• DATVF.VWU
    1.570
    0.029
    1.9%
  • DATVF.LAXDAL
    1.584
    0.040
    2.6%
  • DATVF.DALLAX
    0.864
    0.024
    2.9%
  • DATVF.PHLCHI
    0.948
    0.025
    2.7%
  • DATVF.LAXSEA
    2.030
    -0.025
    -1.2%
  • DATVF.SEALAX
    1.110
    0.084
    8.2%
  • DATVF.VEU
    1.507
    0.019
    1.3%
  • DATVF.ATLPHL
    1.642
    0.002
    0.1%
  • DATVF.VSU
    1.224
    0.032
    2.7%
  • DATVF.CHIATL
    1.932
    0.031
    1.6%
  • DATVF.VNU
    1.434
    0.027
    1.9%
  • ITVI.USA
    9,884.260
    76.830
    0.8%
  • OTRI.USA
    6.160
    0.460
    8.1%
  • OTVI.USA
    9,876.200
    74.110
    0.8%
  • TLT.USA
    2.570
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    150.000
    0.000
    0%
  • DATVF.VWU
    1.570
    0.029
    1.9%
  • DATVF.LAXDAL
    1.584
    0.040
    2.6%
  • DATVF.DALLAX
    0.864
    0.024
    2.9%
  • DATVF.PHLCHI
    0.948
    0.025
    2.7%
  • DATVF.LAXSEA
    2.030
    -0.025
    -1.2%
  • DATVF.SEALAX
    1.110
    0.084
    8.2%
  • DATVF.VEU
    1.507
    0.019
    1.3%
  • DATVF.ATLPHL
    1.642
    0.002
    0.1%
  • DATVF.VSU
    1.224
    0.032
    2.7%
  • DATVF.CHIATL
    1.932
    0.031
    1.6%
  • DATVF.VNU
    1.434
    0.027
    1.9%
  • ITVI.USA
    9,884.260
    76.830
    0.8%
  • OTRI.USA
    6.160
    0.460
    8.1%
  • OTVI.USA
    9,876.200
    74.110
    0.8%
  • TLT.USA
    2.570
    0.000
    0%
  • WAIT.USA
    150.000
    0.000
    0%
American ShipperContainerNewsTrucking

AB 5 protest planned in California by owner-operators

Originating with truckers serving construction and agriculture industry, there are concerns that some port drivers also may become involved.

A grassroots protest over AB 5, the California law aimed at limiting the use of independent contractors, is being planned by truckers for November 4-6.

While the planned protests originated with truckers hauling construction materials and agricultural products, some flyers promoting the protests also have been posted around the ports of Oakland, Los Angeles and Long Beach so that drayage drivers may also become involved and ports may be affected.

It was unclear whether the protest would gain traction with drayage drivers at those ports.

“We don’t anticipate any disruption to normal cargo flow at this point,” said Lee Peterson, a spokesman for the Port of Long Beach.

A planned protest over California’s AB 5 law which is aimed at limiting the use of independent contractors is being planned by some truckers who move construction and agriculture products.

Debbie Ferrari of MAG Trucking in Hayward, California said there is no group in charge of the planned shutdown, but a number of truckers have “decided they would take time off” on those days.

Ferrari, who has been in the trucking business for 38 years, said that many truckers in the agriculture and construction businesses are frustrated that an exemption was not made for them in AB 5.

These include not only drivers moving material such as aggregate, block, hot asphalt, soil and other construction material – “integral work to keep California moving,” she stated. She also noted that some of these drivers are involved in emergency clean-up and repairs or moving the harvest from California farms and orchards.

“The shutdown is a grassroots effort of many firms making a personal choice. Some will be demonstrating at designated areas that will be disclosed each day on the day prior,” said Ferrari.

“In our community, owner-operators are prevalent because work is seasonal and the cost of living is higher. A lot of people prefer to be owner-operators,” she said.

“There are a lot of truckers that are misclassified, but there are quite a lot that are not,” she added.

When AB 5 was being discussed, Ferrari said that she spent dozens of days in Sacramento speaking to legislators and lobbyists about the concerns of truckers serving the construction industry.

“The whole thing has been unreal – the treatment, taking away the freedom, taking away the living of people who have invested in clean trucks,” she said.

Ferrari expects additional protests and visits to legislators to have the law modified. “We have a great, clear case and they are treating us very badly and controlling us. They are shutting us down for the wrong reasons – mischaracterizing the people who hire the owner-operators and the owner-operators.”

Weston LaBar with the Harbor Trucking Association, which represents port drayage companies, said his organization is following the planned protest, but said “it is being organized by the construction brokerage community, it’s not being organized by anybody that has to deal with drayage.”

LaBar added, “I don’t know what level of participation you’re going to see in ports. That being said, obviously there ares many owner-operators in the drayage industry and they’re very upset about AB 5.” 

He also said, “We want the drivers to absolutely reach out and let people know their opinions and the fact that they don’t appreciate AB 5. We definitely want elected officials and legislators to be educated on the viewpoints of these drivers and the fact that they have no interest in being employees.”

But he also said the Harbor Trucking Association is not promoting the protest because of concerns that it could impact cargo.

“We always have concerns with anything that disrupts the flow of cargo in and out of the ports on the West Coast. We deal with a good percentage of the nation’s discretionary cargo… every time there is a major disruption it affects discretionary cargo and market share on the West Coast.” 

LaBar also said, “The sad part is, this is the type of engagement we were hoping we would get from drivers before AB 5 was voted on so that legislators could actually understand the points of view of truck drivers. But there was a large level of apathy in the sense that they didn’t think something like this would ever happen and that their livelihoods might be threatened. And so now they’re on the defensive after the fact.”  

“This law is stupid, this law is disruptive to our industry. The word is starting to get out to the owner-operators about AB 5,” says Bill Aboudi, the owner of a small drayage company in Oakland who is also president of Oakland Maritime Support Services, which provides parking and other services for truckers.

 “AB 5 was billed as a gig economy law, so nobody paid attention on the owner-operator side to it even as their associations were fighting it,” he said.

 “Now the trucking companies have to basically make a decision what they’re going to do, and they’re starting to communicate with their owner-operators. That’s why you see these flyers going around.”

 He said some trucking companies are telling owner-operators that they will have to become employees and drive company trucks if they want to be dispatched.

 Other companies are telling drivers they need to get their own operating authority, and others are planning to do nothing to change how their companies work believing “somebody’s going to duke it out in court and hopefully it will get cleared up,” said Aboudi.

