Podcasts about dynamex

KPFA - The Pacifica Evening News, Weekdays

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 9, 2020 28:24

We welcome back Tom Sheehy of the Sheehy Strategy Group for an in-depth discussion of AB 5 and this year’s legislative changes to the law. The discussion starts with background: the 2018 CA Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision and Assemblymember Gonzalez’s introduction of AB 5. Then they discuss the changes and carve-outs that happened in the fall of 2019, including an intriguing part where a senator pulled their own bill, which doesn’t often happen. Tom explains why AB 5 was necessary for the protection of workers, where it went too far, what has been done, and what work there is left to do and why. You’ll come out of this episode with a clear understanding of the issues both past and present, and how the legislative process works. Follow us on Twitter and Facebook

ab sheehy dynamex ca supreme court

What’s inside Prop 22, Uber and Lyft’s $182M ballot measure on the fate of gig drivers?

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 24, 2020

Listen to the full radio report here, first aired September 24, 2020: https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BOONE-Prop-22-Explainer.mp3 jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var media = $('#audio-344185-19'); media.on('canplay', function (ev) { this.currentTime = 0; }); }); By Ariel Boone (@arielboone), KPFA elections reporter OAKLAND, CA – Ride-hailing and delivery companies Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Postmates and Instacart have spent at least $182 million in support of Proposition 22, which California voters will decide in November. At issue is the basic question: are drivers independent contractors, or should they be guaranteed all of the rights of employees, like minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation and unemployment insurance? Proposition 22 would permanently classify drivers for app companies as independent contractors. “What Prop 22 would do is protect the ability of app based drivers to choose to work as independent contractors, with control over where, when, how long and for whom they wanna work,” says Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for the Yes on 22 campaign. “What we know from speaking with rideshare and delivery drivers is that more than 70 percent say that they want the ability to remain independent contractors.” Driver John Mejia disagrees. He drove for Uber and Lyft for just over four years, and he says the flexibility is a myth. He wants to be treated as an employee, in accordance with AB 5. For years, Mejia recalls, he would log into the Uber and Lyft apps to drive, and see a notice informing him his pay rate would decrease. Each time, he pressed “accept” — that was the only way to continue working. “They've always controlled how much I make when, when I get paid the most and under their algorithms,” Mejia says. “Is that independence? Not really. Is that, is that flexibility? Not really.” The workplace rights of John Mejia and thousands of other app drivers became a state policy fight in 2018, when the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision called Dynamex. It created a simple test to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. To pass the Dynamex ABC test and classify their its drivers as independent contractors, Uber, Lyft, Doordash and their industry would have to prove that, A – Their drivers are “free from the control and direction of the company”; B – that the driving they do would is “outside the usual course of the company's business”; And C – That the driver is engaged in an independent trade or small business. Though lawsuits are currently making their way through courts deciding the matter, labor experts tell KPFA that multiple federal judges have agreed that app companies fail the ABC test — and that drivers are employees. Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, the author of AB 5, a bill that incorporated the Dynamex decision into state law, agrees. “There is no way for a delivery driver, an Uber driver, to fit into this idea of being a small business,” she says. “They don't set their own rates. They don't make their own decisions. they're told where to go, when to go. there there's just a lot of control in the entire aspect of it.” “What I realized after driving with them almost for four and a half years, was that it was never about the relationship with the driver. It was really about their relationship to making money.” – John Mejia, driver for Uber and Lyft Six weeks after Governor Newsom signed AB 5 in 2019, delivery and ride-hailing companies filed paperwork to put Proposition 22 on the ballot, and exempt themselves from the law. Proposition 22 has support from police unions, multiple chambers of commerce, and the California Republican Party. In fact, the Yes on 22 campaign this month transferred $2 million to the California Republican Party to support campaigning efforts for the measure. It's opposed by labor unions, including the Teamsters, SEIU, United Food and Commercial Workers and the California Labor Federation as well as high-profile Democrats, like presidential nominee Joe Biden and senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. What's inside Prop 22? Prop 22 would would permanently classify drivers for the app companies as independent contractors, not employees. It also contains some things that look like worker protections: It bars companies from stealing tips from drivers, a practice which is already illegal for employers to do to employees. It mandates drivers rest after working for 12 hours — though drivers could easily flout the law by switching to a second app. It makes app companies pay a healthcare subsidy for drivers to buy insurance through Covered California. But the subsidy is based on the price of a “bronze” plan, known for high deductibles and fees. Plus, Prop 22 creates a minimum pay system, something drivers have long demanded, which the app companies say is a historic wage guarantee. The initiative promises 30 cents a mile and 120 percent of minimum wage for hours worked. But there's a catch: labor attorneys say the companies found a way to undercount work hours. “The ballot proposition would only pay drivers for about two-thirds of the time that they're actually working, because it only pays them for engaged time,” says Rey Fuentes, a legal fellow at the Partnership for Working Families. “The companies funded research that clearly indicates drivers spend about a third of their time waiting, logged on, engaged to work — or essentially engaged to wait. And that time is compensable. Under California law, you should be paid for that time.” Another study by UC Santa Cruz researchers suggested the unpaid waiting time for San Francisco gig drivers could be closer to 20-24 percent of their working time. Whatever the proportion, under Prop 22, waiting time would remain uncompensated. The Yes on 22 campaign told KPFA that they intentionally limited driver pay to this so-called “engaged time” to prevent drivers from double dipping, earning money to wait on two apps at the same time. But two drivers told KPFA they feel the apps keep them waiting without pay on purpose to “maximize profits” and increase the availability of instant rides and deliveries for customers. Another thing Proposition 22 does: restrain lawmakers. If the state legislature wants to give app drivers a legal right to unionize or collectively bargain, they have to amend Prop 22, and that requires a seven-eigths supermajority vote. The part of the measure that makes drivers independent contractors could never be amended, Rey Fuentes says. Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez says she's “never” seen a ballot initiative with a seven-eighths threshold. “Sometimes it requires a three fourth vote of the legislature, but seven-eighths is almost laughable.” Geoff Vetter, the Yes on 22 spokesperson, says it's intentional. “We think it's important that the voice of drivers and voters be protected, so that if Proposition 22 passes in November, the legislature can't come back in January and completely undo it.” No sick leave, and a raging pandemic Another impact Prop 22 might have: keeping drivers on the job while they're sick. Independent contractors don't get the paid sick leave that state and local laws require for employees. Labor rights lawyer Rey Fuentes says this means Proposition 22 would even override more generous local laws in places like San Francisco, where employees are currently guaranteed access to up to nine days of paid sick leave. “The ballot proposition would make that law inaccessible to workers for companies like Doordash and Uber and Lyft, and leave them with zero paid sick leave,” he says. KPFA spoke with a driver named Edan Alva, who had no legal protections or sick leave when he fell seriously ill with the flu in January. Driving has been Alva's primary source of income since 2018, and seeing a doctor would have cost him $120, which he could not afford. “I had to work sick, putting myself and my passengers at risk,” he says. “And I hated myself for doing that. But the choice was between working sick and losing the roof over my head. I worked as much as I could just until I earned enough money to pay my rent. And then I just physically couldn't work or really move much anymore.” Edan Alva now volunteers for a group called Gig Workers Rising, which is campaigning against Prop 22. He stopped driving when the pandemic started, and says he won't go back unless he feels safe. The CDC currently recommends companies pay for worker sick leave — so they don't go to work sick, and possibly spread a deadly disease. Thousands of drivers have also struggled to access pandemic unemployment insurance, because Uber and Lyft have declined to report driver earnings to the state. John Mejia filed for pandemic unemployment insurance, but the companies wouldn't confirm to the state that he worked for them, even though he had his earnings documented on a 1099. “They made it difficult for me,” Mejia says. “I actually got some unemployment insurance, but it took me just under six months before I saw any money from them.” The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education conducted analysis that found Uber and Lyft would owe the state of California's unemployment insurance fund $413 million, if they had classified their drivers as employees. For now, California is continuing to pay out, despite the companies not paying in. Rebecca Smith of the National Employment Law Project says, “if you are an employee, you're entitled to all of those things. You're entitled to minimum wage, and overtime, and health and safety protections, and paid sick days. And in California, paid family leave and unemployment benefits when you lose your job and workers' compensation when you're injured, much of that is taken away by this initiative and it's taken away permanently.” A 2020 study from UC Santa Cruz of gig drivers in San Francisco said 45% of the workers couldn't handle a $400 financial emergency without having to borrow money. The study also estimates that up to 1 in 5 drivers might be earning nothing at all once expenses are accounted for. The post What's inside Prop 22, Uber and Lyft's $182M ballot measure on the fate of gig drivers? appeared first on KPFA.

