Before reading this post, please enjoy this adorable video of a porcupine eating an apple.
The porcupine seems harmless and cute, but remember – itâs still a porcupine. Those quills are sharp, and they can impale small would-be predators.
And speaking of impale: A Congressional resolution, if passed, would impale the NLRBâs joint employer rule. The effort has enough support that it could bear fruit. Like the tasty apple in this video.
On January 12, the House passed H.J. Res 98, which would nullify the NLRBâs new joint employer rule. The resolution passed, 206-177, with eight Democrats voting in favor.
The Senate is considering an identical companion bill, S.J. Res 49, which has the support of at least one Democrat. Senator Manchin is a co-sponsor.
Under the Congressional Review Act, Congress can nullify an agency regulation with a simple majority of votes in each house. Sixty votes are not needed in the Senate.
But if the bill passes, President Biden can still veto it, and he has indicated that he would.
Meanwhile, the rule continues to face challenges in federal court. If Congress does not nullify the rule, a court might enter an injunction to prevent it from taking effect. Having reviewed the arguments presented to a federal judge in Texas last week, I think thereâs a strong chance the rule will be set aside, at least temporarily.
Remember: The NLRB joint employer test is supposed to be a common law right-to-control test. The scope of the new rule is substantially broader and would create joint employment relationships automatically, including in situations where the common law balancing test would not result in a finding of joint employment.
We can expect a ruling from the court this week, since the NLRB joint employer rule is scheduled to take effect next Monday, February 26.
It can mean the front part of the head, as in this selfie featuring two hairy-faced beasts. The one on the left has a wet drippy beard after sloppily drinking water from a bowl. No, I meant on your left.
It can mean the English rock band formed in 1969, which featured Rod Stewart and Ronnie Wood. Their 1971 album, A Nod Is As Good As a Wink… to a Blind Horse, reached #2 in the UK charts.
Or it can be a verb, as in âDOL Independent Contractor Test Faces Court Challenges.â In todayâs post, weâre going with verb.
As expected, the independent contractor rule released by the DOL earlier this month is already being challenged in court.
A coalition of business groups is trying to invalidate the rule by asking the Fifth Circuit to reopen an earlier case. In the earlier case, these groups challenged the Biden DOLâs effort to withdraw the Trump DOLâs 2021 version of the independent contractor rule. The 2021 version would have simplified the test, focusing the analysis on two key factors â control and opportunity for profit or loss. In the lawsuit, the business groups argued that the Biden DOLâs efforts to delay and withdraw the Trump DOLâs 2021 rule violated the Administrative Procedure Act (APA).
These groups now argue that the new rule contains the same legal flaws and that that the Trump DOL rule should be the rule that rules. The case is Coalition for Workforce Innovation v. Su, 5th Cir., No. 22-40316.
A second challenge has been filed by freelancer writers and editors who argue that the new rule is impermissibly vague and âfreewheelingâ (an excellent word choice) and that it violates the APA. They claim that the new rule impermissibly threatens their ability to work as independent contractors and is too vague to allow them to reasonably structure their businesses.
These challenges will take a while to resolve, and more may be filed. Unless a court issues an injunction staying the rule while these cases proceed, the new rule will take effect March 11th.
In the meantime, weâll keep watching to see what happens. Itâs a real face off!
This is a venomous Eastern Brown Snake, native to Australia. Stay away.
Tennis star Dominic Thiem knew what to watch for in his match this past weekend in Brisbane. It was on-court hazard he couldnât ignore.
Play was interrupted when a âreally poisonous snakeâ slithered onto the court near the ballkids. The intruder, an Eastern Brown Snake, âhas the unfortunate distinction of causing more deaths by snake bite than any other species of snake in Australia.â The snakeâs venom causes âprogressive paralysis and uncontrollable bleeding,â which is not one of the on-court hazards typically of ballkidding.