 “Some will go to the two check system, which will cost a lot of money. But it’s got risks too, because now the owner-operator has a truck, they’re going to make payments on the truck lease and then you’re going to pay him partially as an employee,” he said. “How do you figure that out? In the drayage business, you get paid by the move. How do you convert that to hourly? It’s a lot of paperwork.”

 “I’m talking to drivers on the street and they’re pissed off. I had one owner-operator, he was so depressed, I almost felt I had to call a suicide hotline. He had just upgraded his truck, he has a truck payment and was saying ‘What do I do? I’m going to be out of business, I can’t pay for this truck.’ ”

Tags
Show More

Chris Dupin

Chris Dupin has written about trade and transportation and other business subjects for a variety of publications before joining American Shipper and Freightwaves.

24 Comments

  1. Just so I understand the concept-

    People want to protest because they will now be covered by workers compensation in the case of on the job injuries, be eligible for unemployment and disability insurance, and have claim to social security because they would now be employees?

    Normally, I would think that folks would protest because they do not get those……

    I’d also question how much sympathy people will get for delaying road construction jobs?

    1. BINGO ! You nailed it !

      The “protesters” are disturbed due to enforced constricted choices . It’s either A or B , no longer ABC .

      Furthermore , AB-5 protects some from themselves due to some willing to accept precarious employment/precarious work which some may potentially gain from . This in of itself causes unfair competition among themselves and within the industry . AB-5 leveled the playing field ,clarified what is deemed acceptable concerning classification , and closed the precarious employment loophole which was incredibly abused . However , some(the one’s that need to be protected from themselves) are protesting to remain “independent” while actually positioned as “dependant” . They want to have their cake and eat it too !

      In my humble opinion …………….

      For your entertainment :

      Quote:
      “It’s all about increasing profits and CEOs’ salaries
      Precarious work has been growing since the 1980s when corporations realised that a global supply chain of precarious workers is both cheaper and can protect them from regulations and responsibility. It quickly began to return more profits to shareholders and to the salaries of CEOs and executives.  International financial institutions like the World Bank and IMF also promoted these policies as part of the neoliberal agenda. Precarious work is one of the main causes of the widening, obscene levels of wealth inequality and the growing gap between wages and profits.

      Quote: Precarious work

      “It is destroying labour unions and labour organising
      Precarious work has been one of the ways to break union power and organising. When your job is precarious workers fear losing their job. When you work as a ‘contractor’ you usually can’t unionise. And precarious work also destroys solidarity among workers by dividing workers into “the regulars” and “the contractuals.” Union busting companies use labour hire companies or outsource to non-unionised workplaces to destroy unions and their collective bargaining power.”

      Quote:
      “Unions around the world are addressing this issue by reaching out to organise contract workers and include them in industrial or workplace level collective bargaining agreements. We must demand our governments end precarious employment and ensure all workers are entitled to living wages, paid leave, set hours and overtime, social protection, training opportunities, safe working conditions and the right to unionise, bargain and strike.”

      Quote :

      “some of the growth in self-employment is the result of deliberate misclassification by businesses that do not wish to incur liability for employees and wish to shed liability for mandatory deductions and contributions to public pensions, employment insurance, and workers compensation schemes, together with shedding responsibility for employment standards such as maternity and parental leaves. Also, some of the growth is from a genuine desire by the providers of the service to get tax advantages that might not be available if they operated as employees, despite the fact that the dependency inherent in the relationship makes the providers of the service much closer to being employees than to being really in business for themselves. Some of this growth is highly controversial with changes in industry practice (such as the change from employed taxi drivers to allegedly independent providers who provide services to Uber).”

    2. Anyone in favor of AB 5 in its current form for trucking either doesn’t understand it or they feel they will gain personally by it and they don’t mind if others are hurt. I understand this better than anyone because I have done the proper research and I’ve been immersed in it from the beginning. For those who really want to understand here are some points: Any trucker who has a truck that a hiring entity has financial interest or control in and or any trucker using someone else’s permit, is an employee. If it took AB 5 to enforce that so be it. However, any trucker that bought the truck with no help from a hiring entity AND has a CA motor carrier permit, has earned and deserves the right to operate or he can still choose to sell his truck and be an employee. It’s about choice and AB 5 takes it away even if people will lose their livelihood and freedom. Even if you will earn much less. As of 1-1-20, it’s illegal to work for any trucking firm or broker of any kind if you are a trucker. You either find your own customer or a broker or other trucker who hires you is taking a huge risk. Anyone who understands trucking knows it’s not possible to survive without sharing work. The author stated on the record “the law is designed to put brokers out of business” A broker can be anyone that hires a truck owner. This is more than an outrage, targeting certain business for destruction. The author says it doesn’t put owner operators out of business. That is patently false. Due to the severity of the restrictions, it will put them out of business.

      1. Read your comment ! It’s preposterous and so is your interpretation of AB-5 and what it implies ! And Weston LaBar’s interpretation of AB-5 and what it implies is preposterous as well ,from what I read in the article above !

        I posted AB 5 below and even outlined a part below it , AND I even posted OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer comments on AB-5 below that !!!

        Attempting to manipulate people into agreeing with your interpretation of AB-5 by labeling them as uneducated or having an ulterior motive and not caring if they do not , IS PREPOSTEROUS ! We’re not in kindergarten here !

        However, good luck with your “ill-founded” protest .

        In my humble opinion

      2. I agree with you! Many current OO’s who have invested 100-200K in their equipment make far more after deducting their expenses than they would as an employee driver. They are free to take a month off to visit relatives in India or Mexico. They choose what job they want and pass on others.

        Ask yourselves why there is still a massive shortage of drivers available who will take employee driver jobs in California when there are 70,000 OO’s in the state. Certainly the OO’s could hang it up and take an employee driving job with benefits and no headaches if they really wanted to.

        We have mostly company drivers in the Bay Area with a few OO’s in the mix. The company drivers want to be employees but the OO’s do not.
        Why do you all think that is?????????

    3. I’m an owner operator O/O. I drive in the petroleum industry gas, diesel, jet fuel etc. I like the flexibility of hours and my days off. I’ve read some comments that we O/O getting off and not paying our fair share of taxes. If I worked for someone as an employee. The employer would pay taxes on my behalf as well as I will pay taxes. As an O/O I pay all the taxes myself. AB5 is a union power grab. The union want to control transportation. May it be the ports or Uber and Lyft. The unions with the help of the democrats will be able to hold our state hostage. They unions will be in complete control of the ports. Everything that we buy from food,cars, tv’s etc…will come with a never ending higher cost. If the longshoremen goes on strike then the teamsters go on strike. They will have our economy by the throat. I’ve also read from pro union people that after O/O pay out all their bills they only make 8 or 9 dollars per hour. If this were true then those O/O are doing something very. wrong. Bottom line is the democrats are going to hurt our economy with AB5. If AB5 was law in the 70’s we may not have Microsoft, Apple and Hewlett-Packard. Some of our greatest companies got their start in someone’s garage. Just a few guys putting a dream together. Would these companies have had a future under AB5. Would anyone try starting a company in California under AB5? I know I wouldn’t start a new company in California.