california education san francisco joe biden abc uber partnership driving democrats labor independent fate ab cdc thousands prop kamala harris drivers lyft gavin newsom doordash elizabeth warren proposition instacart postmates mejia teamsters explainer alva uc santa cruz seiu california supreme court working families rebecca smith kpfa ballot measure united food covered california california republican party uc berkeley center national employment law project commercial workers dynamex

What’s inside Prop 22, Uber and Lyft’s $182M ballot measure on the fate of gig drivers?

KPFA - UpFront

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 24, 2020

Listen to the full radio report here, first aired September 24, 2020: https://kpfa.org/wp-content/uploads/2020/09/BOONE-Prop-22-Explainer.mp3 jQuery(document).ready(function($) { var media = $('#audio-344185-52'); media.on('canplay', function (ev) { this.currentTime = 0; }); }); By Ariel Boone (@arielboone), KPFA elections reporter OAKLAND, CA – Ride-hailing and delivery companies Uber, Lyft, Doordash, Postmates and Instacart have spent at least $182 million in support of Proposition 22, which California voters will decide in November. At issue is the basic question: are drivers independent contractors, or should they be guaranteed all of the rights of employees, like minimum wage, overtime, workers compensation and unemployment insurance? Proposition 22 would permanently classify drivers for app companies as independent contractors. “What Prop 22 would do is protect the ability of app based drivers to choose to work as independent contractors, with control over where, when, how long and for whom they wanna work,” says Geoff Vetter, a spokesperson for the Yes on 22 campaign. “What we know from speaking with rideshare and delivery drivers is that more than 70 percent say that they want the ability to remain independent contractors.” Driver John Mejia disagrees. He drove for Uber and Lyft for just over four years, and he says the flexibility is a myth. He wants to be treated as an employee, in accordance with AB 5. For years, Mejia recalls, he would log into the Uber and Lyft apps to drive, and see a notice informing him his pay rate would decrease. Each time, he pressed “accept” — that was the only way to continue working. “They've always controlled how much I make when, when I get paid the most and under their algorithms,” Mejia says. “Is that independence? Not really. Is that, is that flexibility? Not really.” The workplace rights of John Mejia and thousands of other app drivers became a state policy fight in 2018, when the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision called Dynamex. It created a simple test to determine if a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. To pass the Dynamex ABC test and classify their its drivers as independent contractors, Uber, Lyft, Doordash and their industry would have to prove that, A – Their drivers are “free from the control and direction of the company”; B – that the driving they do would is “outside the usual course of the company's business”; And C – That the driver is engaged in an independent trade or small business. Though lawsuits are currently making their way through courts deciding the matter, labor experts tell KPFA that multiple federal judges have agreed that app companies fail the ABC test — and that drivers are employees. Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez, the author of AB 5, a bill that incorporated the Dynamex decision into state law, agrees. “There is no way for a delivery driver, an Uber driver, to fit into this idea of being a small business,” she says. “They don't set their own rates. They don't make their own decisions. they're told where to go, when to go. there there's just a lot of control in the entire aspect of it.” “What I realized after driving with them almost for four and a half years, was that it was never about the relationship with the driver. It was really about their relationship to making money.” – John Mejia, driver for Uber and Lyft Six weeks after Governor Newsom signed AB 5 in 2019, delivery and ride-hailing companies filed paperwork to put Proposition 22 on the ballot, and exempt themselves from the law. Proposition 22 has support from police unions, multiple chambers of commerce, and the California Republican Party. In fact, the Yes on 22 campaign this month transferred $2 million to the California Republican Party to support campaigning efforts for the measure. It's opposed by labor unions, including the Teamsters, SEIU, United Food and Commercial Workers and the California Labor Federation as well as high-profile Democrats, like presidential nominee Joe Biden and senators Kamala Harris and Elizabeth Warren. What's inside Prop 22? Prop 22 would would permanently classify drivers for the app companies as independent contractors, not employees. It also contains some things that look like worker protections: It bars companies from stealing tips from drivers, a practice which is already illegal for employers to do to employees. It mandates drivers rest after working for 12 hours — though drivers could easily flout the law by switching to a second app. It makes app companies pay a healthcare subsidy for drivers to buy insurance through Covered California. But the subsidy is based on the price of a “bronze” plan, known for high deductibles and fees. Plus, Prop 22 creates a minimum pay system, something drivers have long demanded, which the app companies say is a historic wage guarantee. The initiative promises 30 cents a mile and 120 percent of minimum wage for hours worked. But there's a catch: labor attorneys say the companies found a way to undercount work hours. “The ballot proposition would only pay drivers for about two-thirds of the time that they're actually working, because it only pays them for engaged time,” says Rey Fuentes, a legal fellow at the Partnership for Working Families. “The companies funded research that clearly indicates drivers spend about a third of their time waiting, logged on, engaged to work — or essentially engaged to wait. And that time is compensable. Under California law, you should be paid for that time.” Another study by UC Santa Cruz researchers suggested the unpaid waiting time for San Francisco gig drivers could be closer to 20-24 percent of their working time. Whatever the proportion, under Prop 22, waiting time would remain uncompensated. The Yes on 22 campaign told KPFA that they