pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,653 
|
Post by pinklady on Oct 12, 2020 23:00:25 GMT
California peas, what is your opinion on prop 22 to make app based drivers independent contractors?
|
|
|
|
Post by katlady on Oct 12, 2020 23:08:24 GMT
I have no objections to them being independent contractors. Many drivers I speak say they drive when they want to and not when someone else tells them to. I know the issue is about benefits, but that is the life of an independent contractor. They know they won’t have benefits when they go that route. I guess the trade off is being your own boss vs. getting benefits. Maybe I am missing something, but I know I’ll probably learn something from this thread.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 12, 2020 23:23:42 GMT
One of my cousins drives part time. I know he mentioned being concerned what will happen to people like him who drive for multiple entities if it fails. Apparently he's figured out when lyft vs uber vs doordash is better depending on day/time. I'm not in CA, so haven't looked at it in any detail.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 12, 2020 23:25:32 GMT
Independent contractors have to pay ALL their taxes, including employer portion of social security and Medicare. It is a much heftier chunk than when you are simply an employee.
Unless you get a pay increase, the take home pay as an independent contractor will be much less than many people think. (Says someone who negotiated to become an employee in CA, rather than an independent contractor after dealing with all the tax issues).
If they want to do that, fine. I just don’t think they should have some recourse when they are shocked by the amount that is then taken out of their checks in taxes.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 12, 2020 23:27:02 GMT
I am conflicted on it. I believe it’s in the ballot because the companies want it there. I think I’d rather vote no and see the companies, the workers, and the state come to some kind of compromise on the issue. But I haven’t decided for sure yet.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 12, 2020 23:29:15 GMT
Independent contractors have to pay ALL their taxes, including employer portion of social security and Medicare. It is a much heftier chunk than when you are simply an employee. Unless you get a pay increase, the take home pay as an independent contractor will be much less than many people think. (Says someone who negotiated to become an employee in CA, rather than an independent contractor after dealing with all the tax issues). If they want to do that, fine. I just don’t think they should have some recourse when they are shocked by the amount that is then taken out of their checks in taxes. FYI - the status quo is independent contractors, there was a court case that ruled they needed to be converted to employees earlier this year, although that decision is on hold during appeal. This proposition apparently gives them the ability to stay as independent contractors while throwing in a few goodies. |
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 12, 2020 23:32:38 GMT
Independent contractors have to pay ALL their taxes, including employer portion of social security and Medicare. It is a much heftier chunk than when you are simply an employee. Unless you get a pay increase, the take home pay as an independent contractor will be much less than many people think. (Says someone who negotiated to become an employee in CA, rather than an independent contractor after dealing with all the tax issues). If they want to do that, fine. I just don’t think they should have some recourse when they are shocked by the amount that is then taken out of their checks in taxes. FYI - the status quo is independent contractors, there was a court case that ruled they needed to be converted to employees earlier this year, although that decision is on hold during appeal. This proposition apparently gives them the ability to stay as independent contractors while throwing in a few goodies. Ah, thanks.  I don’t live in CA currently, so didn’t know who was pushing for the independent contractor status. In my experience, it doesn’t favor people who aren’t earning hefty salaries to offset the increased taxes. |
|
leeny
Drama Llama
Posts: 5,009
Location: Northern California
Site Supporter
Jun 27, 2014 1:55:53 GMT
|
Post by leeny on Oct 12, 2020 23:39:42 GMT
It's my understanding that in California employees are told by the employer where and when to work and are given the tools to do said work. Independent contractors control when and where they work. Don't these drivers decide when they turn on the app or not? And if they are given benefits this opens a whole huge can of worms for others that employ contractors. Think of hairdressers, consultants, newspaper delivery. And how about employees who have no benefits? I'm not sure it is a good idea.
|
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,366
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Oct 12, 2020 23:42:48 GMT
I'm actually having a conversation with my friend who is a driver and she said she's a no vote. She would rather lose her job than her rights as a driver.
