It's the fault of industries that skirt minimum wage and benefit laws. If they provided for members of the gig economy the way, for example, the screen actor's guild does then it probably wouldn't be an issue.
I respectfully disagree.
SAG sprang out of a contract system in which a studio owned an actor's contract and the actor could not appear in any production of another studio except if the other studio paid a fee, not to the actor, but to the studio which owned the contract.
Most freelancers are not bound by such a contract.
Many freelancers do their work as a side gig and desire the freedom which goes with freelance work.
I understand, there are numerous examples of how industries can successfully handle non-employee contributors. SAG is one example, Professional Golf is another. You don't need a contract with a studio to join SAG.
I was not talking about the current situation in Hollywood. I was talking about the conditions which led to the formation of the Screen Actors Guild.
I'm sorry, then I didn't understand your reply. You wrote that "most freelancers are not bound by such a contract" and my comment was that such a contract is not necessary even for SAG.
Are you saying that in order to create a system that fairly rewards the people who contribute but are not employees you first have to start with a system that includes exclusive contracts for some of the participants?
I have to apologize because I did not focus on background development. Which is ironic because I have a tendency offline to ramble on and on about background before I get to my main point.
Anyway, much of my youth was spent in the freelance realm. Then in my forties, I started a consultancy at a time when many small businesses still did not have websites and many of the ones that did through ignorance had websites which were invisible to most search engines of the time. This was because many were designed in Macromedia Flash and others used grapics for text items without any alt text coding.
My response to your first reply to my thread came from my views as shaped by my experiences.
No company ever tried to solicit me the way that Uber and Lyft solicited drivers. On Mondays, I would download the county's weekly business license application and spend most of the day calling those license applicants whose SIC numbers suggested that they might be good prospects.
I was attempting to sell them on the idea of having a website and on the idea of having me design the website for them. Side benefits or unemployment benefits were not even on the table.
Many (maybe even most) freelancers are like I was in those days. I had a main occupation and this was for me a side gig.
Passing a law making it illegal for companies to hire freelancers is basically what California did to many freelancers. In the time since the law was past (the article discusses this) California has had to walk back much of that law by carving out exceptions. Those exceptions have the potential to become legal loopholes and legal headaches.
In my opinion, the California law was created by the same kind of mentality that makes it illegal for anyone to get a job in certain companies unless they join a group whose members have exclusive legal rights to be employed by those companies.
This smacks of the same kind of guild mentality that existed in Europe 400 years ago.
It is very similar to the mindset of those who oppose immigration due to feeling that immigrants will "steal our jobs."
The fact that there are some people who decide to devote themselves full-time to a freelance job should not make it illegal for someone who has a lot of spare time to earn some money on the side without being required to show up for work at a certain every week or every day.
Conspiracy theorists may believe in different conspiracies but they are still conspiracy theorists and this law is motivated by a conspiracy attitude, in my opinion.
The California law was hastily put together and not rationally thought through. Some elements of it are well-intended, but if workers want to remain as free lancers, I don't see a law that infringes on those liberties standing. It'll get modified and changed overtime to correctly address the issues that are present. That's my read.
Based on my understanding of the California law, it would not apply to you. I'm not sure your experience is the experience of the people who would be affected.
I agree with your assessment of this law.
The problem with laws which are motivated by major political movements is that many (if not most) of them are "hastily put together and not rationally thought through"
And that applies regardless if the movement is "conservative" or "liberal."
I agree, hopefully the industry will work better with a Biden administration than they have in the past with other regulators.
The voters of California, which is a blue state, passed proposition 22 exempting Uber and Lyft from classifying their drivers as employees.
If even Democratic voters realize that this is governmental over-reach, this idea should be buried. But, extremists are famous for having in the past on other issues run rough shod over those with whom they have disagreed, often resulting in losing the next election.
I don't think the issue was sold as "governmental over-reach", it was sold as Uber threatening to shut down if it didn't pass and falsely claiming the drivers supported it. And using scare tactics like claiming there would be more drunk drivers on the road if Prop 22 didn't pass.
I've noticed that through the years idealists (regardless of political persuasion) tend to assume that the voters are influenced more by "framing" than by an informed assessment of the issues. If anything many voters tend to think of framing as being untrustworthy. Those who are most susceptible to framing tend to be those who are fervent supporters of an extreme viewpoint or demagogue.
I do not deny that there are some voters who are relatively uninformed but except for very close elections, I don't think that they are the ones who make the difference. I think that the typical voter is aware of the pros and cons on most issues.
There is a reason people spend money on advertising.
And there is no way to know if "the typical voter" would even agree with your definition of a "pro" or "con" on any given issue. Seems you're the one doing all the framing.
I completely agree with you that advertising influences people's thinking but I also believe that it creates cynicism as well.
When I say "pros" and "cons" I am not referring to pro with reference to supporting the issue but rather to the beneficial consequences of a piece of legislation.
For example, let's say that voters are being asked how to fund a road. If a road is not a toll road then the pro would be that one does not have to pay every time one drives on it and the con would be that one's taxes are increased in some other way (examples: property tax, vehicle tax, sales or some other tax) that would be a con. If the road is a toll road then the pro is that one's taxes don't go up but the con is that one has to pay a fee every time one uses the road.
The pros and the cons are the same regardless of whether you are in favor of toll roads or if you favor tax funding of roads.
Just because you don't understand my point (or understand but diagree) doesn't mean that you need to become offensive.
Everyone can have their own notion of what a "pro" or "con" is. A toll road is a "pro" if you never or rarely need to drive on it. But it's a "con" to anyone who has to drive on it often. It's a "pro" if it cuts your commute time in half, it's a "con" if it cuts through your backyard.
I understood your point, and I wasn't intending to be offensive. I was merely pointing out that you're the one framing the law as "government over-reach" and then asserting without any evidence that was the reason the proposition passed.
I stated that the proposition was, in fact, not framed to the voters as "government over-reach" (probably because it's not). And I think any review of the bazillion advertisements would bear that out.