NIL, AB-5, and the PRO Act

[T-TownDawgg]

Sorry in advance for the long post. I’m mindful of line breaks, so I’m not a complete monster.

If you’re not aware of the PRO Act sneaking it’s way through Congress while we’re all distracted by tranny beer cans and conference re-alignment, might want to educate yourself.

In California, their legislature passed bill AB-5, which essentially eliminated the “gig” industry. Independent contractors and freelancers’ jobs were forced to come under the blanket of employers, who in turn had to provide steady work and include benefits. This affects farm workers, writers, actors, truck drivers, hair dressers, etc. For example, this bill essentially ran tens of thousands of independent truck drivers out of the State. The bill was so well thought out, literally hundreds of exemptions were granted and dozens of amendments drafted, but only to help big corporations like Uber and DoorDash avoid such arbitrary overreach that would be devastating to their bottom line.

The PRO Act in the US congress now is AB-5 on steroids. It masquerades as a protection for workers, allowing them to pursue unions without hindrance. Dumb people will applaud this cliche’ as a gift from the legislative gods, because that protection already exists, morons. As it’s written, it will essentially eliminate freelancers and independent contractors nationwide, forcing them to become full time employees with benefits (and unions, if desired),or nothing. My read is this:

Union participation is at an all time low. This will shift a huge amount of power and money back into unions. The ramifications of this is huge, for freelancers and employers alike. The unintended consequences are hard to fathom.

Of course, exemptions will be granted. But this reminds me of a statement written by the National Labor Relations board about 2 years ago. I remember it clearly stated that with SCOTUS ruling that student athletes can in fact absorb funds through NIL, it suggested that 3 specific union parties are inevitably on the horizon for college athletes:
1. Athletes
2. Individual Schools
3. Conferences

I say all that because this looks like a multifaceted realignment of not only labor relations nationwide, but college athletics looks to be gearing up for what could be coming. If the PRO Act gets challenged by athletes to do exactly what the NLRB suggested, conference realignment will become turbo-charged for obvious reasons. Collective bargaining for all sides will become the engine for college athletics. Period.

Myself and others saw what NIL would do to sports: make the rich richer. MSU will not move up in any pecking order. Alas!We were called idiots, and many said that it would level the playing field. I saw a stat that 57 of the top 100 HS FB players went to 6 schools; 75 of the top 100 went to 10 schools. We rest our case.

If the ProAct is passed, Biden already said he’d sign it. This is extremely scary legislation on so many levels, this annoyingly long thread only scratches the surface. If this elimination of independent contractors and freelancers gets codified by Biden, not only has the government taken the biggest step in over a century to stomp on innovation and the right for people to make their own schedule in pursuit to prosper under the American ideal, but it also puts a bullet in the head of NIL before they even figure out how to launder that money properly.

 

[The Peeper]

 

[mstateglfr]

I really hope anyone that is interested in this topic will take 20 minutes to read, in detail, about its history and specifics.

Protecting the Right to Organize Act - Wikipedia

en.wikipedia.org

^ start here then go down the rabbit hole.

This sort of issue/topic deserves to be reviewed in a neutral manner because it can so easily be injected with opinion, scare tactics, fear, and doomsday scenarios. This goes for how commentators on both sides cover issues like this.
Opinions should not be formed based on the first, or even second, summary of the issue.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

For once, I agree, glfr. I tried not to put any spin on this. But the fact is, this was tried in Cali. The very people AB-5 was designed to protect got excluded by corporate interests. The people who choose to be and thrive on being independent were strong armed out of their choice.

 

[FQDawg]

Sorry in advance for the long post. I’m mindful of line breaks, so I’m not a complete monster.

If you’re not aware of the PRO Act sneaking it’s way through Congress while we’re all distracted by tranny beer cans and conference re-alignment, might want to educate yourself.

In California, their legislature passed bill AB-5, which essentially eliminated the “gig” industry. Independent contractors and freelancers’ jobs were forced to come under the blanket of employers, who in turn had to provide steady work and include benefits. This affects farm workers, writers, actors, truck drivers, hair dressers, etc. For example, this bill essentially ran tens of thousands of independent truck drivers out of the State. The bill was so well thought out, literally hundreds of exemptions were granted and dozens of amendments drafted, but only to help big corporations like Uber and DoorDash avoid such arbitrary overreach that would be devastating to their bottom line.