    4. I’m an owner operator O/O. I drive in the petroleum industry gas, diesel, jet fuel etc. I like the flexibility of hours and my days off. I’ve read some comments that we O/O not paying our fair share of taxes. If I worked for someone as an employee. The employer would pay taxes on my behalf as well as I will pay taxes. As an O/O I pay all the taxes myself. AB5 is a union power grab. The union want to control transportation. May it be the ports or Uber and Lyft. The unions with the help of the democrats will be able to hold our state hostage. They unions will be in complete control of the ports. Everything that we buy from food,cars, tv’s etc…will come with a never ending higher cost. If the longshoremen goes on strike then the teamsters go on strike. They will have our economy by the throat. I’ve also read from pro union people that after O/O pay out all their bills they only make 8 or 9 dollars per hour. If this were true then those O/O are doing something very. wrong. Bottom line is the democrats are going to hurt our economy with AB5. If AB5 was law in the 70’s we may not have Microsoft, Apple and Hewlett-Packard. Some of our greatest companies got their start in someone’s garage. Just a few guys putting a dream together. Would these companies have had a future under AB5. Would anyone try starting a company in California under AB5? I know I wouldn’t start a new company in California.

      1. Hi Jo ,

        AB-5 has been created to reduce malfeasance . Unions wouldn’t be needed if entrepreneurs etc. didn’t exploit their laborers . So if you feel that unions are gaining power the only explanation is due to an increasing level in entrepreneur corruption towards laborers .

        And by the way I’m not pro union per say . I believe in defending and protecting the weak , the abused , and addressing the abusers .

        In regards to “the ports” . OC(Organized Crime) has been controlling them since a very long time ago . Unions have dock worker/port laborer members , period .

        Obviously the cost of life increases if costs increase . But before even attempting to go there , why not first look at what is really the cause of “inflation” . Unions are not the cause . The Central Banking system is . That medium of exchange that you believe has value in your pocket belongs to THEM ! NOT YOU !

        And they can create as much as they please out of thin air ! And that my dear friend is the true cause behind the loss of your purchasing power , not unions !

        If you can’t increase the so called value of your medium of exchange by more than its continuous devaluation then you’re really getting screwed . A dollar today is worth a heck of a lot more than it will be worth months and years in the future .

        Your theory about leveling the playing field and treating laborers with dignity ,respect , and not abusing them in the process will hurt the economy is flawed . What has actually been hurting our progress is exactly the opposite .

        WE as a human race have been held back due to corruption . If people on this planet were not so corrupt we would have evolved much quicker and life would be much easier equally for everyone , not just a few . The injustices and hardships imposed on the masses by a few is extremely overwhelming .

        The 99% are exploited beyond belief . WE have been deceived . Most of what you have been taught is a lie ! You’ve been manipulated to such an extent that you can hardly tell the difference between what is true and not .

        If there was just once book that I could recommend that you read it would be Propaganda by Edward Bernays .

        On another note : You forgot Amazon . Jeff Bezos is the first publicly reported Cent-Billionaire .

        Would I want to take his wealth away due to him having more than I and or due to others having so little . No . If he earned it ethically then he deserves every penny he has . However , if he gains his wealth due to abusing from loopholes that gives him an advantage to deprive others then the situation needs to be rectified .

        Unions attempt to do that . Certain politicians attempt to do that . ELD’s were mandated due to abuse too . However , we as a people are clever . We need to use our cleverness ethically . We need to stop abusing each other and evolve , truly evolve . And the day we will no longer need to depend on “unions” to have a chance at fair and ethical treatment then perhaps we will be truly evolving as a whole .

        Until then it will be an unfortunate constant battle between the 1% & 99% .

        If we can set an example in the trucking industry and simply start by focusing on bringing back the camaraderie that once was among us , perhaps then we also can set ourselves up as an Alliance and create change which would benefit all equally .

        Unions are old school but they’re better than nothing . We need to start acting like friends rather than compete against one another , at least as truck drivers . Be a friend and make a friend should be our motto . And if we can simply achieve that ,just that , then perhaps we will have a genuine chance to become a force to be reckoned with .

        It takes one heck of a plan and a strategy to boot . And a little more than hope . It takes a ton of wisdom . And truck drivers generally haven’t been acting to wisely among one another . If you want change , a true sustainable change then that change starts between our two ears . And then perhaps we can truly show the world what we are truly made of .

        Aside from that , I would like to take advantage of this moment to genuinely thank you for the service that you bring us through your fuel hauling job . I appreciate your contribution to my needs , and I admire your courage for hauling such a dangerous hazardous materials among such chaotic drivers on our roads for so little in return .

        Thanks once again and be vigilant .

        In my humble opinion …………

  2. HERE YOU GO !

    Quote:

    Assembly Bill No. 5
    CHAPTER 296

    An act to amend Section 3351 of, and to add Section 2750.3 to, the Labor Code, and to amend Sections 606.5 and 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, relating to employment, and making an appropriation therefor.

    [ Approved by Governor  September 18, 2019. Filed with Secretary of State  September 18, 2019. ]

    LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST

    AB 5, Gonzalez. Worker status: employees and independent contractors.
    Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission. Existing law requires a 3-part test, commonly known as the “ABC” test, to establish that a worker is an independent contractor for those purposes.
    Existing law, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, requires employers to make contributions with respect to unemployment insurance and disability insurance from the wages paid to their employees. Existing law defines “employee” for those purposes to include, among other individuals, any individual who, under the usual common law rules applicable in determining the employer-employee relationship, has the status of an employee.
    This bill would state the intent of the Legislature to codify the decision in the Dynamex case and clarify its application. The bill would provide that for purposes of the provisions of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business. The bill, notwithstanding this provision, would provide that any statutory exception from employment status or any extension of employer status or liability remains in effect, and that if a court rules that the 3-part test cannot be applied, then the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by the test adopted in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello). The bill would exempt specified occupations from the application of Dynamex, and would instead provide that these occupations are governed by Borello. These exempt occupations would include, among others, licensed insurance agents, certain licensed health care professionals, registered securities broker-dealers or investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, real estate licensees, commercial fishermen, workers providing licensed barber or cosmetology services, and others performing work under a contract for professional services, with another business entity, or pursuant to a subcontract in the construction industry.
    The bill would also require the Employment Development Department, on or before March 1, 2021, and each March 1 thereafter, to issue an annual report to the Legislature on the use of unemployment insurance in the commercial fishing industry. The bill would make the exemption for commercial fishermen applicable only until January 1, 2023, and the exemption for licensed manicurists applicable only until January 1, 2022. The bill would authorize an action for injunctive relief to prevent employee misclassification to be brought by the Attorney General and specified local prosecuting agencies.
    This bill would also redefine the definition of “employee” described above, for purposes of unemployment insurance provisions, to include an individual providing labor or services for remuneration who has the status of an employee rather than an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the individual meets all of specified conditions, including that the individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. Because this bill would increase the categories of individuals eligible to receive benefits from, and thus would result in additional moneys being deposited into, the Unemployment Fund, a continuously appropriated fund, the bill would make an appropriation. The bill would state that addition of the provision to the Labor Code does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission. The bill would also state that specified Labor Code provisions of the bill apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law while other provisions apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020. The bill would additionally provide that the bill’s provisions do not permit an employer to reclassify an individual who was an employee on January 1, 2019, to an independent contractor due to the bill’s enactment.
    Existing provisions of the Labor Code make it a crime for an employer to violate specified provisions of law with regard to an employee. The Unemployment Insurance Code also makes it a crime to violate specified provisions of law with regard to benefits and payments.
    By expanding the definition of an employee for purposes of these provisions, the bill would expand the definition of a crime, thereby imposing a state-mandated local program.
    The California Constitution requires the state to reimburse local agencies and school districts for certain costs mandated by the state. Statutory provisions establish procedures for making that reimbursement.
    This bill would provide that no reimbursement is required by this act for a specified reason.
    Digest Key
    Vote: MAJORITY   Appropriation: YES   Fiscal Committee: YES   Local Program: YES  

    Bill Text
    The people of the State of California do enact as follows:

    SECTION 1. The Legislature finds and declares all of the following:
    (a) On April 30, 2018, the California Supreme Court issued a unanimous decision in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex).
    (b) In its decision, the Court cited the harm to misclassified workers who lose significant workplace protections, the unfairness to employers who must compete with companies that misclassify, and the loss to the state of needed revenue from companies that use misclassification to avoid obligations such as payment of payroll taxes, payment of premiums for workers’ compensation, Social Security, unemployment, and disability insurance.
    (c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality.
    (d) It is the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to include provisions that would codify the decision of the California Supreme Court in Dynamex and would clarify the decision’s application in state law.
    (e) It is also the intent of the Legislature in enacting this act to ensure workers who are currently exploited by being misclassified as independent contractors instead of recognized as employees have the basic rights and protections they deserve under the law, including a minimum wage, workers’ compensation if they are injured on the job, unemployment insurance, paid sick leave, and paid family leave. By codifying the California Supreme Court’s landmark, unanimous Dynamex decision, this act restores these important protections to potentially several million workers who have been denied these basic workplace rights that all employees are entitled to under the law.
    (f) The Dynamex decision interpreted one of the three alternative definitions of “employ,” the “suffer or permit” definition, from the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission (IWC). Nothing in this act is intended to affect the application of alternative definitions from the IWC wage orders of the term “employ,” which were not addressed by the holding of Dynamex.
    (g) Nothing in this act is intended to diminish the flexibility of employees to work part-time or intermittent schedules or to work for multiple employers.
    SEC. 2. Section 2750.3 is added to the Labor Code, to read:

