Official Luthiers Forum!

Or did they bestow a special dispensation for self-employed luthiers?

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Why would AB5 mess with self employed luthiers?
It might "mess" with a repair person who gets their work from a single client and/or works on the premises and can otherwise be considered an employee.
It has been said that the Industrialized North still wanted slaves, they just didn't want the responsibility of owning them.

You do understand what the point of AB5 was, don't you?

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Hi Chris,
As long as we keep things civil and no political parties are harmed, they might let us continue this discussion.
I have a limited knowledge of the AB5 law. My understanding of it is that it was passed into law to clarify who is and who is not an employee. The so called "gig" economy has created a number of "jobs" that are not really jobs. They are survival strategies for the semi - disenfranchised. Uber, and Lyft, and Amazon, and DoorDash have found a way to have a work force to whom they pay low wages and give no employment benefits by saying they are independent contractors. Their business model is designed to circumvent existing labor laws. This has always been a problem, but these companies and several others have institutionalized it.
I'm sure some people will be hurt by this law, while others will be helped by it. The Taxi companies may see it as a "leveling of the playing field" while the parlor may no longer be able to require their "self employed" delivery driver to be punctual and loyal to the company.
I don't see this affecting luthiers who have their own shops and contract to a number of stores or obtain work from several sources. A repair person who works in and for a store, only gets work through that store and is paid by that store should be considered an employee and receive the state mandated benefits (and hopefully a few that aren't mandated if it is a decent place to work).
But that is what I have read about it. What is your take on it?

Keep in mind I don't live in California...

But the gig economy goes far beyond Uber. It includes almost anyone not working for a company big enough to be required to provide insurance. There are a great many freelancers out there in many segments of the market (providing services or products). Even small lawyers could be construed as such. AB5 was intended to punish those who didn't provide insurance. I have a friend who heads his own tax service in Hollywood, with a few employees. He is affected by this idiot law, but presses on until Johnny Law shows up with an arrest warrant.

When my shop was in a music store, I wasn't paid by the store. I was a "sole proprietor" according to the State of Kansas and the City of Wichita. I paid Miller Music for the space, and the utilities. I had employees (1 fulltime, and 2 part time). I had my federal EIN number to withhold per the law, but because I was a small outfit - I didn't provide insurance, even though I took them to the emergency room for cuts and so on. I paid for it because they were on the job. So, I would have been "illegal" according to the tender mercies of a law that might have intended one thing (punishing Uber), but as with many poorly thought out laws - yielded circumstances completely beyond what the creators intended.

I don't care if all the DJ's are out of work. Leaves more work for real musicians, right? But the same law affects them. It's a crappy law, period. And it's exactly the kind of law I expect from the asshats in power in the Golden State.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Seems to me that, at the very least, this topic has no place even in the Off Topics Discussions section of the OLF, much less in the GUITAR BUILDING FORUM.

From the Off Topics Discussion forum: "Topics Not Dealing with Lutherie. No religious or Political content please."

Why isn't this obvious?

Lance???

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Apparently, you think this thread is about politics. It's not. It's about how people's lives are being affected by politics. And I figured you were astute enough to know the difference.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Morning chris , I agree , biz issues should be discussed on the forum. Skip the politics and religion. But here in the gud ol usa , its not hard to get politics biz and religion all entwined. together When I ran our store gtr /vln shop in Monrovia ca I was reluctant to hire P/t employees or independent contractors for fear of running afoul of the tax authorities of the state of ca,. As it was , there were always numerous monthly bills to pay. and a monthly sales tax bill to the state . Plus a year end tax, on our wages , plus a earnings tax from LA county , .Finally we came to the conclusion that it was preferrable to move to a lower tax state. Forgot , another tax was the inventory tax by the state of ca. All unsold instruments are taxed, as well as instruments that were purchased from clients for resale. This was from 1990 to 94

Yup, me too, left CA in '99 and glad I did. Best of luck to those of you that are still there!

_________________
Steve Smith
"Music is what feelings sound like"

Here in Maryland (another high tax state) it is pretty much a "given" that if a person has an employee, you must have work man's compensation insurance and - for full time employees - pay into unemployment insurance.
After something becomes a law I think it is fair game for a nonpolitical and civil discussion, however, I can understand others views that a somewhat "hot button", not directly lutherie related topic might not be appropriate for the forum.
Having worked for and with county, state, and federal governments, as well as private employers always as an employee, I'm sure my perspective is different than someone who has owned a business and hired people to work for them.
I am always interested in other perspectives on a subject. I remember talking with a friend of mine many years ago who was an ex-Black Panther about the welfare system. To him it was anathema because he felt it destroyed the Patriarchy in the Black community. His perspective was that the average less educated black male couldn't compete with the benefits offered by the welfare system and the women in the community therefore had no respect for them. This was a perspective I had never considered. After the Police broke up the Panthers in Baltimore he joined the Muslim movement (a Patriarchal organization) went to Africa and found an African bride.
But I'm rambling.....