The PRO Act in the US congress now is AB-5 on steroids. It masquerades as a protection for workers, allowing them to pursue unions without hindrance. Dumb people will applaud this cliche’ as a gift from the legislative gods, because that protection already exists, morons. As it’s written, it will essentially eliminate freelancers and independent contractors nationwide, forcing them to become full time employees with benefits (and unions, if desired),or nothing. My read is this:

Union participation is at an all time low. This will shift a huge amount of power and money back into unions. The ramifications of this is huge, for freelancers and employers alike. The unintended consequences are hard to fathom.

Of course, exemptions will be granted. But this reminds me of a statement written by the National Labor Relations board about 2 years ago. I remember it clearly stated that with SCOTUS ruling that student athletes can in fact absorb funds through NIL, it suggested that 3 specific union parties are inevitably on the horizon for college athletes:
1. Athletes
2. Individual Schools
3. Conferences

I say all that because this looks like a multifaceted realignment of not only labor relations nationwide, but college athletics looks to be gearing up for what could be coming. If the PRO Act gets challenged by athletes to do exactly what the NLRB suggested, conference realignment will become turbo-charged for obvious reasons. Collective bargaining for all sides will become the engine for college athletics. Period.

Myself and others saw what NIL would do to sports: make the rich richer. MSU will not move up in any pecking order. Alas!We were called idiots, and many said that it would level the playing field. I saw a stat that 57 of the top 100 HS FB players went to 6 schools; 75 of the top 100 went to 10 schools. We rest our case.

If the ProAct is passed, Biden already said he’d sign it. This is extremely scary legislation on so many levels, this annoyingly long thread only scratches the surface. If this elimination of independent contractors and freelancers gets codified by Biden, not only has the government taken the biggest step in over a century to stomp on innovation and the right for people to make their own schedule in pursuit to prosper under the American ideal, but it also puts a bullet in the head of NIL before they even figure out how to launder that money properly.

I don't know about the California version but the Pro Act doesn't force companies to turn independent contractors into employees. It simply makes it easier for contract and gig workers to bargain collectively. Which is not a bad thing.

From the article mstateglfr posted:

"However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors."

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I don't know about the California version but the Pro Act doesn't force companies to turn independent contractors into employees. It simply makes it easier for contract and gig workers to bargain collectively. Which is not a bad thing.

From the article mstateglfr posted:

"However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors."

True. Interestingly, the language looks to be slightly different from AB-5 when defining independent contractors.

Counterpoint: ProAct will also weaken or eliminate right-to work laws, which could eliminate an employees right to opt out of paying union fees. Hmm

I wonder if certain states may fight to opt out of this if it passes. So many unknowns about a bill like this.

 

[CochiseCowbell]

Counterpoint: ProAct will also weaken or eliminate right-to work laws, which could eliminate an employees right to opt out of paying union fees. Hmm

I'm not an expert in legalese, well not in anything really, but this is the part that seemed concerning to me.

 

[FQDawg]

True. Interestingly, the language looks to be slightly different from AB-5 when defining independent contractors.

Counterpoint: ProAct will also weaken or eliminate right-to work laws, which could eliminate an employees right to opt out of paying union fees. Hmm

I wonder if certain states may fight to opt out of this if it passes. So many unknowns about a bill like this.

I don't really have a problem with weakening or eliminating right-to-work laws. Employees in right to work states generally are paid less and have fewer benefits than in non right to work states. And employees have fewer protections against unjust firings in right to work states.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

I don't know about the California version but the Pro Act doesn't force companies to turn independent contractors into employees. It simply makes it easier for contract and gig workers to bargain collectively. Which is not a bad thing.

From the article mstateglfr posted:

"However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors."

(b) Employee.—Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—
“(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;
“(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and
“(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”.

This is where people in independent contracting are in danger.
Can a delivery or truck driver be considered “free from control in connection with the performance of a service”?
If student athletes bargain collectively, can they be considered separate from the performance of their sport in behalf of of an institution?

I need Shmuley to set me straight on this if I’m just way off base.

 

[mstateglfr]

For once, I agree, glfr. I tried not to put any spin on this. But the fact is, this was tried in Cali. The very people AB-5 was designed to protect got excluded by corporate interests. The people who choose to be and thrive on being independent were strong armed out of their choice.

AB5 is a California law and while tangentially connected to this proposed legislation, it is fundamentally different.