I asked about the drivers and she said it's 50/50.
|
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 13, 2020 0:20:24 GMT
I'm actually having a conversation with my friend who is a driver and she said she's a no vote. She would rather lose her job than her rights as a driver. I asked about the drivers and she said it's 50/50. can you clarify what you mean by rights as a driver - most of the time when I hear that it's people wanting flexibility so more inclined to independent contractor which would be a yes vote. Thx |
|
|
|
Post by ~summer~ on Oct 13, 2020 0:29:50 GMT
I voted no
|
|
snyder
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,493
Location: Colorado
|
Post by snyder on Oct 13, 2020 1:27:33 GMT
I'm not in CA, but do books for my nephew's carpet business. He will ocassionally get real busy and need help, so he will hire an independent contractor. Things slowed a lot during shutdown, but have been absolutely insane once things were relaxed a bit. He had a guy working as a contractor. Explained to him the difference between employee and contractor and he insisted he wanted to treated as a contractor. Then 2 weeks before the extra $600 a week was to expire, he decides he wants to quit so he can draw that extra money as it would about double his pay. He had no clue it was about to expire or I think he would have thought twice. Anyway, when nephew received the info to fill out for his unemployment, he put that he quit, that he wasn't laid off because he wasn't, as they had work out their ears. Anyway, this ticked the guy off and then he claimed that he should have been an employee. Nephew had to contact a attorney to make sure what he did was correct. This is Colorado, so may be different, but told nephew that in order to be considered a contractor, you have to actually operate as a business; have to have your company registered such as an LLC and have an EIN. This guy was just using his Social Security number. If he had wanted to enforce it, nephew would have had to change to employee. After attorney sent him a letter telling him he needed to pay back the payroll taxes so nephew could pay them, he had a different tone. Nephew will no longer hire contractors unless they have their business registered or just put them on as an employee even if he has to then lay them off in the winter. Hope this will help a little to understand what a contractor may need to be aware of or the hassles that could be involved.
|
|
|
|
Post by elaine on Oct 13, 2020 1:45:10 GMT
I'm not in CA, but do books for my nephew's carpet business. He will ocassionally get real busy and need help, so he will hire an independent contractor. Things slowed a lot during shutdown, but have been absolutely insane once things were relaxed a bit. He had a guy working as a contractor. Explained to him the difference between employee and contractor and he insisted he wanted to treated as a contractor. Then 2 weeks before the extra $600 a week was to expire, he decides he wants to quit so he can draw that extra money as it would about double his pay. He had no clue it was about to expire or I think he would have thought twice. Anyway, when nephew received the info to fill out for his unemployment, he put that he quit, that he wasn't laid off because he wasn't, as they had work out their ears. Anyway, this ticked the guy off and then he claimed that he should have been an employee. Nephew had to contact a attorney to make sure what he did was correct. This is Colorado, so may be different, but told nephew that in order to be considered a contractor, you have to actually operate as a business; have to have your company registered such as an LLC and have an EIN. This guy was just using his Social Security number. If he had wanted to enforce it, nephew would have had to change to employee. After attorney sent him a letter telling him he needed to pay back the payroll taxes so nephew could pay them, he had a different tone. Nephew will no longer hire contractors unless they have their business registered or just put them on as an employee even if he has to then lay them off in the winter. Hope this will help a little to understand what a contractor may need to be aware of or the hassles that could be involved. The IRS will issue you an EIN if you are hired as an independent contractor. You do not need to be an LLC to work as an independent contractor. I’ve worked as one in CA and in VA. I’ve never been an LLC and I have an EIN. Most people do not understand the complexities of the tax liabilities if one chooses to work as an independent contractor. I was born in, grew up in, and lived in CA a few times as an adult. There is much to love about the state, but I absolutely detest the referendum system, where the whole state votes on issues that most know little-to-nothing about and which don’t apply to them. I once had to vote on a proposition regarding what place in streams cattle could drink in, because of the impact on land downstream. I am an informed voter about things I know about, and I had no business voting on that proposition, because I know diddly about cattle and the true impact of where they drink. Most CA voters probably shouldn’t be given a say in whether app based drivers should be independent contractors, IMO. Because they have no clue as to what it really would mean and their votes won’t have a direct impact on their personal lives, but it will dictate what happens to others. |
