Sam Harnett:

Absolutely. So, you know, this the issue that’s playing out in California over where, how to classify these drivers is playing out in every other state in the country and actually global and different in different countries around the world. So everyone is looking to California to see what’s going to happen.

Now, the thing is that the way the propositions were written is that it only applies to people working on platforms, doing delivery or transportation companies like Uber, Lyft, also Postmates, DoorDash.

So it’s limited in who it’s targeting now. But if you create this precedent of having a basic third option between employee and contractor, this kind of contractor, and we didn’t explain this, but the proposition would give them contractor status with slightly improved benefits, slightly better wages, some health supplements, some insurance to drive a certain amount of hours. So the point is, if you create that third category, the worry is that a bunch of other corporations are going to be like, hey, you know, that’s a great way to save money. Let’s maybe create an app for trucking service or delivery service. And then we can instead of paying the workers as employees, we can use the kind of contractor-plus model.

And again, if you look at the history of the company, an independent contractor in America, this was added. The independent contractor model was added as a caveat for various specific kinds of situations. And then you saw corporations over time moving more of their work force from employees, which are expensive because they have protections over the contractors, which are cheaper. So, again, the worry is you make this third kind of third way. And companies are going to find a way to exploit it.

Source Article