intentionally limited driver pay to this so-called “engaged time” to prevent drivers from double dipping, earning money to wait on two apps at the same time. But two drivers told KPFA they feel the apps keep them waiting without pay on purpose to “maximize profits” and increase the availability of instant rides and deliveries for customers. Another thing Proposition 22 does: restrain lawmakers. If the state legislature wants to give app drivers a legal right to unionize or collectively bargain, they have to amend Prop 22, and that requires a seven-eigths supermajority vote. The part of the measure that makes drivers independent contractors could never be amended, Rey Fuentes says. Assemblymember Lorena Gonzalez says she's “never” seen a ballot initiative with a seven-eighths threshold. “Sometimes it requires a three fourth vote of the legislature, but seven-eighths is almost laughable.” Geoff Vetter, the Yes on 22 spokesperson, says it's intentional. “We think it's important that the voice of drivers and voters be protected, so that if Proposition 22 passes in November, the legislature can't come back in January and completely undo it.” No sick leave, and a raging pandemic Another impact Prop 22 might have: keeping drivers on the job while they're sick. Independent contractors don't get the paid sick leave that state and local laws require for employees. Labor rights lawyer Rey Fuentes says this means Proposition 22 would even override more generous local laws in places like San Francisco, where employees are currently guaranteed access to up to nine days of paid sick leave. “The ballot proposition would make that law inaccessible to workers for companies like Doordash and Uber and Lyft, and leave them with zero paid sick leave,” he says. KPFA spoke with a driver named Edan Alva, who had no legal protections or sick leave when he fell seriously ill with the flu in January. Driving has been Alva's primary source of income since 2018, and seeing a doctor would have cost him $120, which he could not afford. “I had to work sick, putting myself and my passengers at risk,” he says. “And I hated myself for doing that. But the choice was between working sick and losing the roof over my head. I worked as much as I could just until I earned enough money to pay my rent. And then I just physically couldn't work or really move much anymore.” Edan Alva now volunteers for a group called Gig Workers Rising, which is campaigning against Prop 22. He stopped driving when the pandemic started, and says he won't go back unless he feels safe. The CDC currently recommends companies pay for worker sick leave — so they don't go to work sick, and possibly spread a deadly disease. Thousands of drivers have also struggled to access pandemic unemployment insurance, because Uber and Lyft have declined to report driver earnings to the state. John Mejia filed for pandemic unemployment insurance, but the companies wouldn't confirm to the state that he worked for them, even though he had his earnings documented on a 1099. “They made it difficult for me,” Mejia says. “I actually got some unemployment insurance, but it took me just under six months before I saw any money from them.” The UC Berkeley Center for Labor Research and Education conducted analysis that found Uber and Lyft would owe the state of California's unemployment insurance fund $413 million, if they had classified their drivers as employees. For now, California is continuing to pay out, despite the companies not paying in. Rebecca Smith of the National Employment Law Project says, “if you are an employee, you're entitled to all of those things. You're entitled to minimum wage, and overtime, and health and safety protections, and paid sick days. And in California, paid family leave and unemployment benefits when you lose your job and workers' compensation when you're injured, much of that is taken away by this initiative and it's taken away permanently.” A 2020 study from UC Santa Cruz of gig drivers in San Francisco said 45% of the workers couldn't handle a $400 financial emergency without having to borrow money. The study also estimates that up to 1 in 5 drivers might be earning nothing at all once expenses are accounted for. The post What's inside Prop 22, Uber and Lyft's $182M ballot measure on the fate of gig drivers? appeared first on KPFA.

california education san francisco joe biden abc uber partnership driving democrats labor independent fate ab cdc thousands prop kamala harris drivers lyft gavin newsom doordash elizabeth warren proposition instacart postmates mejia teamsters explainer alva uc santa cruz seiu california supreme court working families rebecca smith kpfa ballot measure united food covered california california republican party uc berkeley center national employment law project commercial workers dynamex

A Wild Ride for Lyft and Uber

Capitol Weekly Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 23, 2020 21:44

Last week saw dramatic developments in the ongoing Dynamex/AB5/gig economy saga: following the August 13 ruling that confirmed an August 20 deadline for Uber and Lyft to reclassify their workers as employees, the two companies announced that they planned to cease operations in California rather than comply. San Diego Mayor Kevin Faulconer and San Jose Mayor Sam Liccardo issued statements calling on the Court of Appeals to stay the ruling, claiming that their constituents would suffer if the services were stopped during the pandemic. On the other side of the issue, drivers and labor organizers claimed that the companies were acting in bad faith, noting that Lyft and Uber have had more than adequate time to comply, given that the recent court decisions echo the findings of the Dynamex ruling, which was issued more than two years ago. Add into this mix a pending ballot proposition, Prop. 22, which would upend AB5 if passed in November. Last Thursday, August 20, the 1st District Court of Appeal issued a stay on the order, temporarily allowing the companies to continue operating under their current business model, which classifies drivers as independent contractors. We reached out to Steve Smith of the California Labor Federation, one of the leading opponents of Proposition 22, to chat about this wild week and the issues behind AB5 and Proposition 22.

california uber court prop appeal lyft appeals proposition steve smith wild ride district court last thursday dynamex san diego mayor kevin faulconer san jose mayor sam liccardo

