And I as the homeowner would specify the contractor show up when I tell them to. As the contractee, that is my right to put that into the contract. The contractor has the right to tell me to pound sand and as a consequence not be awarded the contract.
The rest of what you posted is gopher dust as it is all within the bounds of the contract offered and accepted. I as the contractee, have the right to put whatever I want in the contract. The contractor has the right to accept or not.
Not generally disagreeing with that sort of business-relationship philosophy. As long as neither party is compelled. But what does that have to do with Calif’s relationship to truckers? I think I must be missing your point.
Its complicated but I think most exotic dancers are contractors, but I’ve never known one or talked to one. My barber was a contractor just renting a space until he bought it. I don’t know how an Uber would not be a contractor, but most Taxi drivers are employees. A lot of truckers own their own rigs but work for a specific company, and a lot of the trucks are financed through that company. That might be a borderline case since they really can’t go haul for someone else usually.
My dancing mop swinger that was supposed to be stripping and waxing the floor instead of dancing was an employee of our contractor so I couldn’t fire him, but I could fire the contractor. It seems reasonably easy to figure out most of the time but yeah, you either take the deal or you walk either way.
So I suppose that’s why the court didn’t want to deal with it or figured the state had to unwind their silly legislation.
Cali has effectively eliminated the owner-operator trucker…the driver who owns and drives the truck… from operating. This includes picking up contracted loads from inside the Port of Longbeach. Only employee truckers are allowed. Given the shortage of truckers… a breed of worker that often prefers contracting … that makes getting those loads out of the port much harder.
Well if that’s the case that is just plain stupid not to metion crippling to moving containers out of there. Gotta be 80% of truck drivers would be excluded. So maybe the union loaders want to only load union truck drivers.
I guess I should read the article more fully.
The last time I recall a dispute over “contractor” status was in regard to FedEx drivers, all of whom are apparently contractors, rather than employees. Here is something relevant to that Kansas case:
Courts Find FedEx Misclassified Drivers As Independent Contractors.
It’s important to consider that it’s most often the “Employer” who benefits the most from the Independent Contractor classification"
So from a Dollar standpoint unless you’re providing a “High Value” service that allows you to afford these out of your own pocket, Independent Contractor status is for suckers.
From the contractor’s perspective; Points 1 to 5 are mandatory costs to the employer that are taken out of the employees pay and out of the employees control. The net effect is the employee gets paid roughly 60% of the costs while the employer pays the 40% of the hidden costs. So the employee’s paycheck is reduced by the hidden 40%. Plus in “at will” states, the employee can be sacked with zero notice for no reason at all.
The contractor’s pay rate must reflect those hidden costs plus the benefit to the employer in lower administrative costs. The contractor can negotiate the terms of their contract to mitigate the risks of termination or overtime. Point #6 means the contractor gets all the tax benefits of leasing the equipment used in their work as well as many other deductions rather than the employer.
A contractor has far more control and freedom. If that is for “suckers” sign me up! I worked as a contractor after I retired. My hourly pay rate was 3 to 4 times my last job but I generally negotiated based on the project, not the hours.
Ok, I think I understand your point now. I presume you mean the Calif gov’t makes it difficult for an owner-operator trucker to be classified as an independent contractor. That’s a valid-enough complaint. IMO it boils down to what Thomas Jefferson said: "The best gov’t governs the least. " Certainly can be argued that the employer-employee relationship, as long as neither party is compelled by the other, the details should be hands-off from gov’t regulators. Based on Jeffersonian logic I mean.
I think the main issue however isn’t actually the Calif state gov’t regulating the details of the relationship between the parties. It’s taxes, both state & federal. Politicians, state & federal, on both sides of the aisle understand that it takes a huge amount of money to fund their districts, states, & projects, and the IRS must have the ability to efficiently collect the taxes to do it. The IRS much prefers folks work as an employee rather than as a contractor, b/c the taxes are automatically withheld. Contractors receive the whole kit and caboodle, then the IRS has to coerce them to pay the taxes later. It’s pretty clear which method the IRS would prefer to collect the taxes. Here’s a summary of the IRS’s point of view.
IMO it’s a little unfair to put the trucker issue entirely on Calif state gov’t. Within the past 10 years both parties at the federal level at one time or the other had complete control. Either could have changed the IRS regulations. But neither did, most likely b/c of the tax collecting benefits all politicians receive, federal and state. If truckers believes their classification is unfair, they always have the right to least get the case to SCOTUS 's inbox. The problem for the truckers is that SCOTUS has bills to pay too, judge & clerk salaries and benefits, building repair & maintenance, security, etc. Seems unlikely SCOTUS will put the kibosh on the IRS, and would most likely refuse to hear the case.