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,366
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Oct 13, 2020 3:02:20 GMT
I'm actually having a conversation with my friend who is a driver and she said she's a no vote. She would rather lose her job than her rights as a driver. I asked about the drivers and she said it's 50/50. can you clarify what you mean by rights as a driver - most of the time when I hear that it's people wanting flexibility so more inclined to independent contractor which would be a yes vote. Thx Not sure what rights as a driver means. She didn’t clarify. Maybe their right to not drive intoxicated people (vomit in my car comes to mind)? Not work certain times? |
|
caangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,025
Location: So Cal
|
Post by caangel on Oct 13, 2020 3:05:36 GMT
Here's the basic explanation WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. A NO vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies would have to hire drivers as employees if the courts say that a recent state law makes drivers employees. Drivers would have less choice about when, where, and how much to work but would get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/ |
|
caangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,025
Location: So Cal
|
Post by caangel on Oct 13, 2020 3:13:04 GMT
|
|
seaexplore
Prolific Pea
Posts: 9,366
Apr 25, 2015 23:57:30 GMT
|
Post by seaexplore on Oct 13, 2020 3:14:32 GMT
Kinda where I’m sitting with it at the moment. |
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Oct 13, 2020 3:16:05 GMT
Here's the basic explanation WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. A NO vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies would have to hire drivers as employees if the courts say that a recent state law makes drivers employees. Drivers would have less choice about when, where, and how much to work but would get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/I think a no vote basically reinforces what the last bill changed. It changed the ride share, delivery, hairstylist and a bunch of others. I hear more locally saying they want to continue as they always have and be an independent contractor as most here are doing it as a side hustle and are making good money vs this being a full time job that they would expect benefits and a more strict schedule. |
|
caangel
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,025
Location: So Cal
|
Post by caangel on Oct 13, 2020 3:20:17 GMT
Here's the basic explanation WHAT YOUR VOTE MEANS A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. A NO vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies would have to hire drivers as employees if the courts say that a recent state law makes drivers employees. Drivers would have less choice about when, where, and how much to work but would get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees. voterguide.sos.ca.gov/propositions/22/I think a no vote basically reinforces what the last bill changed. It changed the ride share, delivery, hairstylist and a bunch of others. I hear more locally saying they want to continue as they always have and be an independent contractor as most here are doing it as a side hustle and are making good money vs this being a full time job that they would expect benefits and a more strict schedule. Correct and yes I've heard the same thing. But the current prop is only for app-based drivers and not the other industries. |
|
|
|
Post by manda on Oct 13, 2020 3:25:19 GMT
I work in Human Resources and voted that they should be employees instead of independent contract workers because of how Lyft and Uber treat them (wanting to directly manage them which blurs the lines.
I think allowing them to be treated as independent contract worker will open a can of worms the federal laws and California laws have been working to eliminate.
It helps if you are familiar with some of the federal laws around this but I also don’t feel strongly either way. If they are to be treated as employees, I do think we can expect similar prices to taxi services.
|
|
|
|
Post by ntsf on Oct 13, 2020 3:25:55 GMT
you can't be an independent contractor in ca if you work in the area of the business you are working for.. so, a theater can't hire an independent stage designer, or a musician, but must hire them as an employee, even if they work for one day. a nanny can't be independent --as you are hired to do that one job, and you don't meet any of the tests.. there are 3 criteria. so it is very complicated.
one reason I quit as a nanny, as I would have to be an employee for my part time flexible gig.
