The California Supreme Court recently issued a unanimous
decision on how an independent contractor is defined. The definition was not a ruling in a particular case, but was intended to provide guidance to lower courts in pending cases. There are a number of fields where an individual's status as a contractor is being questioned. These fields include ride sharing services such as Uber and Lyft, as well as other industries. Construction firms, for example, often bring in workers as contractors rather than as employees. The result is that individuals are deprived of benefits and state and federal governments miss out on payroll taxes.
While the definition was not focused on independent writers and editors, I certainly see an impact there, and this in a field where independent editorial professionals have in fact long been legitimately considered contractors. Certainly I have concerns about my own work, more on the writing than on the web development side.
In order to bring on an individual as a contractor the supreme court definition states a business must show that:
- the worker is free from the control and direction of the employer
- performs work that is outside the hirer's core business
- customarily engages in “an independently established trade, occupation or business.”
Here is the original story as it appeared in the Los Angeles Times.
The state of Massachusetts defines a contractor in an almost identical fashion, and I have seen a couple of anecdotal indications that there may have been a negative impact on independent editorial professionals there.
I'm not sure what the impact of this definition will be on the ability of writers and editors in California to get contract work, but it's not going to make it any easier.
No comments:
Post a Comment