(I donât know if ballkidding is the real word for this, but it should be. Or ballkiddery maybe. I also learned from the snake bite article that the proper term for being bit by a venomous snake is âenvenomation,â which is a word I hope to use elsewhere in a sentence sometime in 2024. So thereâs a New Yearâs resolution. [@Lisa, take note, I made one, even though you {correctly} say I am no fun because I wonât play the New Yearâs Resolution game.])
The Eastern Brown Snake is not present in the U.S., so we donât have to watch for any in 2024.
But here are several other things that could bite you in the behind in 2024 if youâre not paying attention:
1. New DOL test for independent contractor misclassification. The DOL issued its proposed new rule in October 2022 and targeted the fall of 2023 for release of a new final rule. The proposed rule would identify seven factors to consider when evaluating whether someone is an employee under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). The final rule will likely be very similar. Weâre still waiting, and the final rule could be released at any time.
2. The new NLRB test for joint employment takes effect Feb. 26, 2024. Unless it doesnât. The new rule is being challenged in both a federal district court in Texas and the U.S. Court of Appeals in D.C. Either court could quash the rule. The new rule will substantially expand who is a joint employer under the NLRA, even for worksites without unions.
3. Increased state and local enforcement activity. States and localities are filing their own lawsuits alleging worker misclassification. The New Jersey Attorney General recently filed a major lawsuit. The California Attorney General and California localities have been pursuing misclassification lawsuits too. Remember this: As much as I advocate for individual arbitration agreements with class waivers, they have no effect on enforcement actions brought by a state or local government. These lawsuits pose a substantial risk, and the governments love to issue one-sided accusatory press releases when they file the lawsuits.
4. The feds are doing this too. The DOL is bringing its own enforcement actions and publicizing them.
5. State and local laws that affect independent contractor classification and joint employment. Weâre seeing legislative activity in three main areas:
(a) laws to change the tests; (b) laws that provide a safe harbor for independent contractor classification if certain protections are provided to the workers (Cal. Prop 22, this proposed Mass. state law); and (c) Freelancers laws that impose various requirements when retaining a solo independent contractor (currently: NY, IL, Los Angeles, Minneapolis, Seattle, NYC, Columbus).
6. State laws that criminalize worker misclassification. Take a look at recent legislation passed in NY State and Rhode Island.
7. State laws governing the use of temporary workers. Look for more states to enact laws like the Illinois Day and Temporary Worker Services Act (amended in Aug. 2023) and the New Jersey Temporary Workersâ Bill of Rights (enacted in Aug, 2023). These laws force companies that use staffing agencies to disclose the wages and benefits being paid to direct employees.
8. Californiaâs AB 5 is still being challenged. This is the law that codified the ABC Test for most independent contractor relationships. But it also included a grab bag of miscellaneous and arbitrary exceptions. A full en banc Ninth Circuit has agreed to rehear Olson v. State of California, which challenges the constitutionality of AB 5.
Wishing you a happy, healthy, and litigation-free 2024.
Ginsbergâs Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:
There is a game.
You canât win.
You canât break even.
You canât even get out of the game.
Thatâs the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRBâs new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).
Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule â the NLRBâs decision to include âWorking conditions related to the safety and health of employeesâ as an âessential term and condition of employmentâ for purposes of determining joint employer status.
Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.
Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.
Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:
You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
Employees of vendors work onsite.
Employees of vendors must comply.
Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over âworking conditions related to the safety and healthâ of a vendorâs employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.
More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our sitesafety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.
The NLRBâs position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say youâre a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.
Good morning, Worm your honor The crown will plainly show The prisoner who now stands before you Was caught red-handed showing feelings Showing feelings of an almost human nature This will not do Call the schoolmaster
What to do?
Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.
It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 â less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment â the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.
So what are businesses to do?
The answer canât be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not â or should not â convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.
One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you donât go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesnât.
Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendorâs employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But itâs worth looking at your policy language.
In the meantime, letâs keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Letâs also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.