How Tech Journalism Legitimized the Gig Economy w/ Sam Harnett

Tech Won't Save Us

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 20, 2020 37:37

Paris Marx is joined by Sam Harnett to talk about how the flaws in tech journalism provide a distorted view of what “tech” companies are actually doing and why it looks like California will finally force ride-hail drivers to be recognized as employees (without Uber and Lyft).Sam Harnett is a reporter covering labor and tech at KQED in the Bay Area. He recently made a radio series called “How We Got to Here” and is the co-creator of The World According to Sound. Sam has an essay about the problems with tech journalism in “Beyond the Algorithm: Qualitative Insights for Gig Work Regulation.” Follow Sam on Twitter as @SamWHarnett.For more related articles, see Sam’s article about how Uber and Lyft evaded regulations for eight years, Paris’ article on why California should kick them out if they won’t comply with labor law, and Veena Dubal’s criticism of the franchise model they’re now considering.Tech Won't Save Us offers a critical perspective on tech, its worldview, and wider society with the goal of inspiring people to demand better tech and a better world. Follow the podcast (@techwontsaveus) and host Paris Marx (@parismarx) on Twitter.Support the show (https://patreon.com/techwontsaveus)

california sound uber bay area lyft save us gig economy world according ridesharing kqed ride hailing harnett how we got tech journalism veena dubal dynamex

Episode #42 – California's Independent Contractor Case: Kevin Ruf

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 22, 2020 24:19

Teresa McQueen talks with Kevin about the Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, case decided April 30, 2018. A litigation partner at Glancy, Prongay & Murryay, Kevin has the distinction of arguing the Dynamex case before the California Supreme Court. During this episode Kevin offers insight into this seminal case and his thoughts on California's AB5 legislation which marks the codification of Dynamex's controversial ABC test for Independent Contractors. Episode Timeline 00:06Introduction and Disclaimer 01:56Dynamex Case 15:22AB-5 23:31Teresa's Closing Remarks

california abc los angeles county closing remarks independent contractors superior court california supreme court glancy dynamex

Episode # 41 – California's Independent Contractor Case: Kevin Ruf

OC Talk Radio

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 21, 2020 24:19

Kevin Ruf Today's guest is Southern California attorney Kevin Ruf. SAFFIRE LEGAL PC’s founder and principal attorney Teresa McQueen talks with Kevin about the Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, case decided April 30, 2018. A litigation partner at Glancy, Prongay & Murryay, Kevin has the distinction of arguing the Dynamex case before the California Supreme Court. During this episode Kevin offers insight into this seminal case and his thoughts on California's AB5 legislation which marks the codification of Dynamex's controversial ABC test for Independent Contractors. Workplace Perspective is a regular podcast series for employers and employees focusing on education, training, and the law to help organizations of all sizes develop and maintain successful employer / employee relationships. Thank You To: Kevin Ruf Paul Roberts (Engineer/Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Melissa DeLacey (Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Stephen Vercelloni (Composer Extraordinaire! Today’s episode features the song Grifter) James Bohannan & The Knave At Knight (DJs & “Radio Angels” Extraordinaire!) Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show (using the links above or below) to receive new episodes on your podcast player the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. Raise The Bar At Workplaces Everywhere! by getting the word out about this podcast. Rate and review this show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Blubrry and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email This podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs. © 2020 SAFFIRE LEGAL, PC. Workplace Perspective Raising the Bar at Workplaces Everywhere!® and copyrights are proprietary. All Rights Reserved.

spotify abc pc southern california bar google play tunein los angeles county stitcher radio independent contractors superior court blubrry california supreme court glancy dynamex

Episode # 41 – California’s Independent Contractor Case: Kevin Ruf

Thanks For Sitting In Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Apr 21, 2020 24:19

Kevin Ruf Today's guest is Southern California attorney Kevin Ruf. SAFFIRE LEGAL PC’s founder and principal attorney Teresa McQueen talks with Kevin about the Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles County, case decided April 30, 2018. A litigation partner at Glancy, Prongay & Murryay, Kevin has the distinction of arguing the Dynamex case before the California Supreme Court. During this episode Kevin offers insight into this seminal case and his thoughts on California's AB5 legislation which marks the codification of Dynamex's controversial ABC test for Independent Contractors. Workplace Perspective is a regular podcast series for employers and employees focusing on education, training, and the law to help organizations of all sizes develop and maintain successful employer / employee relationships. Thank You To: Kevin Ruf Paul Roberts (Engineer/Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Melissa DeLacey (Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Stephen Vercelloni (Composer Extraordinaire! Today’s episode features the song Grifter) James Bohannan & The Knave At Knight (DJs & “Radio Angels” Extraordinaire!) Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show (using the links above or below) to receive new episodes on your podcast player the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. Raise The Bar At Workplaces Everywhere! by getting the word out about this podcast. Rate and review this show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Blubrry and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email This podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs. © 2020 SAFFIRE LEGAL, PC. Workplace Perspective Raising the Bar at Workplaces Everywhere!® and copyrights are proprietary. All Rights Reserved.

spotify california abc pc southern california bar google play tunein los angeles county stitcher radio independent contractors superior court blubrry california supreme court glancy dynamex

Ep. 31: Meeting & Event Planner Sheryl Schane on AB5

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 18, 2020 52:32

Sheryl Schane is a San Diego based, certified meeting and convention planner, with over 25 years in the Hospitality and Tourism industry. Sheryl’s work includes planning, coordinating and managing onsite operations for several industries: Medical, Building, Technology, Insurance, Investment Banking, Financial Services and professional sports. We continue our week long conversations with California based freelancers and musicians who are being drastically affected with California law AB5. In this insightful conversation, Sheryl shares a wealth of information about AB5, explains the factors needed to qualify for an exception, maybe, the connection to the Dynamex decision, it's affect on her industry and others, her thoughts on a possible underground economy because of it and much more.The Impact AB5 is having on Sheryl and the entire Meeting and Event Planning Profession is significant. Colleagues have received notices from agencies or longtime clients making a tough call to no longer contract with CA based independent meeting planners because of AB5. Instead, these agencies and clients have chosen to hire our colleagues from neighboring states to manage the meeting operations here in California because they are not willing to deal with the risks of AB5. This is very sad and disturbing. An unintended consequence of what is happening to us and so many other professions. The ripple effects of AB5 are astounding. For real up to date information and examples on what AB5 has done, visit the 'Freelancers Against AB5' Facebook group. Join us the week of February 17 - 21 and 24-26 for daily conversations with those affected by AB5 and possible solutions to this issue.

california technology building san diego medical insurance hospitality tourism financial services colleagues investment banking event planners dynamex

CWPODCAST90: KabaTalks on AB5

Capitol Weekly Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Jan 16, 2020 33:21

Another KABATALKS episode of the Capitol Weekly pod, wherein two brothers working opposite sides of the political spectrum discuss issues of the day. John Kabateck is a lifelong Republican and longtime spokesperson for the NFIB; Brian Kabateck is a lifelong Democrat and the former head of the Consumer Attorneys Association. John Howard and Tim Foster of Capitol Weekly guide the discussion, which focuses this week on AB5, the landmark labor law that seeks to clarify the distinctions between employees and independent contractors in the wake of the Dynamex decision. Unsurprisingly, the Kabatecks are on opposite sides of the fence on AB5, but - spoiler - do manage to find some common ground.