Please explain how this is not a political statement: "And it's exactly the kind of law I expect from the asshats in power in the Golden State."

Over and out

_________________
Once in a while you get shown the light in the strangest of places if you look at it right - Robert Hunter

Guilty as charged on my statement. However - I still maintain my innocence on the nature of this thread.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

You really need him to fight your battles for you?

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

Chris, your combativeness is really escalating here lately. Something difficult going on in your life?

Dude. I've ALWAYS been this way.... Unafraid, obnoxious, confrontational, and absolutely harmless. Don't forget handsome and charming.

_________________
"Act your age, not your shoe size" - Prince

As an undeniably proud Californian (I defy you to visit Carmel or Yosemite and tell me you wouldn't rather live here), AB5's had some absolutely horrendous side-effects. I've had friends with small-businesses completely have to change their business structure because of it, and it's made things very difficult for the maker space I belong to and sit on the board of. AB5 had some great intentions, but wasn't thought through well at all.

Hard to understand how a luthier would be affected. As an attorney with dozens of small business clients, and a small businessman myself, I know of no one directly affected.

What I have seen is a lot of deliberate misinformation about AB5 and unverified stories of unintended consequences that frankly make no sense. Stories of people suffering consequences from supposed enforcement of a law that doesn’t even provide for the complained about enforcement or supposed complete restructuring of business that were already in compliance. Details are always short. This law is so new, and the application so limited, it is hard to believe there have been more than a small handful of employee claims based on the law to date, despite the webosphere of indignation.

Could there be some rare exception that saw an unintended consequence? Of course. California is larger than, and has an economy more vibrant and diverse than, all but a handful of nations in this world. Undoubtedly there are some unusual circumstances. But that is why the law provides for a business to claim an exception.

To be clear, the law established a test of who is truly “independent” and who is an employee. This test already existed in common law in California (and many other states). An employee who brings a claim with the Labor Commissioner or under the Workmen’s Comp system can require an employer to prove they were an independent contractor and not an employee under this test. That’s it.

I know it is more entertaining to visit websites from click bait pundits who feed “outrage” but here is the actual text:


http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces ... Num=2750.3.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro

There you go trying to confuse us with facts and logic. ;-)

Subd. (A) of the three-part test existed in common law, but not (B) or (C). Now we have business models that formerly relied on independent contractors having to make significant changes. Yoga studios. Salons. Music schools. Etc. For our maker space, we now have to consider the members who teach classes employees.

If your maker space hires members to teach classes (provides them remuneration for services) and charges students for the classes, then I suppose they could be considered employees under that law (as I read it). However, if the members charge a fee to students but pay a portion of that to the maker space as "rent" then they may not be employees.
It is possible that yoga studios, salons, and music schools have been using business models that unfairly exploit the people who work for them. They want to control the work and workers but not take the responsibility and expense of having employees.
A related phenomenon is that Companies everywhere are trying to get as much or more work from employees for less. At the hospital where my brother works the "new hires" are not given the same benefit package as those who have been "grandfathered in" to the old system (as he is). Consequently, when they gain a little experience they find another job for a few dollars more and leave. It is "Who Stole My Cheese " on steroids - "Life Moves On and So should We". They aren't waiting for the cheese to disappear, they keep their running shoes on permanently. The Hospital has to deal with a self inflicted lack of loyalty and a high turn over rate of personnel.

I think you may be confusing part time employees with independent contractors. A yoga studio that hires a teacher to teach a class has never hired an independent contractor. Not under federal tax law nor California labor law. This was true thirty years ago when I worked at the Labor Commissioner’s Office and its still true today.

A yoga teacher making a wage and hour claim or workman’s comp claim would have always had a strong case that they were employees. Before AB5 the courts would have applied the federal test (a far more complicated three part test that did, in fact, include subdivisions b and c) or other common law. Now they have a statute that specifically spells out a test.

I have no doubt that some yoga studios told their teachers they were independent contractors and 1099’ed them; but that is a lack of enforcement and an employer simply flouting the law. That didn’t make it legal.


Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk Pro