    2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:
    (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
    (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
    (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    (2) Notwithstanding paragraph (1), any exceptions to the terms “employee,” “employer,” “employ,” or “independent contractor,” and any extensions of employer status or liability, that are expressly made by a provision of this code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, or in an applicable order of the Industrial Welfare Commission, including, but not limited to, the definition of “employee” in subdivision 2(E) of Wage Order No. 2, shall remain in effect for the purposes set forth therein.
    (3) If a court of law rules that the three-part test in paragraph (1) cannot be applied to a particular context based on grounds other than an express exception to employment status as provided under paragraph (2), then the determination of employee or independent contractor status in that context shall instead be governed by the California Supreme Court’s decision in S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) 48 Cal.3d 341 (Borello).
    (b) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex Operations West, Inc. v. Superior Court of Los Angeles (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), do not apply to the following occupations as defined in the paragraphs below, and instead, the determination of employee or independent contractor status for individuals in those occupations shall be governed by Borello.
    (1) A person or organization who is licensed by the Department of Insurance pursuant to Chapter 5 (commencing with Section 1621), Chapter 6 (commencing with Section 1760), or Chapter 8 (commencing with Section 1831) of Part 2 of Division 1 of the Insurance Code.
    (2) A physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 2 (commencing with Section 500) of the Business and Professions Code, performing professional or medical services provided to or by a health care entity, including an entity organized as a sole proprietorship, partnership, or professional corporation as defined in Section 13401 of the Corporations Code. Nothing in this subdivision shall apply to the employment settings currently or potentially governed by collective bargaining agreements for the licensees identified in this paragraph.
    (3) An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.
    (4) A securities broker-dealer or investment adviser or their agents and representatives that are registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission or the Financial Industry Regulatory Authority or licensed by the State of California under Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 25210) or Chapter 3 (commencing with Section 25230) of Division 1 of Part 3 of Title 4 of the Corporations Code.
    (5) A direct sales salesperson as described in Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code, so long as the conditions for exclusion from employment under that section are met.
    (6) A commercial fisherman working on an American vessel as defined in subparagraph (A) below.
    (A) For the purposes of this paragraph:
    (i) “American vessel” has the same meaning as defined in Section 125.5 of the Unemployment Insurance Code.
    (ii) “Commercial fisherman” means a person who has a valid, unrevoked commercial fishing license issued pursuant to Article 3 (commencing with Section 7850) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 6 of the Fish and Game Code.
    (iii) “Working on an American vessel” means the taking or the attempt to take fish, shellfish, or other fishery resources of the state by any means, and includes each individual aboard an American vessel operated for fishing purposes who participates directly or indirectly in the taking of these raw fishery products, including maintaining the vessel or equipment used aboard the vessel. However, “working on an American vessel” does not apply to anyone aboard a licensed commercial fishing vessel as a visitor or guest who does not directly or indirectly participate in the taking.
    (B) For the purposes of this paragraph, a commercial fisherman working on an American vessel is eligible for unemployment insurance benefits if they meet the definition of “employment” in Section 609 of the Unemployment Insurance Code and are otherwise eligible for those benefits pursuant to the provisions of the Unemployment Insurance Code.
    (C) On or before March 1, 2021, and each March 1 thereafter, the Employment Development Department shall issue an annual report to the Legislature on the use of unemployment insurance in the commercial fishing industry. This report shall include, but not be limited to, reporting the number of commercial fishermen who apply for unemployment insurance benefits, the number of commercial fishermen who have their claims disputed, the number of commercial fishermen who have their claims denied, and the number of commercial fishermen who receive unemployment insurance benefits. The report required by this subparagraph shall be submitted in compliance with Section 9795 of the Government Code.
    (D) This paragraph shall become inoperative on January 1, 2023, unless extended by the Legislature.
    (c) (1) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to a contract for “professional services” as defined below, and instead the determination of whether the individual is an employee or independent contractor shall be governed by Borello if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following factors are satisfied:
    (A) The individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual’s residence, that is separate from the hiring entity. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits an individual from choosing to perform services at the location of the hiring entity.
    (B) If work is performed more than six months after the effective date of this section, the individual has a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession.
    (C) The individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed.
    (D) Outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual’s own hours.
    (E) The individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work.
    (F) The individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services.
    (2) For purposes of this subdivision:
    (A) An “individual” includes an individual providing services through a sole proprietorship or other business entity.
    (B) “Professional services” means services that meet any of the following:
    (i) Marketing, provided that the contracted work is original and creative in character and the result of which depends primarily on the invention, imagination, or talent of the employee or work that is an essential part of or necessarily incident to any of the contracted work.
    (ii) Administrator of human resources, provided that the contracted work is predominantly intellectual and varied in character and is of such character that the output produced or the result accomplished cannot be standardized in relation to a given period of time.
    (iii) Travel agent services provided by either of the following: (I) a person regulated by the Attorney General under Article 2.6 (commencing with Section 17550) of Chapter 1 of Part 3 of Division 7 of the Business and Professions Code, or (II) an individual who is a seller of travel within the meaning of subdivision (a) of Section 17550.1 of the Business and Professions Code and who is exempt from the registration under subdivision (g) of Section 17550.20 of the Business and Professions Code.
    (iv) Graphic design.
    (v) Grant writer.
    (vi) Fine artist.
    (vii) Services provided by an enrolled agent who is licensed by the United States Department of the Treasury to practice before the Internal Revenue Service pursuant to Part 10 of Subtitle A of Title 31 of the Code of Federal Regulations.
    (viii) Payment processing agent through an independent sales organization.
    (ix) Services provided by a still photographer or photojournalist who do not license content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. This clause is not applicable to an individual who works on motion pictures, which includes, but is not limited to, projects produced for theatrical, television, internet streaming for any device, commercial productions, broadcast news, music videos, and live shows, whether distributed live or recorded for later broadcast, regardless of the distribution platform. For purposes of this clause a “submission” is one or more items or forms of content produced by a still photographer or photojournalist that: (I) pertains to a specific event or specific subject; (II) is provided for in a contract that defines the scope of the work; and (III) is accepted by and licensed to the publication or stock photography company and published or posted. Nothing in this section shall prevent a photographer or artist from displaying their work product for sale.
    (x) Services provided by a freelance writer, editor, or newspaper cartoonist who does not provide content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. Items of content produced on a recurring basis related to a general topic shall be considered separate submissions for purposes of calculating the 35 times per year. For purposes of this clause, a “submission” is one or more items or forms of content by a freelance journalist that: (I) pertains to a specific event or topic; (II) is provided for in a contract that defines the scope of the work; (III) is accepted by the publication or company and published or posted for sale.
    (xi) Services provided by a licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber, or licensed cosmetologist provided that the individual:
    (I) Sets their own rates, processes their own payments, and is paid directly by clients.
    (II) Sets their own hours of work and has sole discretion to decide the number of clients and which clients for whom they will provide services.
    (III) Has their own book of business and schedules their own appointments.
    (IV) Maintains their own business license for the services offered to clients.
    (V) If the individual is performing services at the location of the hiring entity, then the individual issues a Form 1099 to the salon or business owner from which they rent their business space.
    (VI) This subdivision shall become inoperative, with respect to licensed manicurists, on January 1, 2022.
    (d) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to the following, which are subject to the Business and Professions Code:
    (1) A real estate licensee licensed by the State of California pursuant to Division 4 (commencing with Section 10000) of the Business and Professions Code, for whom the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by subdivision (b) of Section 10032 of the Business and Professions Code. If that section is not applicable, then this determination shall be governed as follows: (A) for purposes of unemployment insurance by Section 650 of the Unemployment Insurance Code; (B) for purposes of workers compensation by Section 3200 et seq.; and (C) for all other purposes in the Labor Code by Borello. The statutorily imposed duties of a responsible broker under Section 10015.1 of the Business and Professions Code are not factors to be considered under the Borello test.
    (2) A repossession agency licensed pursuant to Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, for whom the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, if the repossession agency is free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
    (e) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to a bona fide business-to-business contracting relationship, as defined below, under the following conditions:
    (1) If a business entity formed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation (“business service provider”) contracts to provide services to another such business (“contracting business”), the determination of employee or independent contractor status of the business services provider shall be governed by Borello, if the contracting business demonstrates that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
    (A) The business service provider is free from the control and direction of the contracting business entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
    (B) The business service provider is providing services directly to the contracting business rather than to customers of the contracting business.
    (C) The contract with the business service provider is in writing.
    (D) If the work is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the business service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the business service provider has the required business license or business tax registration.
    (E) The business service provider maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contracting business.
    (F) The business service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    (G) The business service provider actually contracts with other businesses to provide the same or similar services and maintains a clientele without restrictions from the hiring entity.
    (H) The business service provider advertises and holds itself out to the public as available to provide the same or similar services.
    (I) The business service provider provides its own tools, vehicles, and equipment to perform the services.
    (J) The business service provider can negotiate its own rates.
    (K) Consistent with the nature of the work, the business service provider can set its own hours and location of work.
    (L) The business service provider is not performing the type of work for which a license from the Contractor’s State License Board is required, pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code.
    (2) This subdivision does not apply to an individual worker, as opposed to a business entity, who performs labor or services for a contracting business.
    (3) The determination of whether an individual working for a business service provider is an employee or independent contractor of the business service provider is governed by paragraph (1) of subdivision (a).
    (4) This subdivision does not alter or supersede any existing rights under Section 2810.3.
    (f) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to the relationship between a contractor and an individual performing work pursuant to a subcontract in the construction industry, and instead the determination of whether the individual is an employee of the contractor shall be governed by Section 2750.5 and by Borello, if the contractor demonstrates that all the following criteria are satisfied:
    (1) The subcontract is in writing.
    (2) The subcontractor is licensed by the Contractors State License Board and the work is within the scope of that license.
    (3) If the subcontractor is domiciled in a jurisdiction that requires the subcontractor to have a business license or business tax registration, the subcontractor has the required business license or business tax registration.
    (4) The subcontractor maintains a business location that is separate from the business or work location of the contractor.
    (5) The subcontractor has the authority to hire and to fire other persons to provide or to assist in providing the services.
    (6) The subcontractor assumes financial responsibility for errors or omissions in labor or services as evidenced by insurance, legally authorized indemnity obligations, performance bonds, or warranties relating to the labor or services being provided.
    (7) The subcontractor is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    (8) (A) Paragraph (2) shall not apply to a subcontractor providing construction trucking services for which a contractor’s license is not required by Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, provided that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
    (i) The subcontractor is a business entity formed as a sole proprietorship, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation.
    (ii) For work performed after January 1, 2020, the subcontractor is registered with the Department of Industrial Relations as a public works contractor pursuant to Section 1725.5, regardless of whether the subcontract involves public work.
    (iii) The subcontractor utilizes its own employees to perform the construction trucking services, unless the subcontractor is a sole proprietor who operates their own truck to perform the entire subcontract and holds a valid motor carrier permit issued by the Department of Motor Vehicles.
    (iv) The subcontractor negotiates and contracts with, and is compensated directly by, the licensed contractor.
    (B) For work performed after January 1, 2020, any business entity that provides construction trucking services to a licensed contractor utilizing more than one truck shall be deemed the employer for all drivers of those trucks.
    (C) For purposes of this paragraph, “construction trucking services” mean hauling and trucking services provided in the construction industry pursuant to a contract with a licensed contractor utilizing vehicles that require a commercial driver’s license to operate or have a gross vehicle weight rating of 26,001 or more pounds.
    (D) This paragraph shall only apply to work performed before January 1, 2022.
    (E) Nothing in this paragraph prohibits an individual who owns their truck from working as an employee of a trucking company and utilizing that truck in the scope of that employment. An individual employee providing their own truck for use by an employer trucking company shall be reimbursed by the trucking company for the reasonable expense incurred for the use of the employee owned truck.
    (g) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to the relationship between a referral agency and a service provider, as defined below, under the following conditions:
    (1) If a business entity formed as a sole proprietor, partnership, limited liability company, limited liability partnership, or corporation (“service provider”) provides services to clients through a referral agency, the determination whether the service provider is an employee of the referral agency shall be governed by Borello, if the referral agency demonstrates that all of the following criteria are satisfied:
    (A) The service provider is free from the control and direction of the referral agency in connection with the performance of the work for the client, both as a matter of contract and in fact.
    (B) If the work for the client is performed in a jurisdiction that requires the service provider to have a business license or business tax registration, the service provider has the required business license or business tax registration.
    (C) If the work for the client requires the service provider to hold a state contractor’s license pursuant to Chapter 9 (commencing with Section 7000) of Division 3 of the Business and Professions Code, the service provider has the required contractor’s license.
    (D) The service provider delivers services to the client under service provider’s name, rather than under the name of the referral agency.
    (E) The service provider provides its own tools and supplies to perform the services.
    (F) The service provider is customarily engaged in an independently established business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the client.
    (G) The service provider maintains a clientele without any restrictions from the referral agency and the service provider is free to seek work elsewhere, including through a competing agency.
    (H) The service provider sets its own hours and terms of work and is free to accept or reject clients and contracts.
    (I) The service provider sets its own rates for services performed, without deduction by the referral agency.
    (J) The service provider is not penalized in any form for rejecting clients or contracts. This subparagraph does not apply if the service provider accepts a client or contract and then fails to fulfill any of its contractual obligations.
    (2) For purposes of this subdivision, the following definitions apply:
    (A) “Animal services” means services related to daytime and nighttime pet care including pet boarding under Section 122380 of the Health and Safety Code.
    (B) “Client” means a person or business that engages a service contractor through a referral agency.
    (C) “Referral agency” is a business that connects clients with service providers that provide graphic design, photography, tutoring, event planning, minor home repair, moving, home cleaning, errands, furniture assembly, animal services, dog walking, dog grooming, web design, picture hanging, pool cleaning, or yard cleanup.
    (D) “Referral agency contract” is the agency’s contract with clients and service contractors governing the use of its intermediary services described in subparagraph (C).
    (E) “Service provider” means a person or business who agrees to the referral agency’s contract and uses the referral agency to connect with clients.
    (F) “Tutor” means a person who develops and teaches their own curriculum. A “tutor” does not include a person who teaches a curriculum created by a public school or who contracts with a public school through a referral company for purposes of teaching students of a public school.
    (3) This subdivision does not apply to an individual worker, as opposed to a business entity, who performs services for a client through a referral agency. The determination whether such an individual is an employee of a referral agency is governed by subdivision (a).
    (h) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to the relationship between a motor club holding a certificate of authority issued pursuant to Chapter 2 (commencing with Section 12160) of Part 5 of Division 2 of the Insurance Code and an individual performing services pursuant to a contract between the motor club and a third party to provide motor club services utilizing the employees and vehicles of the third party and, instead, the determination whether such an individual is an employee of the motor club shall be governed by Borello, if the motor club demonstrates that the third party is a separate and independent business from the motor club.
    (i) (1) The addition of subdivision (a) to this section of the Labor Code by this act does not constitute a change in, but is declaratory of, existing law with regard to wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission and violations of the Labor Code relating to wage orders.
    (2) Insofar as the application of subdivisions (b), (c), (d), (e), (f), (g), and (h) of this section would relieve an employer from liability, those subdivisions shall apply retroactively to existing claims and actions to the maximum extent permitted by law.
    (3) Except as provided in paragraphs (1) and (2) of this subdivision, the provisions of this section of the Labor Code shall apply to work performed on or after January 1, 2020.
    (j) In addition to any other remedies available, an action for injunctive relief to prevent the continued misclassification of employees as independent contractors may be prosecuted against the putative employer in a court of competent jurisdiction by the Attorney General or by a city attorney of a city having a population in excess of 750,000, or by a city attorney in a city and county or, with the consent of the district attorney, by a city prosecutor in a city having a full-time city prosecutor in the name of the people of the State of California upon their own complaint or upon the complaint of a board, officer, person, corporation, or association.