republicans democrats unsurprisingly john howard nfib tim foster dynamex capitol weekly

Hot Topic – Legislative Update 2020

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 18, 2019 24:33

Today's Hot Topic focuses on some of the new legislative changes set to take effect in California on January 1, 2020. Teresa McQueen talks about the new laws impacting mandatory arbitration agreements, the codification of the Dynamex ABC test, and what policies you'll need to have in your organization's employee handbook as of January 1st “Enacted to quote, “codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application,” AB 5 does nothing more than muddy the waters and once again add confusion to what was – for the better part of a year – a very straightforward analysis.” – Teresa McQueen Highlights From This Week's Workplace Perspective: ABC test remains in effect, but if a court rules that the 3-part ABC test cannot be applied, then the issue of whether individual is an employee or independent contractor is to be determined by applying the Borello factors Keep in mind that the ABC test is an ‘all or nothing' test – all 3 factors must be met for the individual to be classified as an IC – while Borello requires a weighing of the facts against many various factors The existing Department of Fair Employment & Housing deadline for filing claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation is extended from 1 year to 3 years (from date of last act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation – unless an exception applies) AB 51 prohibits employers – not subject to Federal Arbitration Act – from requiring applicants/employees to agree, as a condition of employment, to mandatory arbitration of employment related claims (under the CA Labor Code or the Fair Employment & Housing Act) Deadline for complying with SB 1343 is extended by SB 788 to January 1, 2021 (with some exceptions)

california abc ab housing sb hot topic ic legislative update enacted fair employment federal arbitration act dynamex

Hot Topic – Legislative Update 2020

Let’s Talk - Lozano Smith Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 17, 2019 24:33

Today's Hot Topic focuses on some of the new legislative changes set to take effect in California on January 1, 2020. SAFFIRE LEGAL PC’s founder and principal attorney Teresa McQueen talks about the new laws impacting mandatory arbitration agreements, the codification of the Dynamex ABC test, and what policies you’ll need to have in your organization's employee handbook as of January 1st. Workplace Perspective is a regular podcast series for employers and employees focusing on education, training, and the law to help organizations of all sizes develop and maintain successful employer / employee relationships. "Enacted to quote, “codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application,” AB 5 does nothing more than muddy the waters and once again add confusion to what was - for the better part of a year - a very straightforward analysis." - Teresa McQueen Highlights From This Week's Workplace Perspective: ABC test remains in effect, but if a court rules that the 3-part ABC test cannot be applied, then the issue of whether individual is an employee or independent contractor is to be determined by applying the Borello factors Keep in mind that the ABC test is an ‘all or nothing’ test – all 3 factors must be met for the individual to be classified as an IC – while Borello requires a weighing of the facts against many various factors The existing Department of Fair Employment & Housing deadline for filing claims of harassment, discrimination or retaliation is extended from 1 year to 3 years (from date of last act of harassment, discrimination or retaliation – unless an exception applies) AB 51 prohibits employers – not subject to Federal Arbitration Act – from requiring applicants/employees to agree, as a condition of employment, to mandatory arbitration of employment related claims (under the CA Labor Code or the Fair Employment & Housing Act) Deadline for complying with SB 1343 is extended by SB 788 to January 1, 2021 (with some exceptions) Special Thanks To... Paul Roberts (Engineer/Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Michele Hardy de Boisblanc (Associate Producer Extraordinaire!) Stephen Vercelloni (Composer Extraordinaire! Today’s episode features the song Grifter) James Bohannan & The Knave At Knight (DJs & “Radio Angels” Extraordinaire!) Thank you for listening! Don’t forget to SUBSCRIBE to the show (using the links above or below) to receive new episodes on your podcast player the second and fourth Wednesday of every month. Raise The Bar At Workplaces Everywhere! by getting the word out about this podcast. Rate and review this show at Apple Podcasts, Spotify, Stitcher Radio, Google Play, Blubrry and Tunein and be sure to share this podcast with a friend. Connect with us and reach out with any questions/concerns: Facebook LinkedIn Website Email This podcast is for informational, educational, and entertainment purposes only. It is not to be construed as legal advice specific to your circumstances. If you need help with any legal matters, be sure to consult with an attorney regarding your specific needs. © 2020 SAFFIRE LEGAL, PC. Workplace Perspective Raising the Bar at Workplaces Everywhere!® and copyrights are proprietary. All Rights Reserved.

spotify california abc pc ab bar google play housing deadline sb tunein hot topic ic stitcher radio blubrry legislative update enacted fair employment housing act federal arbitration act dynamex

Episode 35: Fall 2019 Legislative Roundup – Labor & Employment Bills

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 10, 2019 36:07

Host Sloan Simmons talks with Lozano Smith partners Michelle Cannon and Gabriela Flowers, co-chairs of the firm's Labor and Employment Practice Group, about important new labor and employment laws passed in 2019 and how they will impact public agency employers in the new year. Topics covered include employment classifications, probationary periods for classified public school employees, new lactation accommodation requirements, settlement agreements with employees, and expansion of anti-discrimination laws, among others. This a must listen as we head into the new year, as most of these new laws become effective January 1, 2020, and may require changes to agency policies. Show Notes & References 2:18 Assembly Bill (AB) 1353 (Limit on probationary service for classified employees) 4:31 AB 9 (Employment discrimination claim timelines) 4:59 California Fair Employment and Housing Act (FEHA) 5:57 Equal Employment Opportunity Commission (EEOC) 6:17 Department of Fair Employment and Housing (DFEH) 8:01 Senate Bill (SB) 328 (School start times) (Client News Brief 66: November 2019) 10:24 SB 188 (Hairstyles) 13:07 SB 778 (New sexual harassment training requirements) 13:22 SB 1343 (2018) 15:52 SB 142 (Lactation accommodations) 17:03 AB 749 (Settlement agreement no-rehire language) 22:52 AB 1223 (Organ donation) 25:33 SB 83 (Family leave policies) 27:18 California State Disability Insurance (CA-SDI) 28:26 AB 5 (Dynamex decision re employee classifications) 30:24 Borello test For more information on the topics discussed in this podcast, please visit our website at: www.lozanosmith.com/podcast.

family school labor bills ab limit employment references sb organ settlement legislative hairstyles lactation fair employment dynamex employment practice group

