sri Lanka died last month after drinking the unknown liquid they found in bottles floating about 300 miles offshore. The fisherman reportedly believed the bottles contained foreign liquor.
Ceylon Todayreports that efforts are underway to inform nearby fishing trawlers about the dangers of drinking from floating bottles. It’s a good thing the authorities are doing that because, otherwise, the most common sense thing to do when finding unidentified liquids is to drink them.
Better planning would have saved their lives. You can also plan better when negotiating your staffing agency agreements. Here’s a clause you can include that won’t save lives but will save money.
Overtime Multiplier Caps
When a non-exempt temp works more than 40 hours in a week, the worker must receive overtime pay of 1.5x. But that doesn’t mean you need to pay the same markup rate to the agency for that extra .5x premium.
Here’s what you can do instead.
Suppose you pay a 40% markup on the hourly rate the agency pays to its workers. For a worker receiving $10/hour, you pay the agency $14, The agency gets $4 in revenue for one hour of work provided.
But suppose the same worker works 50 hours in a week. The extra ten hours are paid to the worker at $15/hour, which means the agency gets $6 in revenue for those hours. Here’s the math: 15 x 1.4 = $21, less the $15 that goes back to the worker = $6.
Why should the agency get $6 instead of $4 for the same hour worked? It’s a windfall. You can cap that with an Overtime Multiplier Clause.
The clause would say, essentially, that for straight time, the agency gets a 40% premium. For overtime hours, the markup is the same 40% on the straight time (the 1.0x), then the overtime premium (the extra 0.5x) is reimbursed with no markup on the premiums portion of the pay (the 0.5x).
The worker gets $15, but you pay the agency $19 for that hour, not $21.
In future posts, I’ll address other money-saving clauses you can add to your staffing agency agreements.
In the meantime, remember not to drink from any bottles you may find floating at sea.
Friday night I saw The Gilmour Project play at Northfield MGM, a smallish venue near Cleveland. Great show with plenty of Pink Floyd deep cuts and a “how did they just do that?” version of The Great Gig in the Sky with an electric guitar handling the Clare Torry solo vocals.
And, as many of you know, there is a law requiring that the last song at any Pink Floyd tribute show must be “Comfortably Numb.” There were no violations of law at this concert.
Last week I came across another law that, in a totally unrelated way, left me uncomfortably numb.
Tucked away in a 1,492-page omnibus bill that regulates, among other things, firearms law, agricultural policy, specialty dentist licensure, minerals taxes, combative sports, and broadband appropriation transfer authority, the Minnesota legislature adopted a new test for determining who is an independent contractor under state law, limited to the construction industry. Page 183.
To satisfy the test, each of 14 factors must be present. Construction includes building improvement but not landscaping services [@LKE: saved you an email].
Why am I posting about such a niche classification test? Two reasons.
First, I suffered through reading it, so I am sharing my pain.
Second, and more important, it’s a good reminder that there are so many worker classification laws out there, with different tests applying across different laws in different states and across different industries.
Minnesota is the champion of this nonsense. The state that brought us rollerblades, water skis, and diaper adhesives has 32 different tests for determining who is an employee under state workers’ compensation law, with different tests applicable to different types of work.
If you are working with large numbers of independent contractors across multiple jurisdictions, there’s a lot to know if you want to do it right. Penalties for noncompliance can be severe, including criminal penalties in some states.
Bonus tip: If you need to fall asleep, pull out that omnibus bill and skip to page 1,086 for the new regulations covering natural organic reduction vessels for human remains. Subdivision 19 prohibits the commingling of bodies in crematorium vessels. I guess that’s good. A different kind of comfortably numb maybe.
When Sly and the Family Stone released “I Want to Take You Higher” in 1969, it was originally a B-side. The song took off, though, and became a Top 40 hit anyway.
The song is an upbeat ode to how music can make you feel good. Fun fact: It was used as the theme song in the Canadian children’s show, Hilarious House of Frightenstein, to introduce the show’s disc jockey, the Wolfman, who is either a fictional part-wolf part-man or a human DJ who achieved vocational excellence (and got his own TV show!) despite an untreated case of hypertrichosis.
The Family Stone wasn’t the only band that would like to take you higher. Jackie Wilson went to Billboard #1 in 1967 with “(Your Love Keeps Lifting Me) Higher and Higher.” In 1990, Damn Yankees asked, “Can you take me high enough?” in their song, “High Enough.” And, not to be outdone, Duran Duran, in 1995, released two covers of the Family Stone song, calling the second, “I Want to Take You Higher Again.”
Why all this talk about higher? Because when you’re working with a third party labor provider that provides high-demand, skilled labor, sometimes you’ll want to take their hire. (Heh heh).
The right to direct hire is often addressed in the vendor agreement. Maybe you’ll pay a finder’s fee if you direct hire within the first 3-6 months. But I was asked a more intriguing question last week that I thought was worth a blog post. (Thanks, P! You know who you are.)
Here’s the scenario, which is most likely to arise in the competition for highly skilled workers, like computer programmers: We want to direct hire, but we don’t control the market. If the third party labor provider pays a premium for in-demand roles, they might pay more per hour than we pay. That would make it hard for us to direct hire to worker.
Which leads to this question: How do we cap the wage paid by the third party labor provider (so we can offer the direct hire a raise, not a pay cut), without dictating the wages paid by the third party, which would create joint employment risks?
Excellent question! The answer is to do it indirectly. Here’s how.
Suppose you want the option to direct hire a chimneysweep but wouldn’t dare pay more than $50/hour for a chimneysweep (other than Dick Van Dyke himself, but only in his prime). Chimneysweeps are in high demand and so third party labor providers may be paying their chimneysweeps $50/hour too so they can get the best ones. It’s a competitive labor market, you know.
You don’t want to tell the third party labor provider what to pay its chimneysweeps. Dictating the wages of a third party worker is a strong indicator of joint employment.
Instead, you should agree to pay the agency $50/hour for its chimneysweeps. Then you know they are paying the chimneysweeps less than $50/hour because the agency has to be making a profit. The markup is probably 35-45%, so you could even pay the agency up to about $65 per hour and be confident the chimneysweep is not taking home more than $50/hour.
Then, if you wanted to direct hire the chimneysweep for which you are paying the agency $60-65/hour, that sweeper is likely only being paid about $42-45/hour and so his sweeping prowess could be yours for the low low price of roughly $50/hour or less. That’s how I would approach this problem.
I don’t think any bands are singing about this issue directly, but if I told you they were really singing “I Want to Take Your Hire,” you just might hear it that way next time you listen.
