> Charlotte Garden, an associate law professor at Seattle University, said [U.S. Magistrate Judge Jacqueline Scott] Corley’s decision is a “doubly big” win for GrubHub due to California’s relatively high standard for establishing workers as independent contractors.
Would someone familiar with the California standards summarize the contractor/employee test? The article doesn't make specific reference to the criteria. (I'll hunt the internet now myself, and report back.)
edit: From the California Tax Service Center...
> Does the principal (you) have the right to control the manner and means in which the worker carries out the job? The right of direction and control, whether or not exercised, is the most important factor in determining an employment relationship. The right to discharge a worker at will and without cause is strong evidence for the right of direction and control. When it is not clear whether you have the right to direct and control the worker, you must look further into the actual working relationship by weighing the ten secondary factors.
This is the strangest part of California labor law:
> The right to discharge a worker at will and without cause is strong evidence for the right of direction and control
One usually thinks of a contract worker as being totally de facto dischargeable (contract says you do N jobs, if I don't like you the N+1th job doesn't get contracted), whereas an employee as being entirely nondischargeable due to union agreements or labor laws, but the law itself says the reverse elsewhere.
> One usually thinks of a contract worker as being totally de facto dischargeable (contract says you do N jobs, if I don't like you the N+1th job doesn't get contracted)
That's not dischargeable at will, that's an option to not renew after a set point.
> whereas an employee as being entirely nondischargeable due to union agreements or labor laws
“At will” employment makes employees dischargeable at will (hence the name). Labor laws add specific prohibited bases, but still make discharge less restricted than a contract. A union contract is a special case, a contract on top of general labor laws that covers people who are otherwise regular employees.
> totally de facto dischargeable (contract says you do N jobs, if I don't like you the N+1th job doesn't get contracted)
Or you could look at like the contractor will get paid for N jobs regardless, while the employee can be discharged at N - 1 and only get paid for N - 1.
If the contract doesn't specifically name means of severing the relationship, arbitrarily terminating the contract is being in breach and opens you to litigation.
Even in non at-will jurisdictions you can end an employment relationship whenever you want, you just have to follow the rules established by legislation to do so (notice or in lieu, just cause, etc)
That would be employment then - uber and lyft claim that they are self employed contractors not employees - which is what all the legal arguments are about.
But that's crazy. If you're a store owner and painting the awning is a one man, once every three year job, you are not going to employ someone to do it. You are going to contract someone. If you are taking a taxi from the airport to the home you are not employing them, you are contracting them.
Having been a full time Lyft and Uber driver for 1.5 years, I honestly don't think classification as employees makes sense. I'm paid by each ride (which you could think of as an individual contract). I have walkaway rights at any given time. I could be logged on to both platforms simultaneously and pick up whichever came first (logging off of the other one as appropriate). Nobody forced me to work any given hours. This is very much unlike any employment condition I've ever been in.
But a self employed painter is self employed - whereas the legal Q is are these "gig" economy really self employed.
The self employed painter could send some one else to do the work for example - I know employment law is a trickily area for civilians (ie non hr specialist and lawyers) to get there head around
A self-employed painter could not send someone else to do the work (without the client's consent) if he was personally contracted to do it. There's no contradiction there.
If you "personally contract" with some one you are their employer.
You might hire Joe Blogs And Son's to do a painting job but it does not mean Joe Blogs does the work personaly it might be his son or he may "get a lad in" to do some of the work
Isn't the theory that you actually have a contract relationship with a contractor and termination is specified by the contract? Its been perverted over the years, but the original intent is still in the law.
Would someone familiar with the California standards summarize the contractor/employee test? The article doesn't make specific reference to the criteria. (I'll hunt the internet now myself, and report back.)
edit: From the California Tax Service Center...
> Does the principal (you) have the right to control the manner and means in which the worker carries out the job? The right of direction and control, whether or not exercised, is the most important factor in determining an employment relationship. The right to discharge a worker at will and without cause is strong evidence for the right of direction and control. When it is not clear whether you have the right to direct and control the worker, you must look further into the actual working relationship by weighing the ten secondary factors.
There are secondary tests as well.
http://www.taxes.ca.gov/iCorE.bus.shtml