23. Legal Malpractice Cases; The Joint Employer Doctrine; The Future of Dynamex and the Gig Economy

Civil Action with Brian & Shant

Play Episode Listen Later Dec 5, 2019 25:44

Brian and Shant discuss the following cases: Sharon v. Porter: Establishing standing in a legal malpractice cases, the statutory framework of the statute of limitations, and the importance of specifying the amount or filing a statement of damages along with a default judgment. Sprengel v. Zbylut: Implied attorney-client relationships and the distinctions between how it applies to a relationship with the shareholders of a corporation and the corporation itself. Henderson v. Equilon/Shell Oil: The Joint Employer Doctrine and the definition of “suffer and permit” from the landmark case of Martinez v. Combs. The ABC Test in Dynamex and how it applies to franchisees and franchisors. Gonzalez v. San Gabriel Transit: Brian and Shant discuss whether the Dynamex Decision applies to claims retroactively, followed by a discussion of the future of the gig economy.

legal doctrine martinez employers joint gig economy combs malpractice shant abc test dynamex

Episode 19: CA–AB5 -- The California Gig Worker Bill and You

That Solo Life: The Solo PR Pro Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 7, 2019 28:05

In September 2019 the California legislature passed CA-AB5 aka The Gig Worker Bill. In short, according to this recap from the San Francisco Chronicle, AB5:“...codifies, clarifies and grants exemptions to a 2018 California Supreme Court decision called Dynamex. Both AB5 and Dynamex make it harder for companies to label workers as independent contractors. They use an ‘ABC’ test that says workers are employees if (A) they perform tasks under a company’s control, (B) their work is integral to the company’s business and (C) they do not have independent enterprises in that trade. It takes effect Jan. 1.”(2020)The intent of this legislation is to protect people working as independent contractors from being taken advantage of. It is based on situations where an independent contractor’s work may match that of an employee but due to their worker status, they are not receiving the same level of pay and benefits as an employee. This is a good thing. The downside, however, is placing limitations on certain classifications of work that causes hardship. For instance, under this new law California-based publications can only allow freelance journalists to write 35 articles for them per year. This is a big hit to a freelance journalist’s income.According to the MBO Partners State of Independence in America 2019 report, there are “41 million Americans working work as consultants, freelancers, contractors, temporary, or on-call workers.” These workers deserve fair compensation and this legislation serves to right some of those wrongs. We hope that the California legislature – and any other government body seeking to make similar changes – considers that the nature of work itself is changing.What do you think about this? We’d love to hear from you! Visit us at soloprpro.com or contact us online.

america california americans abc independence worker san francisco chronicle california supreme court dynamex

Deep Dive 70 – Independent Contractor Or Employee

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 4, 2019 32:32

The status of independent contractors in California has been hotly debated over the past year, with the landmark California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex and with the resulting debate over California’s Assembly Bill 5. The ABC test, if ultimately adopted in the Golden State, would reclassify as employees millions of workers who currently operate as independent contractors. The impact on California's economy – the fifth largest in the world – could be extraordinary.In this episode, Bruce J. Sarchet gives an overview of the ABC Test; an analysis of the provisions of California’s AB 5; a discussion of the potential impacts on the California and U.S. economy should the bill be passed into law; and options for compliance.Featuring:- Bruce J. Sarchet, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.Visit our website – ww.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

california abc employees deep dive ab golden state shareholder independent contractors assembly bill california supreme court abc test dynamex sarchet administrative law & regulatio regulatory transparency projec labor & employment law regproject

Deep Dive 70 – Independent Contractor Or Employee

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 4, 2019 32:32

The status of independent contractors in California has been hotly debated over the past year, with the landmark California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex and with the resulting debate over California’s Assembly Bill 5. The ABC test, if ultimately adopted in the Golden State, would reclassify as employees millions of workers who currently operate as independent contractors. The impact on California's economy – the fifth largest in the world – could be extraordinary.In this episode, Bruce J. Sarchet gives an overview of the ABC Test; an analysis of the provisions of California’s AB 5; a discussion of the potential impacts on the California and U.S. economy should the bill be passed into law; and options for compliance.Featuring:- Bruce J. Sarchet, Shareholder, Littler Mendelson P.C.Visit our website – ww.RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

california abc employees deep dive ab golden state shareholder independent contractors assembly bill california supreme court abc test dynamex sarchet administrative law & regulatio regulatory transparency projec labor & employment law regproject

Episode 130: Franchise Business Model Under Assault in California

The Working Lunch

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 30, 2019 38:44

The California legislation that would codify the Dynamex and classify millions of independent contractors as employees is lurching toward the finish line and it may run over the franchise business model in the process. Jeff Hanscom, Vice President of State Government Relations & Public Policy at the International Franchise Association drops by the podcast to get us up to speed. And the unions had another big week. A new Gallup poll suggests public support for unions is at a 50-year high and the labor community opened up a new front in their war of QSRs - now they're targeting businesses operating at highway rest areas. We'll kick that around and discuss the impact to the industry. And a national publication does a cover story on the state of the industry - but it feels like more of a drive by hatchet job. We'll talk about those stories and wrap it up with the legislative scorecard.

california vice president public policy assault business models gallup franchise business international franchise association qsrs dynamex

Explainer 2 – The Dynamex Decision and its Implications for Independent Contractors

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2019 15:21

In 2018, the California Superior Court announced a new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. In this Explainer podcast episode, Luke Wake of the National Federation of Independent Businesses breaks down the case and its implications for small business owners in California.Featuring:- Luke Wake, Senior Staff Attorney, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

california decision implications litigation state government explainer national federation independent contractors senior staff attorney independent businesses dynamex california superior court regulatory transparency projec labor & employment law regproject

Explainer 2 – The Dynamex Decision and its Implications for Independent Contractors

The Workplace: a Podcast by CalChamber

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 26, 2019 15:21

In 2018, the California Superior Court announced a new test for determining whether a worker is an employee or an independent contractor. In this Explainer podcast episode, Luke Wake of the National Federation of Independent Businesses breaks down the case and its implications for small business owners in California.Featuring:- Luke Wake, Senior Staff Attorney, NFIB Small Business Legal CenterVisit our website – RegProject.org – to learn more, view all of our content, and connect with us on social media.

california decision implications litigation state government explainer national federation independent contractors senior staff attorney independent businesses dynamex california superior court regulatory transparency projec labor & employment law regproject