Ginsbergâs Theorem is a parody of the laws of thermodynamics. Generally attributed to the poet Allen Ginsberg, it goes like this:
There is a game.
You canât win.
You canât break even.
You canât even get out of the game.
Thatâs the conundrum businesses now face when trying to comply with both the NLRBâs new joint employer rule and OSHA requirements (or general safe workplace practices).
Last week we looked at the new NLRB rule on joint employment. This week I want to focus on the most troubling part of that rule â the NLRBâs decision to include âWorking conditions related to the safety and health of employeesâ as an âessential term and condition of employmentâ for purposes of determining joint employer status.
Businesses often have site-wide, plant-wide, or company-wide health and safety requirements. If you enter this building, you must follow the health and safety rules that apply in this building. For example, you must wear steel-toed shoes to enter the manufacturing floor. Or, you must not enter this high-voltage area without permission. Or, you must walk only on designated pathways to avoid the risk of being hit by a forklift.
Some of these rules are driven by OSHA compliance, some by other governmental regulations, and some by a general desire not to cause grievous injury to other human beings.
Those motivations may now cause your business to be joint employer. The reasoning goes like this:
You have a site-wide safety rule, and anyone in the facility must comply.
Employees of vendors work onsite.
Employees of vendors must comply.
Under the new NLRB joint employer rule, the exercise of control over âworking conditions related to the safety and healthâ of a vendorâs employees would automatically create a joint employment relationship.
More absurd, merely reserving the right to exert control over health and safety conditions would create a joint employer relationship, even if such control is never actually exercised. In other words telling a vendor, if your employees enter our facility, they will will have to follow our sitesafety rules, would also seem to make you a joint employer.
The NLRBâs position ignores reality and creates a conundrum for businesses: If you comply with health and safety laws, or if you take steps to protect human beings from injury, and those humans are not your employees, the NLRB would now apparently say youâre a joint employer. Beware of showing feelings, showing feelings of an almost human nature.
Good morning, Worm your honor The crown will plainly show The prisoner who now stands before you Was caught red-handed showing feelings Showing feelings of an almost human nature This will not do Call the schoolmaster
What to do?
Could the NLRB and OSHA be teaming up to jointly enforce this conundrum? Well, yes.
It just so happens that the NLRB and OSHA have teamed up, and on October 31 â less than a week after the NLRB released its final rule on joint employment â the two agencies jointly released a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU). In the MOU, the agencies commit to sharing information and working together to enforce their respective laws, including notifying workers who make OSHA complaints of their NLRA rights, and notifying workers who make NLRA complaints about health and safety of their OSHA rights.
So what are businesses to do?
The answer canât be to ignore health and safety rules or to waive these rules for non-employees. But the NLRB needs to recognize that exercising control over health and safety conditions does not â or should not â convert a company into a joint employer. Certainly this aspect of the rule will be tested in court, as it seems to go well beyond the bounds of the common law definition of joint employment, and the common law test is supposed to be the joint employer test under the NLRA.
One option for businesses to consider is to tie site-wide health and safety rules to legal requirements whenever possible. Compliance with the law is not supposed to be the type of control that is taken into account under the common law joint employer test. But that approach creates a conundrum too. Be careful that you donât go too far and say that the law requires something when, in reality, it doesnât.
Another option might be to revise how site-wide health and safety rules are drafted. Try to try to thread the needle, protecting everyone onsite, but not explicitly setting working conditions for vendorâs employees. It might be possible to draft this way; it might not be. But itâs worth looking at your policy language.
In the meantime, letâs keep an eye on how this new factor is interpreted by administrative law judges and the Board when actual disputes are adjudicated. Letâs also see if court challenges to the new joint employer rule will knock out this troubling provision.
Invented by Virgil A. Gates of West Virginia, the Guard is intended for âholding the moustache out of the way of food or liquid while eating or drinking.â As you may have already guessed, Virgil filed for a patent in 1876. Why would you have guessed that? Because 1876 was the last time anyone was named Virgil.