    SEC. 3. Section 3351 of the Labor Code, as amended by Section 33 of Chapter 38 of the Statutes of 2019, is amended to read:

    3351. “Employee” means every person in the service of an employer under any appointment or contract of hire or apprenticeship, express or implied, oral or written, whether lawfully or unlawfully employed, and includes:
    (a) Aliens and minors.
    (b) All elected and appointed paid public officers.
    (c) All officers and members of boards of directors of quasi-public or private corporations while rendering actual service for the corporations for pay. An officer or member of a board of directors may elect to be excluded from coverage in accordance with paragraph (16), (18), or (19) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352.
    (d) Except as provided in paragraph (8) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352, any person employed by the owner or occupant of a residential dwelling whose duties are incidental to the ownership, maintenance, or use of the dwelling, including the care and supervision of children, or whose duties are personal and not in the course of the trade, business, profession, or occupation of the owner or occupant.
    (e) All persons incarcerated in a state penal or correctional institution while engaged in assigned work or employment as defined in paragraph (1) of subdivision (a) of Section 10021 of Title 8 of the California Code of Regulations, or engaged in work performed under contract.
    (f) All working members of a partnership or limited liability company receiving wages irrespective of profits from the partnership or limited liability company. A general partner of a partnership or a managing member of a limited liability company may elect to be excluded from coverage in accordance with paragraph (17) of subdivision (a) of Section 3352.
    (g) A person who holds the power to revoke a trust, with respect to shares of a private corporation held in trust or general partnership or limited liability company interests held in trust. To the extent that this person is deemed to be an employee described in subdivision (c) or (f), as applicable, the person may also elect to be excluded from coverage as described in subdivision (c) or (f), as applicable, if that person otherwise meets the criteria for exclusion, as described in Section 3352.
    (h) A person committed to a state hospital facility under the State Department of State Hospitals, as defined in Section 4100 of the Welfare and Institutions Code, while engaged in and assigned work in a vocation rehabilitation program, including a sheltered workshop.
    (i) Beginning on July 1, 2020, any individual who is an employee pursuant to Section 2750.3. This subdivision shall not apply retroactively.

    SEC. 4. Section 606.5 of the Unemployment Insurance Code is amended to read:

    606.5. (a) Whether an individual or entity is the employer of specific employees shall be determined pursuant to subdivision (b) of Section 621, except as provided in subdivisions (b) and (c).
    (b) As used in this section, a “temporary services employer” and a “leasing employer” is an employing unit that contracts with clients or customers to supply workers to perform services for the client or customer and performs all of the following functions:
    (1) Negotiates with clients or customers for such matters as time, place, type of work, working conditions, quality, and price of the services.
    (2) Determines assignments or reassignments of workers, even though workers retain the right to refuse specific assignments.
    (3) Retains the authority to assign or reassign a worker to other clients or customers when a worker is determined unacceptable by a specific client or customer.
    (4) Assigns or reassigns the worker to perform services for a client or customer.
    (5) Sets the rate of pay of the worker, whether or not through negotiation.
    (6) Pays the worker from its own account or accounts.
    (7) Retains the right to hire and terminate workers.
    (c) If an individual or entity contracts to supply an employee to perform services for a customer or client, and is a leasing employer or a temporary services employer, the individual or entity is the employer of the employee who performs the services. If an individual or entity contracts to supply an employee to perform services for a client or customer and is not a leasing employer or a temporary services employer, the client or customer is the employer of the employee who performs the services. An individual or entity that contracts to supply an employee to perform services for a customer or client and pays wages to the employee for the services, but is not a leasing employer or a temporary services employer, pays the wages as the agent of the employer.
    (d) In circumstances which are in essence the loan of an employee from one employer to another employer wherein direction and control of the manner and means of performing the services changes to the employer to whom the employee is loaned, the loaning employer shall continue to be the employer of the employee if the loaning employer continues to pay remuneration to the employee, whether or not reimbursed by the other employer. If the employer to whom the employee is loaned pays remuneration to the employee for the services performed, that employer shall be considered the employer for the purposes of any remuneration paid to the employee by the employer, regardless of whether the loaning employer also pays remuneration to the employee.

    SEC. 5. Section 621 of the Unemployment Insurance Code is amended to read:

    621. “Employee” means all of the following:
    (a) Any officer of a corporation.
    (b) Any individual providing labor or services for remuneration has the status of an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates all of the following conditions:
    (1) The individual is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
    (2) The individual performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
    (3) The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.
    (c) (1) Any individual, other than an individual who is an employee under subdivision (a) or (b), who performs services for remuneration for any employing unit if the contract of service contemplates that substantially all of those services are to be performed personally by that individual either:
    (A) As an agent-driver or commission-driver engaged in distributing meat products, vegetable products, fruit products, bakery products, beverages (other than milk), or laundry or drycleaning services, for their principal.
    (B) As a traveling or city salesperson, other than as an agent-driver or commission-driver, engaged upon a full-time basis in the solicitation on behalf of, and the transmission to, their principal (except for sideline sales activities on behalf of some other person) of orders from wholesalers, retailers, contractors, or operators of hotels, restaurants, or other similar establishments for merchandise for resale or supplies for use in their business operations.
    (C) As a home worker performing work, according to specifications furnished by the person for whom the services are performed, on materials or goods furnished by that person that are required to be returned to that person or a designee thereof.
    (2) An individual shall not be included in the term “employee” under the provisions of this subdivision if that individual has a substantial investment in facilities used in connection with the performance of those services, other than in facilities for transportation, or if the services are in the nature of a single transaction not part of a continuing relationship with the employing unit for whom the services are performed.
    (d) Any individual who is an employee pursuant to Section 601.5 or 686.
    (e) Any individual whose services are in subject employment pursuant to an election for coverage under any provision of Article 4 (commencing with Section 701) of this chapter.
    (f) Any member of a limited liability company that is treated as a corporation for federal income tax purposes.

    SEC. 6. No provision of this measure shall permit an employer to reclassify an individual who was an employee on January 1, 2019, to an independent contractor due to this measure’s enactment.
    SEC. 7. No reimbursement is required by this act pursuant to Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution because the only costs that may be incurred by a local agency or school district will be incurred because this act creates a new crime or infraction, eliminates a crime or infraction, or changes the penalty for a crime or infraction, within the meaning of Section 17556 of the Government Code, or changes the definition of a crime within the meaning of Section 6 of Article XIII B of the California Constitution.”