Episode 24: Update on Key Bills Affecting California Employers

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 14, 2019 14:20

In this week's episode of The Workplace, CalChamber President Allan Zaremberg, and CalChamber Executive Vice President Jennifer Barrera update listeners on the status of important pending legislation that will have a huge impact on employers and California's economy—legislation on the Dynamex decision, privacy, pay for striking workers, and arbitration agreements.

california workplace bills employers affecting dynamex

Episode 36: Worker Classification after Dynamex, Not as Simple as ABC

Proskauer Benefits Brief: Legal Insight on Employee Benefits & Executive Compensation

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2019 12:06

Over a year after the CA Supreme Court set new standards for worker classification in its Dynamex ruling, employers with workers in California are faced with often conflicting information about this decision’s practical impact. In this episode of The Proskauer Benefits Brief, Kate Napalkova, special employee benefits and executive compensation counsel, and associate Pietro Deserio discuss Dynamex and its broader meaning for employers and other stakeholders, both in the compliance and transaction arenas.

california simple worker classification dynamex ca supreme court

Episode 23: Conversations with Dan Walters

The Workplace: a Podcast by CalChamber

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 6, 2019 18:43

In this episode of The Workplace, CalChamber President Allan Zaremberg discusses California's revenue surge and continued calls for new taxes with California political expert Dan Walters. The two also discuss pressing issues at the State Capitol, including Dynamex and privacy legislation.

california conversations workplace state capitol dan walters dynamex

126 - California AB 5 – How Significant Could One Bill Be?

Littler Workplace Policy Institute

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 31, 2019 18:57

Michael Lotito and Jim Paretti of Littler’s Workplace Policy Institute discuss pending California legislation – Assembly Bill 5 or “AB 5” – which is fast-tracking its way through the state legislature. The bill would codify portions of last year’s California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex v. The Superior Court of Los Angeles County, in which the court instituted the “ABC test” for determining whether a worker is an independent contractor under state law. The speakers explain how AB 5—if enacted in its current form—could dramatically alter the legal landscape of California’s employment classification law.

california abc ab significant los angeles county superior court littler assembly bill california supreme court california ab dynamex

Employees Versus Contractors: California’s Big Question

Fifth & Mission

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 8, 2019 20:26

A new law will formalize a California Supreme Court ruling in a case called Dynamex that will make many workers employees instead of contractors. Reporter Carolyn Said explains why this matters to everyone from nail salon operators to investors in Uber and Lyft. Learn more about your ad choices. Visit megaphone.fm/adchoices

california uber employees lyft contractors big questions california supreme court dynamex

#69 - What a Week

Play Episode Listen Later Jul 6, 2019 61:57

Hosts Gibran Maciel and Scott Lay break down the top political headlines in California politics and policy. Interested in becoming a sponsor or coming on the show? Send either of us a message: scottlay@gmail.com, gibran@sactowntalks.com ShowNotes Californians in Presidential race - we got polls Gun rights groups file suit in Southern District of California over ban on long gun sales to persons under 21. Duncan "D" Hunter PG&E is a convicted FELON. Should they be allowed to donate to CA politicians? Dynamex - is there a way out for wary Democrats? Supreme Court - Census citizen question (Note, we recorded this on Wednesday, new developments have occured). Supreme Court - partisan gerrymandering okay Supreme Court to take up Trump’s DACA termination decision challenged by UC when it returns in the term beginning in October. JUUL and the California Democratic Party Home cooking law - why new law for “mom’s food” isn’t available everywhere Sacramento homeless Want to sponsor the show or come on the show? Email us at Scottlay@gmail.com or gibran@sactowntalks.com.

california donald trump supreme court presidential daca uc juul felons southern district dynamex

#67 - What a Week

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 26, 2019 84:41

Hosts Gibran Maciel and Scott Lay break down the top political headlines in California politics and policy. Interested in becoming a sponsor or coming on the show? Send either of us a message: scottlay@gmail.com, gibran@sactowntalks.com Show Notes RIP Officer Tara O Sullivan The California Republican Bang Bro’s: Bill bROUGH and Duncan Hunter SB 276 (Cracking Down on Antivaxxers) passes Newsom X Wildfires Trump Daddy’s Faulconer Thirty dead horses at Santa Anita AB 5 - Dynamex (independent contractors X gig economy X Lorena) The NCAA’s empty threats Homelessness X Community Colleges PPIC report on crime Housing, Homeless & #Sacramentorising https://www.gofundme.com/f/queen-sheba-emergency-fire-restoration-fund

california donald trump homeless sacramento nancy pelosi gavin newsom jerry brown cracking down dynamex

Leased owner-operator? A bill in California could put an end to that

Land Line Now

Play Episode Listen Later Jun 4, 2019 49:17

LLN (6/4/19) – A California legislative effort could end the leased owner-operator business model in that state. Also, a Canadian government agency is taking a serious look at the risks truckers face out on the road. Meanwhile, we’ll have an update on an OOIDA warning about towing rip-offs in Wyoming. And a little known aspect of legislation – report language – can have a big impact on issues important to you. 0:00-9:57 – Newscast 9:57-24:42 – Canada risk assessment; California misclassification 24:42-39:40 – Insurance increases; Finding that good broker 39:40-49:23 – Truck policy in spending bill

#59 - What a Week

Play Episode Listen Later May 5, 2019 69:48

Hosts Gibran Maciel and Scott Lay break down the top political headlines in California politics and policy. Interested in becoming a sponsor or coming on the show? Send either of us a message: scottlay@gmail.com, gibran@sactowntalks.com Shownotes  Intro  2:00 - Davita makes it rain 7:02 - Louis Farrakhan & the problems with multiculturalism  14:43 - April personal income tax revenue numbers for California 20:12 - Scotts encounters with a street preacher 25:02 - Chair’s killing bills without a hearing  33:45 - Adam Gray takes big tobacco money to enrich his b̶u̶d̶d̶i̶e̶s̶ consultants (allegedly)  37:24 - Fake News 43:17 - Scott says we’re fucked on high speed rail 51:53 - SDG&E appeals appeals CPUC decision to SCOTUS on inverse condemnation 1:00:54 - SCOTUS ruling on Dynamex

california donald trump politics political democrats bernie sanders democratic conservatives kamala harris sacramento nancy pelosi scotus scotts sdg louis farrakhan political news cpuc adam gray dynamex