Some things that are currently in the PRO Act(per wiki as I am lazy)-
- It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization
- would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union.
- It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.
- The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired.
- It would allow unions to override "right-to-work laws", allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union.
- It would also prohibit company-sponsored captive audience meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization.
- It prevents an employer from holding citizenship status against an employee.
- This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively... However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors.

I dont love bullet 5. I dont think you should have to pay union dues if you arent part of a union. At the same time, I do recognize that for decades employees have benefitted from union work without belonging to a union. This seems to 'right the wrong' in that instance. Again, I dont love it. I do recognize the reason people want to include it though, and I think thats important- everyone should at least be able to understand why, even if they ultimately disagree. They then really need to be able to explain to themselves why they disagree. If they cant, then they should probably re-evaluate their position.

Besides bullet 5 though, what is so fundamentally awful about this?
It stops employers from being dicks and holding BS mandatory meetings.
Its stops employers from being dicks and holding citizenship status against an employee(we need to encourage immigration, hard stop. Nationalism and Xenophobia are shortsighted and small minded).
It stops employers from being dicks and firing someone just because they want to join a union.



Unions exist for a reason- power imbalance. It hurts society when there is a power imbalance at either end of the spectrum. We saw the flipside a couple years ago when McDs was offering $20/hour to cashier and still not able to fill positions. There was an imbalance and the results were easily seen.
For centuries, companies have held the power and abused it. Unions rose up and pulled back some of that power to the benefit of everyone that works in the US today. Now there is an argument that unions are no longer relevant and they now do more harm than good. In some instances, sure I agree. In other instances, I think you have to be willfully ignorant to not recognize unions are still needed.
So yeah- unions need to still exist, unfortunately. It would be great if we could say they werent needed, but that would require employers to act ethically, kindly, responsibly, etc etc. Even then, some employees would complain, but they would likely be in the minority and not gain traction.



Ok, so I provided all this as an analysis since you agreed no spin should take place, and also gave your opinion. If anything that I posted about the bill specifically is incorrect, I encourage you or someone else to clarify and correct. Again, I genuinely want truth and accuracy to be discussed.
One last thing since gig economy has been mentioned so much- if the last bullet point made above is wrong, specifying why would be really helpful. PRO Act, from the multiple synopses Ive read, says gig employees will still be independent contractors when it comes to wages and benefits. So anyone that apparently cant drive to Taco Bell to get their crap food and instead needs to pay someone else to do it for them will still be able to pay for that convenience.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Wiki can slant things. I’ve seen it eliminate entire subjects. I don’t trust it when getting into the details.

Read my last post. I pasted directly from the bill. Which one is true? I see an avenue in plain language for the Labor Relations Board to crack down on independent contractors and force them to unionize. How do you read what I put in bold? I’m down for a respectful debate. Today, at least.

As I said, protections for employees to unionize has existed for 90 years. This bill claims to strengthen protections that already exist by swinging a lot of power to unions, which, if abused, can have enormous impacts on labor as we know it and college sports. I referenced the current NIL problem as a good example of unintended consequences.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

Nothing is going to pass in the next 2 years unless it explicitly has the support of both Kevin McCarthy and Chuck Schumer, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

 

[IBleedMaroonDawg]

Nothing is going to pass in the next 2 years unless it explicitly has the support of both Kevin McCarthy and Chuck Schumer, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

I know I am just taking a glance, but I would have to believe any sweeping changes to employment would be difficult unless it were bipartisan.

 

[RotorHead]

AB5 is a California law and while tangentially connected to this proposed legislation, it is fundamentally different.

Some things that are currently in the PRO Act(per wiki as I am lazy)-
- It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization
- would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union.
- It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.
- The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired.
- It would allow unions to override "right-to-work laws", allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union.
- It would also prohibit company-sponsored captive audience meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization.
- It prevents an employer from holding citizenship status against an employee.
- This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively... However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors.

I dont love bullet 5. I dont think you should have to pay union dues if you arent part of a union. At the same time, I do recognize that for decades employees have benefitted from union work without belonging to a union. This seems to 'right the wrong' in that instance. Again, I dont love it. I do recognize the reason people want to include it though, and I think thats important- everyone should at least be able to understand why, even if they ultimately disagree. They then really need to be able to explain to themselves why they disagree. If they cant, then they should probably re-evaluate their position.