Moustaches, while certainly worth guarding (especially those of the handlebar variety), arenât the only thing in need of protection. Solo independent business owners in the delivery and rideshare industries have been under attack, as class action lawsuits and government agency activity increasingly seek to take away their independence by declaring them employees.
In 2020, California enacted Prop 22, which preserved independent contractor status for these drivers so long as the app companies provided a list of preset benefits and guaranteed pay. In a statewide vote, Prop 22 passed overwhelmingly with 59% of the vote.
Massachusetts may soon follow suit. A similar ballot measure is likely to be considered by voters in the Bay State about a year from now.
The ballot measure, if successful, would create a system like Prop 22 in Massachusetts. Delivery and rideshare drivers would be granted independent contractor status, so long as the app company they were using provided them with a litany of worker benefits. The required benefits would include:
Guaranteed pay at 120% of state minimum wage for time spent completing delivery or rideshare requests;
Additional per mile pay for each mile driven in a personal vehicle;
A healthcare stipend for drivers who average 25 or more hours per week;
One hour of paid sick time per 30 hours worked;
Accident insurance; and
Prohibitions on discrimination based on race, sex, sexual orientation, and other protected characteristics.
Click here for the official summary of the proposed law.
If the ballot initiative receives enough signatures, it may appear on the ballot for a statewide vote in November 2024. Alternatively, the legislature may choose to consider the issue on its own, before the 2024 general election.
Initiatives like this one and Californiaâs successful Prop 22 provide a reasonable, common sense third alternative to what is usually a binary choice between classification as an independent contractor (with no employee rights) and an employee. Rideshare and delivery drivers generally value their independence and the ability to operate their own business. Laws like this one allow them to do so as contractors while receiving certain benefits and guarantees.
In school we all learned that the longest river is the Nile. But some say the Amazon is longer. In the atlas âMaps of Useful Knowledgeâ (1846), the Amazon was listed as 3200 miles and the Nile 2750 miles. The current U.S. Geological Survey shows the Nile at 4132 miles and the Amazon at 4000 miles. Brazilian researchers claim the Amazon is 4331 miles long and the Nile a mere 4258 miles.
So which is it, and how can it be changing? Apparently the controversy involves disputes over where the rivers start, where they end, and how to track changes in the riversâ course.
Whatever you learned about the test for who is an independent contractor under the Fair Labor Standards Act is subject to change too.
Remember October 2022? Elon Musk completed a $44B deal to take over twitter. Germany took steps to legalize marijuana. And the DOL released a proposed new regulation to modify the independent contractor test.
The proposed rule received more than 50,000 comments. Weâve been speculating about when the DOL might issue a final rule.
Weâve now learned that the DOL is targeting this fall for release of the new rule. The latest version of the regulatory agenda lists August as the target release date. August may be a bit ambitious, but the fall seems likely. On June 9, a federal court of appeals granted a motion by the DOL for a 120-day stay in a pending lawsuit. The DOL asked for the stay to allow it time to release the new rule.
So it seems that whatever we know now about the length of the Nile River, the length of the Amazon River, and the independent comntractor test under the FLSA is subject to change. Hopefully weâll know more about all three by sometime this fall.
We can be pretty sure the final rule will closely resemble the multi-factor balancing test released in October 2022. Businesses can plan accordingly by being proactive in assessing their relationships with independent contractors and taking steps to reduce risk now.
There are quite a few songs about gals named Sue. Thereâs âPeggy Sue,â âWake Up Little Susie,â âSusie Q,â and âRunaround Sue.â Thereâs a even a song about a âBoy Named Sue.â (The results of a recent survey consisting of me revealed that âBoy Named Sueâ is by far the best of the Sue-themed songs.)