#47 - What a Week

The Knowledge Group Podcasts

Play Episode Listen Later Mar 3, 2019 60:09

Hosts Gibran Maciel & Scott Lay go over the top news headlines in California politics and policy today. INTRO 2:30 - The Kings this year  6:30 - Oakland Unified comes to a tentative agreement over the weekend  9:17 - Teacher compensation - steps & columns   11:08 - Charter schools, SB 126, and more bills to come  17:27 - From a labor perspective, all teachers are equal, but they are not equal in the esteem of their peers and their students.   18:06 - Floods, the Russian River, exacerbating the housing crisis and Governor Newsom’s emergency proclamation   21:15 - The political implications of wildfire & flooding displacement (Census)   22:00 - The sites reservoir fight is about cash   23:30 - Special district bureaucrats looking after themselves  26:30 - PG&E admits that their line probably started the camp fire & the write-down’s   28:46 - City of San Francisco looking to dump PG&E and create a publicly owned utility district, but management and labor are opposed 29:37 - San Diego Mayor Faulconer given the authority to start negotiating with surrounding cities for direct-purchase agreements 32:17 - The California Democratic Party picks up 360k right before San Diego considers community choice aggregation and Aliso-Canyon   36:00 - Scott’s dismay at the media for not putting the dots together on following the cash in CA politics  37:02 - The Democratic Party has a fundraising advantage over the Republican Party because donors have more trust that the CDP will act in a transactional nature.   39:08 - Bargaining unit 7 the California State Law Enforcement Association (park rangers, fish & game, etc.) seeks a new contract 42:55 - Davita Dialysis drops 200k to the CA Democratic Party, Prop 8 & the dialysis / labor issue in the legislature today  48:13 - Adam Gray’s ballot measure committee fails to spend money on the water bond, even though it narrowly failed and his backing could have helped…  50:13 - Davita’s 200k to CDP is an olive branch, potentially seeking an agreement  54:06 - SB 562 and the Nurses Union   55:20 - Governor Newsom Appointments   56:30 - Dynamex

Ep. 35 - All Opinions Expressed Here Are Correct

He's Racist...I'm Not!

Play Episode Listen Later Feb 12, 2019 81:41

WE GOT OUR FIRST VOICE MESSAGE!!! Well, technically our second, but this was the first one that we could play!! Join us and find out what Malik thinks of all your opinions... Also, kinda big announcement towards the end of the show, so come along for the fun!!

correct bird box marianne williamson stormy daniels 21savage expressed ralph northam todd starnes justin fairfax dynamex mark herring

Before The Show #23 - Independent Contractor Classifications

Play Episode Listen Later Nov 14, 2018 10:28

* Use coupon code PODCAST25 for 25% off this webcast * Webcast URL: https://www.theknowledgegroup.org/webcasts/independent-contractor-classifications/ In April 2018, the California Supreme Court issued its landmark Dynamex Operations West v. Superior Court, No. S222732 decision which established the simplified “ABC test” as the new way of classifying a worker as an employee or an independent contractor, thus, scrapping the Borello control test under California's Wage Orders. The Dynamex ruling is expected to have large impact on the way employers in California conduct their business. They must re-examine their use of independent contractors to determine if there is a need to reclassify. In this LIVE Webcast, a panel of distinguished professionals and thought leaders will help employers understand the important aspects of this significant topic. They provide an in-depth discussion of Dynamex ruling as well as its significant implications on wage issues and potentially spread to other worker classification issues. Speakers will also offer best practices in developing and implementing an effective compliance policy. Key topics include: - The Dynamex Ruling: An Overview - Recent Case Updates and Developments - Dynamex's Implications - The ABC Test - Best Compliance Practices For anymore information please click on the webcast url at the top of this description.

california speaker abc classification independent contractors superior court california supreme court podcast25 live webcast dynamex

What is the EDD saying about Dynamex?

Spidell's California Minute

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 26, 2018 2:41

This week we have a bit more information on how the EDD has reacted to the California Supreme Court's decision in Dynamex.

edd california supreme court dynamex

#043-The Dynamex Decision And What It Mean For Our Industry

Thriving Stylist Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 8, 2018 22:45

You may have heard that California is cracking down on misclassification of employees and independent contractors, and today I am talking about the recent Dynamex Decision and how it will affect our industry. In this episode I’ll be discussing what is expected of us as stylists and or salon owners, and what we must consider in order to run and operate our businesses legally. Learn more at: https://brittseva.com/043

california decision dynamex

#MeToo for Kavanaugh and Cosby and Uber Drivers are Contractors?

Gurvey's Law

Play Episode Listen Later Oct 1, 2018 55:24

It has been a dramatic week for the #MeToo movement, and our nation overall, as comedian Bill Cosby and Supreme Court nominee Brett Kavanaugh dominated the airwaves and headlines. Famed trial attorney and media analyst, Anne Bremner, analyzes the fallout from the scandals. And, with all that's been happening, you may have missed Uber's recent court victory that may apparently mean drivers will still be independent contractors, in the face of the recent California Supreme Court decision in the Dynamex case. Employment attorney Arthur Schwartz joins Alan Gurvey and Kerri Kasem from New York with the update. Tune into live discussoins on Saturdays, September 29th at 2 p.m. at KABC-AM 790 TalkRadio or livestream the broadcast at www.kabc.com!

new york uber supreme court metoo employment bill cosby brett kavanaugh contractors cosby talk radio famed uber drivers california supreme court kerri kasem arthur schwartz dynamex anne bremner

Episode 21: Dynamex Decoded

The CAP·impact Podcast

Play Episode Listen Later Sep 13, 2018 28:18

On today's episode of The CAP·impact Podcast, I sit down with McGeorge adjunct professor, and very good friend of the podcast, Chris Micheli, to talk about recent California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v Superior Court. For those unfamiliar with the case, it, in essence, drastically changed how independent contractors are classified in California. Chris and I talk about what the old rules were, how the Dynamex decision will effect employers in the traditional economy space - as well as the new gig economy - and what we can reasonably expect to see the Legislature do in the upcoming year to address some of the issues raised by the business community by Dynamex.

california cap legislature decoded superior court california supreme court dynamex

Episode #8 – Dynamex and Dining Etiquette!

Play Episode Listen Later Aug 7, 2018 27:46

In today's episode I'll be talking about a recent (April 2018) CA Supreme Court decision on an important case known as Dynamex Systems v. LA Superior Court. The Dynamex ruling with its new ABC test for determining when an independent contractor is truly independent has a lot of businesses and IC across the state scrambling. We'll walk through some of the more significant aspects of Dynamex and talk briefly about some initial consideration to keep in mind whether you're a business or an IC. Today's episode ends, as always, with an etiquette segment. Today's focus: Dining Etiquette!

abc ic dining etiquette dynamex ca supreme court

Episode #8 – Dynamex and Dining Etiquette!