Besides bullet 5 though, what is so fundamentally awful about this?
It stops employers from being dicks and holding BS mandatory meetings.
Its stops employers from being dicks and holding citizenship status against an employee(we need to encourage immigration, hard stop. Nationalism and Xenophobia are shortsighted and small minded).
It stops employers from being dicks and firing someone just because they want to join a union.



Unions exist for a reason- power imbalance. It hurts society when there is a power imbalance at either end of the spectrum. We saw the flipside a couple years ago when McDs was offering $20/hour to cashier and still not able to fill positions. There was an imbalance and the results were easily seen.
For centuries, companies have held the power and abused it. Unions rose up and pulled back some of that power to the benefit of everyone that works in the US today. Now there is an argument that unions are no longer relevant and they now do more harm than good. In some instances, sure I agree. In other instances, I think you have to be willfully ignorant to not recognize unions are still needed.
So yeah- unions need to still exist, unfortunately. It would be great if we could say they werent needed, but that would require employers to act ethically, kindly, responsibly, etc etc. Even then, some employees would complain, but they would likely be in the minority and not gain traction.



Ok, so I provided all this as an analysis since you agreed no spin should take place, and also gave your opinion. If anything that I posted about the bill specifically is incorrect, I encourage you or someone else to clarify and correct. Again, I genuinely want truth and accuracy to be discussed.
One last thing since gig economy has been mentioned so much- if the last bullet point made above is wrong, specifying why would be really helpful. PRO Act, from the multiple synopses Ive read, says gig employees will still be independent contractors when it comes to wages and benefits. So anyone that apparently cant drive to Taco Bell to get their crap food and instead needs to pay someone else to do it for them will still be able to pay for that convenience.

Encouraging immigration is one thing. Letting the hoard waltz in with open hands is a completely different topic. Gtfo with your social Justice key words.
The federal government should not be able to authorize what can and/or cannot happen at the state level (unions authorized to override state-level right to work laws). Wars have been fought over this principle. Micro-management by Big Brother will have nothing but negative consequences and increasingly more overreach

 

[HRMSU]

AB5 is a California law and while tangentially connected to this proposed legislation, it is fundamentally different.

Some things that are currently in the PRO Act(per wiki as I am lazy)-
- It would prevent employers from holding mandatory meetings for the purpose of counteracting labor organization
- would strengthen the legal right of employees to join a labor union.
- It would allow the National Labor Relations Board to fine employers for violations of labor law, and would provide compensation to employees involved in such cases.
- The PRO Act would prevent employees seeking to join a labor union from being fired.
- It would allow unions to override "right-to-work laws", allowing labor unions to collect dues from all employees in a workplace, regardless of whether or not they are a member of a labor union.
- It would also prohibit company-sponsored captive audience meetings used to counteract and discourage attempts at labor organization.
- It prevents an employer from holding citizenship status against an employee.
- This definitional amendment would allow for certain workers, such as those working in the gig economy, to attain the right to form a labor union or to bargain collectively... However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors.

I dont love bullet 5. I dont think you should have to pay union dues if you arent part of a union. At the same time, I do recognize that for decades employees have benefitted from union work without belonging to a union. This seems to 'right the wrong' in that instance. Again, I dont love it. I do recognize the reason people want to include it though, and I think thats important- everyone should at least be able to understand why, even if they ultimately disagree. They then really need to be able to explain to themselves why they disagree. If they cant, then they should probably re-evaluate their position.

Besides bullet 5 though, what is so fundamentally awful about this?
It stops employers from being dicks and holding BS mandatory meetings.
Its stops employers from being dicks and holding citizenship status against an employee(we need to encourage immigration, hard stop. Nationalism and Xenophobia are shortsighted and small minded).
It stops employers from being dicks and firing someone just because they want to join a union.



Unions exist for a reason- power imbalance. It hurts society when there is a power imbalance at either end of the spectrum. We saw the flipside a couple years ago when McDs was offering $20/hour to cashier and still not able to fill positions. There was an imbalance and the results were easily seen.
For centuries, companies have held the power and abused it. Unions rose up and pulled back some of that power to the benefit of everyone that works in the US today. Now there is an argument that unions are no longer relevant and they now do more harm than good. In some instances, sure I agree. In other instances, I think you have to be willfully ignorant to not recognize unions are still needed.
So yeah- unions need to still exist, unfortunately. It would be great if we could say they werent needed, but that would require employers to act ethically, kindly, responsibly, etc etc. Even then, some employees would complain, but they would likely be in the minority and not gain traction.