    NOW EVERYONE CAN READ IT AND FOLLOW ALONG ! Now SMILE(wink)

    In my humble opinion ……………

    1. PAY ATTENTION TO THIS PART !

      Quote:

      “(E) Nothing in this paragraph prohibits an individual who owns their truck from working as an employee of a trucking company and utilizing that truck in the scope of that employment. An individual employee providing their own truck for use by an employer trucking company shall be reimbursed by the trucking company for the reasonable expense incurred for the use of the employee owned truck.”

      Therefore , you will need to speak with your “employer” , if that’s how YOU CHOOSE to position yourself, concerning reimbursement for your “reasonable” expenses incurred for the use of your truck . If your employer TRUCKING COMPANY wants you to use your own truck , then you’re employer will need to cover the costs . Otherwise don’t use your truck to service that employer and go somewhere else .

      So reimbursement of your truck costs(all that it implies) plus you’ll get a wage and BENEFITS ! What more do YOU want ??? You’re getting the best of both worlds ! You can be an “employee” and drive your own truck and your employer will pay for all the “reasonable” costs in regards to the use of your truck that services their needs !

      Plates , insurance , fuel , wear & tear , etc ! Most carriers are paying that already in part and giving you a “rate” . Now you’ll get a “wage” , PLUS covered costs , and BENEFITS !

      Anyone not happy with that sort of an arrangement has been sitting under an apple tree on an extremely windy day for a little to long !

      In my humble opinion ………….

  3. Let’s take a look at what the OOIDA has to say .

    Quote:

    “the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association takes a more wait-and-see attitude regarding how the new law will affect trucking. OOIDA told its California members, “We see it as self-inflicted by motor carriers after decades of treating drivers like indentured servants, perpetuating an environment with awful working conditions, and a failure to pay drivers anything close to a living wage. We know there is a concern that it might be difficult for many owner-operators and motor carriers to comply with the part ‘B’ requirement. At this time, we think that’s a premature assumption.

    “However, should this new law negatively impact legitimate independent owner-operators, we will challenge it in every way possible,” OOIDA said. “Our hope is that it will force motor carriers in California to rethink the way they treat drivers and either hire them as employees or restructure traditional lease agreements to give owner-operators real independence.  It’s also possible we’ll see wages increase as a result.”

    And another :

    Quote:

    “Some trucking groups claim California’s recent bill to change the way workers are classified will be the death of the owner-operator model in the state. Leaders of the Owner-Operator Independent Drivers Association say that isn’t the case.
    The state senate on Sept. 11, approved Assembly Bill 5, which codifies the California Supreme Court’s decision in the controversial Dynamex case. The bill, which isn’t exclusive to trucking, now awaits the signature of Gov. Gavin Newsom.

    “There have been people predicting doom on the horizon pretty much the entire time I’ve been involved in trucking, which is a really long time now,” OOIDA President and CEO Todd Spencer told Land Line Now’s Mark Reddig on Monday, Sept. 16. “Realistically, that’s just not the case. It just means that business will be done in a different way.”

    How it started
    In 2018, the California Supreme Court’s Dynamex decision established the ABC test, which considers all workers to be employees unless the hiring business demonstrates that all of the factors are established:
    A. That the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact.
    B. That the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business.
    C. That the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.

    Spencer said that in the past it was not uncommon for owner-operators leased to a carrier to be employees of that carrier.
    “It was common. Before deregulation, that’s how it worked,” Spencer said. “And while it’s not common today, I do know these relationships exist.

    “Will things be done a little differently if (the California bill) is actually implemented? Sure, but it just simply means that some things will change. There will always be owner-operator truckers, simply because they will generally always be the most efficient way to move goods from point A to point B. And there will always be niches for them. The ‘doomsdayers’ can have their day, but that won’t be how it will end up.”

     ‘Rigged’
    The California bill was introduced by Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, D-San Diego. In trucking, specifically, California motor carriers have been accused of misclassifying drivers for years. The issue entered the spotlight in 2017 when USA Today published a four-part investigative report titled “Rigged” about how truck drivers are treated on the California ports. The series included claims that truckers were bringing home as little as 67 cents per week in bad lease-purchase agreements and that trucking companies were forcing drivers to work against their will – up to 20 hours a day – by threatening to take their trucks and keep the money paid toward buying them.

    “We used to have members who worked the ports in L.A. and Long Beach, but we’ve had none for a long, long time simply because carriers who worked those areas were the best – or the worst depending on your perspective – at basically fleecing truckers,” Spencer said. “They were creating relationships where the only real beneficiary would be the carrier.
    “Things have a way of reaching out and grabbing a lot of us if you let these injustices go on too long, and that happened in California. We are going to have defenders of the status quo saying ‘Oh my God, this terrible.’ But this is kind of a natural blowback from policies that have been going on way too long that are really nothing more than injustices. We’re going to start moving in the other direction. We’ll see how this stuff shakes out.”

    Court battle looms
    Mike Matousek, OOIDA’s manager of government affairs, said many industries are likely to take this issue to court.
    “We’ve heard the fear mongering, and a lot of people are trying to predict what’s next in trucking,” Matousek said. “What we generally know is that there are going to be some sort of changes and those changes don’t have to be bad. These changes could be very good for owner-operators, for employee drivers, and for all drivers for that matter.
    “It will be interesting to see how carriers in California will react to this. There will be some sort of change, but I think it’s way too early to say that it will be the end of the owner-operator model as we know it in California. This will play out in the courts for years to come. We will be following it, and we will have the opportunity to weigh in at court if we want to, and we certainly reserve that right.”

    OOIDA also addressed the issue in a letter to its California members.
    “In trucking, the concern is that it might be difficult for many owner-operators and motor carriers to comply with (the B prong) requirement,” OOIDA wrote. “At this time, we think that’s a premature assumption. However, should this new law negatively impact legitimate independent owner-operators, rest assured OOIDA will challenge it in every way possible.”

    From my perspective that Todd Spencer fellow is wise . He’s not emotional ,he’s rational . And I agree with him !

    In my humble opinion ………..

  4. I’ve been working for the ports of Long beach for the past 20 years as a owner Operator/ Independent contractor I’ve always paid for insurance cargo, trailer, interchange and liability also road tax. My question is with this new law AB 5 I’m gonna continue as an independent contractor, who who’s supposed to pay the insurance of cargo, trailer and interchange and road tax when the containers of the ports were hauling ain’t ours???

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Close