As far as I know, no one has yet written a song about Labor Secretary nominee Julie Su, but I would not be surprised if one of the unions in California wrote a ballad to applaud her work heading the stateâs Division of Labor Standards Enforcement (DLSE) and Labor and Workforce Development Agency. Maybe something like Fatboy Slimâs âPraise You.â
Su is Bidenâs pick for Secretary of Labor, following the resignation of Marty Walsh, who left to lead the NHL playerâs union. Her nomination is controversial, and businesses fear theyâll be singing the blues if sheâs confirmed.
But in a recent Senate committee hearing, she provided at least two answers that businesses will like.
First, she said she would not advocate for an independent contractor test modeled after Californiaâs AB 5. She testified that itâs her view (mine too, probably the courtsâ too) that only Congress could adopt an ABC Test to determine worker classification under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA). Thatâs reassuring.
Second, she said that the DOLâs next regulatory agenda would not include a new joint employer test. The 2020 joint employer regulation adopted by the Trump DOL has been rescinded, and there has been no replacement regulation, which leaves a regulatory crater in the Code of Federal Regulations, where the joint employer rule used to be. Read more here.
On April 26, a Senate committee voted to advance Suâs nomination to the full Senate. All Democrats on the committee voted yes, and she received no Republican support. In a 51-49 Senate, the success of her nomination will likely depend on whether she can secure the support of Senators Manchin, Sinema, and Tester and whether Sen. Feinstein is healthy enough to vote.
And on that note, we turn back to Johnny Cash:
He said, “Now you just fought one heck of a fight And I know you hate me, and you got the right to kill me now And I wouldn’t blame you if you do But you ought to thank me, before I die For the gravel in ya gut and the spit in ya eye ‘Cause I’m the son of a bitch that named you Sue”
In the Muppet Movie, Kermit famously wondered, âWhy are there so many songs about rainbows?â
Articles in Psychology Today and Remind Magazine have attempted to answer this question. A blog post on the Tough Pigs website almost took a contrary view in a post titled âWhy There ARENâT So Many Songs About Rainbows,â but that was a twitter gimmick asking for wrong answers only.
Turns out there are quite a few songs about rainbows. You can google it. Thereâs also a pretty good band called Rainbow (âMan on the Silver Mountain,â âSince You Been Goneâ), and the University of Hawaiiâs teams are the Rainbow Warriors, f/k/a just the Rainbows, which probably didnât frighten much of their football competition in the Mountain West.
Iâm inspired by Kermitâs lyrical question, but my thoughts stray in a different direction: Why are there so many ⊠joint employment tests, just under the Fair Labor Standards Act (FLSA)? Shouldnât courts applying a federal law use the same test in every jurisdiction? Of course they should, but they donât.
Here are the current tests for joint employment under the FLSA, in a nutshell:
The First, Third, Fifth, and Ninth Circuits apply a four-factor test based on a 1983 case called Bonette. The test considers whether the putative joint employer (1) can hire and fire employees, (2) controls employeesâ work and employment conditions, (3) determines rates of pay, and (4) maintains employment records. Bonnette v. Cal. Health & Welfare Agency, 704 F.2d 1465 (9th Cir. 1983).
The Second Circuit rejects the Bonette test as too focused on agency, instead applying a non-exclusive six-factor test. Zheng v. Liberty Apparel Co, Inc., 355 F.3d 61, 71-76 (2d Cir. 2003).
The Eleventh Circuit applies an eight-factor test that includes the Bonette factors and adds factors related to economic dependence. Layton v. DHL Express (USA), Inc., 686 F.3d 1172, 1176-78 (11th Cir. 2012).
The Fourth Circuit is having none of what the other circuits are having and goes in an entirely different direction. The Fourth Circuitâs test compares the two putative employers to determine whether they are âcompletely dissociated.â Salinas v. Commercial Interiors, Inc., 848 F.3d 125 (4th Cir. 2017); Hall v. DIRECTV, LLC, 846 F.3d 757 (4th Cir. 2017). The Fourth Circuitâs test is so far off the mark that it relies on a (mis)interpretation of a federal regulation that no longer exists.