Ok, so I provided all this as an analysis since you agreed no spin should take place, and also gave your opinion. If anything that I posted about the bill specifically is incorrect, I encourage you or someone else to clarify and correct. Again, I genuinely want truth and accuracy to be discussed.
One last thing since gig economy has been mentioned so much- if the last bullet point made above is wrong, specifying why would be really helpful. PRO Act, from the multiple synopses Ive read, says gig employees will still be independent contractors when it comes to wages and benefits. So anyone that apparently cant drive to Taco Bell to get their crap food and instead needs to pay someone else to do it for them will still be able to pay for that convenience.

Not a light topic for sure. Anybody that has been to developing nations including China can understand how Unions can be positive.

I probably think too simple about this but I have been in the corporate work force in right to work states for decades and just have my own HSO about this topic:

America is no longer a developing economy. It's not your daddy's or even grandfather's America.

I don't know for sure but is there a country with more lawyers or more litigious than America? Right to work or not if someone gets fired for BS there will be a lawsuit and the Joe Public jury will side with Joe the plumber over big insert whatever industry.

A lot of corporate HR or legal teams will pay people to go away quietly so unless your talking small businesses which usually don't have enough people to sniff unionizing I don't see a lot of victims to big bad corporate out there these days.

Lastly it's economics. Most (not all) right to work states have lower cost of living. Generally lower cost of living equates to lower labor costs.

We have plenty of labor departments, labor laws, lawyers, right sized compensation and competition for labor in right to work states that Unions would not contribute materially in my humble opinion. Maybe that's not the case in states that are heavily unionized....I simply don't have an opinion nor do i care to have an opinion...it's their voting population's business not mine.

 

[mstateglfr]

Encouraging immigration is one thing. Letting the hoard waltz in with open hands is a completely different topic. Gtfo with your social Justice key words.
The federal government should not be able to authorize what can and/or cannot happen at the state level (unions authorized to override state-level right to work laws). Wars have been fought over this principle. Micro-management by Big Brother will have nothing but negative consequences and increasingly more overreach

What social justice keywords are you complaining about?

 

[dorndawg]

 

[FQDawg]

The federal government should not be able to authorize what can and/or cannot happen at the state level.

You might want to check out a little document called the United States Constitution, specifically Article VI, Clause 2, also known as the Supremacy Clause.

 

[paindonthurt]

Sorry in advance for the long post. I’m mindful of line breaks, so I’m not a complete monster.

If you’re not aware of the PRO Act sneaking it’s way through Congress while we’re all distracted by tranny beer cans and conference re-alignment, might want to educate yourself.

In California, their legislature passed bill AB-5, which essentially eliminated the “gig” industry. Independent contractors and freelancers’ jobs were forced to come under the blanket of employers, who in turn had to provide steady work and include benefits. This affects farm workers, writers, actors, truck drivers, hair dressers, etc. For example, this bill essentially ran tens of thousands of independent truck drivers out of the State. The bill was so well thought out, literally hundreds of exemptions were granted and dozens of amendments drafted, but only to help big corporations like Uber and DoorDash avoid such arbitrary overreach that would be devastating to their bottom line.

The PRO Act in the US congress now is AB-5 on steroids. It masquerades as a protection for workers, allowing them to pursue unions without hindrance. Dumb people will applaud this cliche’ as a gift from the legislative gods, because that protection already exists, morons. As it’s written, it will essentially eliminate freelancers and independent contractors nationwide, forcing them to become full time employees with benefits (and unions, if desired),or nothing. My read is this:

Union participation is at an all time low. This will shift a huge amount of power and money back into unions. The ramifications of this is huge, for freelancers and employers alike. The unintended consequences are hard to fathom.

Of course, exemptions will be granted. But this reminds me of a statement written by the National Labor Relations board about 2 years ago. I remember it clearly stated that with SCOTUS ruling that student athletes can in fact absorb funds through NIL, it suggested that 3 specific union parties are inevitably on the horizon for college athletes:
1. Athletes
2. Individual Schools
3. Conferences

I say all that because this looks like a multifaceted realignment of not only labor relations nationwide, but college athletics looks to be gearing up for what could be coming. If the PRO Act gets challenged by athletes to do exactly what the NLRB suggested, conference realignment will become turbo-charged for obvious reasons. Collective bargaining for all sides will become the engine for college athletics. Period.

