Main Menu

Gig Employer Blog

The federal court that had granted a temporary restraining order on New Year’s Eve blocking California’s misclassification law from taking effect against the trucking industry just extended that ruling by granting a preliminary injunction which will block AB-5 as to truckers for the foreseeable future. It’s a big win for the trucking industry in the state, and it keeps alive the hope that the ABC test will never be applied for those California businesses – and truck drivers – in the motor carrier field. But of course, we continue to wait for the other shoe to drop: will a court also block AB-5 when it comes to gig economy companies?

Yesterday saw a state court conclude that California’s controversial new misclassification law doesn’t apply to truck drivers, the second time in the last few weeks that a judge has come down hard on AB-5 for going too far in limiting the kinds of workers who can be classified as independent contractors. While any decision limiting the reach of AB-5 should be welcomed by the business community, we’re still on pins and needles waiting to see if a court will take a big step and block the law altogether, or at least even as it applies to typical gig economy workers.

This blog is littered with posts talking about the various states that are intent on creating a California-like legal test that would make it supremely challenging to classify workers as independent contractors. We’ve done several on New York alone, and that state’s efforts to adopt the ABC Test for themselves, just like California did with AB-5. And we’ve covered New Jersey. Meanwhile, Illinois, Wisconsin, Oregon, and Washington all seem like they might be the next California copycat.

As readers of this blog know, three separate groups have filed lawsuits seeking to block or overturn California’s AB-5, the new law that raises the bar to make it very difficult for businesses to classify workers as independent contractors: truck drivers, freelancers, and gig economy companies. Although the truck drivers were successful in winning a temporary reprieve from the law, the freelancers’ group just received bad news that could also spell trouble for gig economy companies. A federal court denied their request for a temporary restraining order that would have blocked the law from taking effect against them, and given the similarities between their arguments and the arguments presented by gig economy businesses, we may have just received a sneak preview into how the court will rule on the case we care about the most.

As the gig economy surges, on-demand workers are popping up in wider variety of industries. Trends indicate that the proportion of the U.S. workforce engaging in some form of gig arrangement will continue to increase, rising from the over one-third who are already participating. It is therefore no wonder that one of the largest slices of the nation’s economy – healthcare – is attracting more gig workers. In fact, this concept is not entirely new. Many healthcare employers have historically offered gig-like classifications and systems to help them retain a cadre of employed nurses and other professionals. Questions remain about the extent to which actual gig relationships can be effective in this vast industry. 

A federal judge took a pause from his New Year’s Eve revelries to hand a big victory to California truckers, blocking the state’s new misclassification law from impacting them before the January 1 effective date arrived. While this maneuver doesn’t directly help gig economy companies in the state – who became subject to AB-5’s ABC test immediately upon the stroke of midnight – it could be a sign of good things to come.

The truck drivers were the first group to take aim at AB5 through a lawsuit, and the freelancers followed suit. Soon before the clock strikes midnight to ring in the new year, two giants of the gig economy fired their own shot. Uber and Postmates filed a federal lawsuit on December 30, hoping to overturn the controversial new law that will raise the bar to make it very difficult for the average gig economy company to classify their workers as independent contractors. 

The clock is steadily ticking towards midnight on December 31, and once the illuminated cluster of grapes drops from the Temecula Civic Center clock tower (this is actually a thing) and rings in the new year in California, employers across the state – and across the country – will have to contend with California’s new independent contractor misclassification law which threatens to wreak havoc on the gig economy. Barring a legal miracle in the coming days, AB5 will officially become law, and the ABC test will be the law of the land. As businesses and contractors begin to grapple with this impending new reality, another group has filed suit in court hoping to upend the law before it takes effect.

While U.S. lawmakers grapple with the dynamics of the gig economy, our neighbor to the north is witnessing a dramatic increase in the number of gig workers. A recent article in the Toronto Star discussed a new study from Statistics Canada which “found a dramatic increase in gig workers.” Specifically, the study found that the number of gig workers in Canada “jumped by 70% between 2005 and 2016, from 1 million to 1.7 million — an increase from 5.5% of all workers aged 15 and older to 8.2%.” In Toronto, one in 10 workers obtained some of their income from the gig economy in 2016 according to the study. 

In anticipation of New York’s 2020 legislative session, state lawmakers are beginning to develop a proposal to regulate the gig economy – and the news isn’t good for businesses. As we discussed in an entry back in September, New York seems intent on developing a law including California-like elements that might lead to a version of the ABC test in the Empire State. But recent news means we might see things get taken a massive step further. Some legislative leaders are also seeking to introduce the country’s first collective bargaining law that would permit gig workers to unionize.

Recent Posts

Category List

Archives

Back to Page

By using this site, you agree to our updated General Privacy Policy and our Legal Notices.