|
|
gramma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,332
Location: Sacramento, Ca
|
Post by gramma on Oct 13, 2020 4:06:35 GMT
If a company has employees they are required to pay state and federal unemploment taxes, 1/2 of social security and Medicare as well as workers' comp. In Ca if you have over a certain number of employees you must also provide benefits, vacation and sick leave. A company that engages independent contractors doesn't pay any of that. There is nothing that says that en employer MUST set schedules and assign shifts. It feels likea big old tax dodge to me. One that leaves the "employee" with no medical coverage, no unemployment benefits, no coverage for a work related injury and often unable to pay income taxes at year end.
|
|
|
|
Post by lucyg on Oct 13, 2020 4:54:55 GMT
I agree with elaine ... our system of direct voting on these propositions (some of which are ridiculously opaque to the average voter) is the WORST. Hopefully my sister is coming over tomorrow to tell me how to vote on the law enforcement propositions (retired deputy DA who is also a liberal ... so she’s both knowledgeable and on the same channel with me politically). I hate having to skip over any of them for lack of knowledge. |
|
snyder
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,493
Location: Colorado
|
Post by snyder on Oct 13, 2020 5:43:52 GMT
I'm not in CA, but do books for my nephew's carpet business. He will ocassionally get real busy and need help, so he will hire an independent contractor. Things slowed a lot during shutdown, but have been absolutely insane once things were relaxed a bit. He had a guy working as a contractor. Explained to him the difference between employee and contractor and he insisted he wanted to treated as a contractor. Then 2 weeks before the extra $600 a week was to expire, he decides he wants to quit so he can draw that extra money as it would about double his pay. He had no clue it was about to expire or I think he would have thought twice. Anyway, when nephew received the info to fill out for his unemployment, he put that he quit, that he wasn't laid off because he wasn't, as they had work out their ears. Anyway, this ticked the guy off and then he claimed that he should have been an employee. Nephew had to contact a attorney to make sure what he did was correct. This is Colorado, so may be different, but told nephew that in order to be considered a contractor, you have to actually operate as a business; have to have your company registered such as an LLC and have an EIN. This guy was just using his Social Security number. If he had wanted to enforce it, nephew would have had to change to employee. After attorney sent him a letter telling him he needed to pay back the payroll taxes so nephew could pay them, he had a different tone. Nephew will no longer hire contractors unless they have their business registered or just put them on as an employee even if he has to then lay them off in the winter. Hope this will help a little to understand what a contractor may need to be aware of or the hassles that could be involved. The IRS will issue you an EIN if you are hired as an independent contractor. You do not need to be an LLC to work as an independent contractor. I’ve worked as one in CA and in VA. I’ve never been an LLC and I have an EIN. Most people do not understand the complexities of the tax liabilities if one chooses to work as an independent contractor. I was born in, grew up in, and lived in CA a few times as an adult. There is much to love about the state, but I absolutely detest the referendum system, where the whole state votes on issues that most know little-to-nothing about and which don’t apply to them. I once had to vote on a proposition regarding what place in streams cattle could drink in, because of the impact on land downstream. I am an informed voter about things I know about, and I had no business voting on that proposition, because I know diddly about cattle and the true impact of where they drink. Most CA voters probably shouldn’t be given a say in whether app based drivers should be independent contractors, IMO. Because they have no clue as to what it really would mean and their votes won’t have a direct impact on their personal lives, but it will dictate what happens to others. I didn't mean for it to sound like it had to be an LLC, but registered. Maybe what she means in getting an EIN was the form of registration. I am totally going by what the attorney wrote to us in response to how nephew needs to conduct business to be on the safe side. Could be different in CA and that is why I also said I was coming at it from a Colorado perspective. |
|
pinklady
Drama Llama
Posts: 6,653
|
Post by pinklady on Oct 13, 2020 15:07:41 GMT