Myself and others saw what NIL would do to sports: make the rich richer. MSU will not move up in any pecking order. Alas!We were called idiots, and many said that it would level the playing field. I saw a stat that 57 of the top 100 HS FB players went to 6 schools; 75 of the top 100 went to 10 schools. We rest our case.

If the ProAct is passed, Biden already said he’d sign it. This is extremely scary legislation on so many levels, this annoyingly long thread only scratches the surface. If this elimination of independent contractors and freelancers gets codified by Biden, not only has the government taken the biggest step in over a century to stomp on innovation and the right for people to make their own schedule in pursuit to prosper under the American ideal, but it also puts a bullet in the head of NIL before they even figure out how to launder that money properly.

GD ffs when will people learn less federal government is better.

The people screaming about fascism and dictators always support more government. Insanity!

 

[RotorHead]

This is a good read
(Really, I messed up my response and don’t know how to delete a 17’d up post)

 

[RotorHead]

You might want to check out a little document called the United States Constitution, specifically Article VI, Clause 2, also known as the Supremacy Clause.

You’re not wrong. But, you might want to check out article 10. And I don’t recall anything about labor unions being discussed in the constitution.
Anything not explicitly granted to the federal government is left up to the states. I’ll say it again, the federal government should have zero say outside of its parameters granted in the constitution.

 

[T-TownDawgg]

Nothing is going to pass in the next 2 years unless it explicitly has the support of both Kevin McCarthy and Chuck Schumer, so I wouldn't be too concerned about it.

You say this as if Mcarthy is immune from special interests and is going to White Knight against Dem policy. Seems a little naive.

Case in point: in the budget bill that just got passed last night, more democrat senators voted for McCarthys plan than GOP.

 

[Boom Boom]

GD ffs when will people learn less federal government is better.

The people screaming about fascism and dictators always support more government. Insanity!

Paracelsus would like a word.

 

[Boom Boom]

Right to work or not if someone gets fired for BS there will be a lawsuit and the Joe Public jury will side with Joe the plumber over big insert whatever industry.

I hope you never have to find out how wrong that statement is.

 

[Boom Boom]

(b) Employee.—Section 2(3) of the National Labor Relations Act (29 U.S.C. 152(3)) is amended by adding at the end the following:“An individual performing any service shall be considered an employee (except as provided in the previous sentence) and not an independent contractor, unless—
“(A) the individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under the contract for the performance of service and in fact;
“(B) the service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and
“(C) the individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession, or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed.”.

This is where people in independent contracting are in danger.
Can a delivery or truck driver be considered “free from control in connection with the performance of a service”?
If student athletes bargain collectively, can they be considered separate from the performance of their sport in behalf of of an institution?

I need Shmuley to set me straight on this if I’m just way off base.

This is clearly intended to curtail abuse of independent contractor status, not eliminate ICs. For example, a trucking company would not be able to classify its truckers as ICs, but a non-trucking company that only uses some truckers to deliver its products or bring in inputs, they could. Or that a company that completely controls and directs how a worker is doing a job, rather than just Contracting for a service or result, can't classify as ICs. As I think it should be.

If a company contracts another to pick up a load and deliver it, that's not control, that's just a service. That's an IC. If they say drive my truck wearing my uniform, only drive these hours, only this speed on these roads, only work for me, etc....that's not an IC, that's an employee. As I think it should be.

 

[paindonthurt]

Paracelsus would like a word.

 

[HRMSU]

I hope you never have to find out how wrong that statement is.

Small businesses I get it but Corporate not so much. It's dang near impossible to fire most employees these days.

Now, RIFs I'll give you that but they generally come with some kind of package. If you don't work for a company like that.....well it's on you. Be at the control not the effect.

 

[QuaoarsKing]

You say this as if Mcarthy is immune from special interests and is going to White Knight against Dem policy. Seems a little naive.

Case in point: in the budget bill that just got passed last night, more democrat senators voted for McCarthys plan than GOP.

McCarthy will make a compromise with Biden, up to including compromises where Biden got the better of him to some degree, but he's never going to just pass a Democratic policy that his entire caucus will oppose. He'd get replaced as Speaker before he got the chance to try.