And speaking of federal regulations that no longer exist, the Department of Laborâs regulation defining joint employment under the FLSA? You guessed it. It no longer exists.
In 2021, the DOL rescinded the joint employer regulation that had been adopted by the Trump DOL in 2020. The 2020 regulation has rescinded the previous regulation, which had been around for decades. No new regulation has been adopted, and so there is no regulation. Part 791 of Title 29 of the Code of Federal Regulations, formerly home to the DOLâs joint employment regulation, is empty.
So, why are there so many tests for joint employment? No good reason. There just are.
But that could change. Following a recent Ninth Circuit decision tagging Los Angeles County as a joint employer, L.A. County has petitioned the Supreme Court to reconsider the joint employment test. So weâll see what happens there. A conservative Supreme Court majority might recognize how absurd it is that one federal statute can be interpreted so many different ways. Maybe theyâll take the case and announce one test for everyone.
In the meantime, if youâre looking for the joint employer test under the FLSA, youâll need to look in several places. The test depends on where you are. All of us under its spell. We probably know that itâs ma-gic!
The Rolling Stonesâ song, âYou Canât Always Get What You Wantâ features the London Bach Choir and addresses the predominant themes of the 1960s â love, protest, and drugs. Thereâs some controversy as to whether Mr. Jimmy refers to vagrant Minnesotan Jimmy Hutmaker, who supposedly uttered the famous lyric-to-be during a chance 1964 encounter with Jagger at Baconâs Drugstore, or Jimmy Miller, a record producer who also played drums on this track instead of Charlie Watts.
âYou Canât Always Get What You Wantâ is also a suitable theme for the main problem that dominates every aspect of independent contractor misclassification. The problems is that the laws are binary. A worker is either an employee who receives all of the protections of employment laws, or an independent contractor, who receives none. The exceptions creating a middle ground have been sparse.
But if you try sometimes.
California voters tried and succeeded in creating a middle ground in 2022, when they passed Prop 22. Prop 22 guarantees independent contractor status for rideshare and delivery drivers if a series of conditions are met, and then the app companies are required to provide a range of protections for drivers, including minimum rates of pay, a health insurance stipend, accident insurance, sexual harassment prevention, safety training, and rest requirements.
Prop 22 was and is a model for the middle ground that has been missing.
But Prop 22 has also been under attack. In a case called Castellenos, the SIEU and other worker advocates have argued that Prop 22 violates the California constitution and had to be invalidated. Without Prop 22, rideshare and delivery drivers could be subjected to Californiaâs ABC Test for determining driversâ status.
As you may have read, a California Court of Appeals ruled earlier this month that Prop 22 did not violate the California Constitution and could take effect, except for one small part of the law governing future amendments. The dispute will likely be heard by the California Supreme Court, so the fight isnât over.
The point I want to make, though, is that Prop 22 carves out a middle ground that should be a model for other states to follow. It guarantees workers certain protections while allowing them to operate their own businesses as independent contractors.
The unions and worker advocates calling for the protection of worker rights routinely ignore the surveys showing that a vast majority of drivers prefer independent contractor status. Much of the noise on this issue is coming from a vocal minority.
The Prop 22 model is a middle ground that provides workers with protections they otherwise lack, while allowing workers to retain their preferred independent contractor status and flexibility.
Weâll continue to watch whether the California Supreme Court decides to hear this dispute but, either way, Prop 22 should be held up as a model for other states to follow, carving out a middle ground that balances the concerns of all sides. Worker status does not have to be binary. Binary laws that mandate employee or independent contractor status, with no middle ground, do not reflect the realities of the modern gig economy.
Itâs time for reform.
You canât always get what you want. But if you try sometimes, well, you just might find, you get what you need.
Who Is My Employee? 