If a company has employees they are required to pay state and federal unemploment taxes, 1/2 of social security and Medicare as well as workers' comp. In Ca if you have over a certain number of employees you must also provide benefits, vacation and sick leave. A company that engages independent contractors doesn't pay any of that. There is nothing that says that en employer MUST set schedules and assign shifts. It feels likea big old tax dodge to me. One that leaves the "employee" with no medical coverage, no unemployment benefits, no coverage for a work related injury and often unable to pay income taxes at year end. This is exactly where I am with this prop. To me this is just a loophole for these companies to get out of paying taxes and benefits to employees. California is very much a pro-employee rights state and these companies are tying to find a way around that. It also feels like these companies are trying to avoid liability in that if anything goes wrong while a driver is "on the job" they won't be responsible because they won't be employees. |
|
gramma
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 3,332
Location: Sacramento, Ca
|
Post by gramma on Oct 13, 2020 17:50:15 GMT
If a company has employees they are required to pay state and federal unemploment taxes, 1/2 of social security and Medicare as well as workers' comp. In Ca if you have over a certain number of employees you must also provide benefits, vacation and sick leave. A company that engages independent contractors doesn't pay any of that. There is nothing that says that en employer MUST set schedules and assign shifts. It feels likea big old tax dodge to me. One that leaves the "employee" with no medical coverage, no unemployment benefits, no coverage for a work related injury and often unable to pay income taxes at year end. This is exactly where I am with this prop. To me this is just a loophole for these companies to get out of paying taxes and benefits to employees. California is very much a pro-employee rights state and these companies are tying to find a way around that. It also feels like these companies are trying to avoid liability in that if anything goes wrong while a driver is "on the job" they won't be responsible because they won't be employees. Here's one more thing that can happen. Say the driver is in an accident while working. Unless they have proper insurance the insurance company can refuse to pay any claims because the person was using their car for "work". I think I have talked myself into a NO vote.
|
|
|
|
Post by Scrapper100 on Oct 13, 2020 18:26:57 GMT
This is exactly where I am with this prop. To me this is just a loophole for these companies to get out of paying taxes and benefits to employees. California is very much a pro-employee rights state and these companies are tying to find a way around that. It also feels like these companies are trying to avoid liability in that if anything goes wrong while a driver is "on the job" they won't be responsible because they won't be employees. Here's one more thing that can happen. Say the driver is in an accident while working. Unless they have proper insurance the insurance company can refuse to pay any claims because the person was using their car for "work". I think I have talked myself into a NO vote.
I could be wrong but I thought they had to pay for a different kind of insurance when working/driving? I can’t imagine getting into a car and them not being required to have insurance other than what I have on my car. |
|
|
|
Post by Darcy Collins on Oct 13, 2020 19:52:33 GMT
Here's one more thing that can happen. Say the driver is in an accident while working. Unless they have proper insurance the insurance company can refuse to pay any claims because the person was using their car for "work". I think I have talked myself into a NO vote.
I could be wrong but I thought they had to pay for a different kind of insurance when working/driving? I can’t imagine getting into a car and them not being required to have insurance other than what I have on my car. Many of these services have insurance if an accident occurs while driving. My daughter DoorDashed during Covid and they do have insurance for their drivers (you need regular insurance as well, but if you're on an actual delivery it's the DoorDash insurance that actually pays). |
|
scorpeao
Pearl Clutcher
Posts: 4,524
Location: NorCal USA
Jun 25, 2014 21:04:54 GMT
|
Post by scorpeao on Oct 13, 2020 20:23:57 GMT
I'm voting no for two reasons. One, the ride share companies are sinking a shit ton of money into it, and two, it cannot be reversed unless it has a 7/8 majority....essentially guaranteeing it can NEVER be reversed. Nope, not voting yes for something that can never change should it be determined it was detrimental to their 'employees.'
|
|
|
|
Post by papersilly on Oct 13, 2020 20:26:36 GMT
i'm on the fence about this too. for the most part, i want the workers to have the choice of who to work for, how much to work, etc. OTOH, i'm concerned about those who aren't business savvy enough to handle the self employments taxes and other business and tax issues that may ding them down the road.
|
|
I don’t live in CA currently, so didn’t know who was pushing for the independent contractor status. In my experience, it doesn’t favor people who aren’t earning hefty salaries to offset the increased taxes. 