Also, this bill wouldn't get past a Senate filibuster either unless 9 Republicans supported it. I don't think they could get it through reconciliation even if it somehow did get through the House. The filibuster will probably go away at some point this decade, but not in a split Congress.

There's no need to lose an iota of sleep over this until maybe January 2025, but even then only in a scenario where Biden gets reelected, Dems take the House, and also keep the Senate with a majority willing to dump the filibuster. A possible scenario, but probably less than 50-50.

 

[Boom Boom]

Small businesses I get it but Corporate not so much. It's dang near impossible to fire most employees these days.

Now, RIFs I'll give you that but they generally come with some kind of package. If you don't work for a company like that.....well it's on you. Be at the control not the effect.

Seen it happen too many times at too many places. Good people/employees shown the door over stupid crap with no warning. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Granted, HR doesn't like to fire people in most cases, they keep on many a lesser employee....but that's because they want to. It's expensive to hire and train. When they want to fire someone, either over a power trip, ridiculous overemphasis of a dumb rule, or because of direction from the top, they do it and don't think twice. No matter how thin the justification. Because with the exception of those in a protected class, it's actually next to damn impossible to sue over a firing. It's next to impossible to sue over next to anything except for a handful of categories (medical injury liability, protected class....probably a couple more but that's about it). Because lawyers don't want to take on the cases without being paid 6 figures, and that's not worth it. It's actually pretty amazing at the disparity between public perception and reality on this. I've been amazed at how hard it has been for me to "sue" a business that won't follow its contract or the law. I would lose money by pursuing it and winning. And they know that, so they're only position has been to tell me to pound sand.

Don't believe me? Look up every lawyer in your area. Cross out any of them that says they defend management, as those won't sue companies as that's their client base. That leaves next to none. And the few left just cut and paste their cases from those bread and butter categories, they won't touch anything else.

 

[HRMSU]

Seen it happen too many times at too many places. Good people/employees shown the door over stupid crap with no warning. I'm sorry, but you're just wrong. Granted, HR doesn't like to fire people in most cases, they keep on many a lesser employee....but that's because they want to. It's expensive to hire and train. When they want to fire someone, either over a power trip, ridiculous overemphasis of a dumb rule, or because of direction from the top, they do it and don't think twice. No matter how thin the justification. Because with the exception of those in a protected class, it's actually next to damn impossible to sue over a firing. It's next to impossible to sue over next to anything except for a handful of categories (medical injury liability, protected class....probably a couple more but that's about it). Because lawyers don't want to take on the cases without being paid 6 figures, and that's not worth it. It's actually pretty amazing at the disparity between public perception and reality on this. I've been amazed at how hard it has been for me to "sue" a business that won't follow its contract or the law. I would lose money by pursuing it and winning. And they know that, so they're only position has been to tell me to pound sand.

Don't believe me? Look up every lawyer in your area. Cross out any of them that says they defend management, as those won't sue companies as that's their client base. That leaves next to none. And the few left just cut and paste their cases from those bread and butter categories, they won't touch anything else.

Boom I'm not disputing your truth isn't that the cool phrase these days?

Seriously, I'm not saying what you've seen and experienced isn't true or real. What I'm saying is in my opinion it isn't the norm. I'm happy with agreeing to disagree.

 

[UpTheMiddlex3Punt]

I don't know about the California version but the Pro Act doesn't force companies to turn independent contractors into employees. It simply makes it easier for contract and gig workers to bargain collectively. Which is not a bad thing.

From the article mstateglfr posted:

"However, this reclassification applies only to collective bargaining. For other considerations, such as wages or benefits, they would still be treated as independent contractors."

If they're not collectively bargaining over wages and/or benefits, what are they bargaining over?

 

[Boom Boom]

If they're not collectively bargaining over wages and/or benefits, what are they bargaining over?

I think it means that they are still subject to wage and benefit minimum rules for ICs, unless they bargain for more.

 

[garddog]

I worked for a company that had a national union, I was part of the union for a couple years, then left the union after seeing the abuses. The people that needed firing never got fired. The people busting *** just got more dumped on them. The highest paid employee under the union made about 80k a year. The union leadership all got 500k or more a year.

Pensions were tied to the union, they decided how your retirement was invested. They routinely invested in companies owned by people like Soros. They also sent out "recommendations" on how to vote, which was always the far left demagogues.

This is personal experience, not speculation.