I think the main issue is exactly the California government, to be honest. In this case it appears they’re doing the exact opposite of what Jefferson prescribed, regarding government not getting involved unless needed. SCOTUS is simply saying…”well, the CA law doesn’t violate the constitution, per se. Let the state rule. We’re out!” Sometimes that works to your favor, sometimes it does not. I think the supreme court’s main thing is to decide whether a law in constitutional or not…as I understand it…for better or worse. This law doesn’t appear to violate the constitution, so let Cali do it. Build a port in AL or MS and bypass Cali, IMO. You don’t need the money, Cali? I know some states that do. Lol
Calif certain has some over-regulating history. 15-20 years ago or so, health insurance premiums were fairly reasonable here. Some patients however said they were being treated unfairly by insurance companies, b/c the insurance didn’t pay for everything they wanted done. In particular women cancer patients who had breasts removed, many of them wanted their insurance to pay for breast reconstruction surgery. The insurance companies said that’s an optional service, cosmetic, and isn’t paid for. The patients asked for relief in Calif courts, and the courts said the insurance companies had to pay. Not only for breast reconstruction, but a whole slew of new things they hadn’t been required to pay for before. The net result was the insurance companies complied, paid up, but raised the insurance rates to unaffordable levels in return, leaving many Calif residents without any health insurance at all.
But the trucker issue, I think the main issue, root cause, is the IRS’s tax collection policy.
The IRS did not write nor pass Cali’s law. The California legislature did that. You can’t put this off on the IRS because independent truckers are still operating over the rest of the country. Nor did anyone outside the state restrict 2010 and older trucks from entering the ports.
This is all on California.
Is that related to the contractor status issue? I’ve heard of that on news reports, but thought it was a CARB issue, air pollution & environmental concern.
Aren’t there still inde contractor truckers legally operating in Calif? Just not as many as before, right? Or are there simply none of them now in Calif?
It may be. CARB = Cali, no? 2010 is pretty young for a big rig. Especially one that may be hauling port to terminal (as opposed to long haul). We’ve got a (contractor) driver that has an older Peterbilt that does a lot of our long hauls. Is it as environmentally friendly as a 2010 or newer? Probably not. Gorgeous truck, though. And how many runs would he have to make at the environment’s detriment in order to afford an upgrade? Lots to think about before we start spouting mandates, IMO.
I don’t want to intentionally offend, but I know the driver. He owns the truck. Happens to be a black guy. Cool guy, stutters if you look him in the eye, so that’s endearing to me for some reason and I try to intentionally avoid eye contact out of respect. If we passed that law, you could theoretically have a racial discrimination case! I don’t agree that it would be a racial issue, but…laws have consequences, sometimes unintended, so they need to be thought through and possible few and far between.
His son dropped a truck on it’s side and left the business. Tough job.
CARB stands for California Air Resources Board. Could be an issue worth discussing, but seems unrelated to the issue at hand, truckers wanting to be classified as independent contractors.
I think the pre 2010 truck ban would definitely come into play. Contractor status, not so much.
I have no citation and don’t remember who said that Californians may not be getting the full story of what is going on inside the state, the same as those outside the state get. In this electronic age, seems unlikely but how else do you explain some off this stuff? You’d think the people would be absolutely up in arms. Maybe it’s the water, or lack of water.
Both the restriction on 2010 and earlier trucks in the ports and the restrictions placed on contract truckers both affect the ability to move good from ships to the rest of the country. Both are directly the result of bad California laws and regulations.
This is affecting the rest of the country due to the large anount of imports that come from Asia. The west coast ports are an important point of entry as it is expensive and sometimes impossible to pass through the Panama canal to offload in Gulf or Atlantic ports.
Depending on the severity, seems to me this would be an unconstitutional restraint of trade. One state cannot restrain trade with other states. If in effect, goods are not allowed to pass through the state, I would tend to think this is a federal issue. Declare an appropriate corridor where the restictions do not apply would seem a reasonable response. Minnesota cannot restrict goods coming from Wisconsin to South Dakota. What is the difference and we do have a port, or several too. Of course we restrict drugs coming in, or try anyway, but not legar goods.
Yeah, that would certainly be convenient and efficient for the importation of all of the goods that come from Asia. 
Like every other American, I wish that we didn’t import as much as we do from China, Vietnam, Taiwan, Indonesia, etc, but given the reality that these imports do exist, we have to realize that only West Coast ports make any sense for the entry of these goods into The US.
