Government outlaws freelance work

submitted by neto from (unionleader.com)

sorted by:
top
newinsightfulfun
you are viewing a single comment's thread.

view the rest of the comments →

[–]whistlepig 2 insightful - 1 fun2 insightful - 0 fun3 insightful - 1 fun -  (4 children)

Wondering if people registering themselves as an LLC is an option in California?

Still a pain of course... but would that help most? Or is it not so simple in California?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (3 children)

That would certainly get you around the law. In fact all the freelance workers can "work" for the same LLC. The LLC would be the "full time" employer and they can pay dues to fund all the government imposed benefits they get. The freelancer would still do the same work but the check would get made out to the LLC and then get paid out to the freelancer. It's a doable system. The problem is that the actual cost of the government imposed benefits would mean that the freelancers won't be able to afford the necessary dues to pay for such a system.

But hey, as long as the evil rich people aren't taking advantage of the now unemployed and destitute masses I guess that's progress.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (2 children)

Those are some interesting ideas. I suppose they could keep the cost down by doing it in a co-op sort of way. Also, different states may be different, but where I'm at having the check written to your name opposed to the LLC name isn't a problem.

cost of the government imposed benefits

This is where I'm getting confused then. Wouldn't this mean that all businesses would have to charge for benefits when selling their product or services? My thinking was that the LLC thing would change it from freelance work to an invoiced service being sold. I'm in the graphics field and this is how I'm doing it. I'm not getting a 1099 from any of my clients anymore than McDonald's expects to get 1099's for selling you a hamburger.

now that I'm writing out my thoughts... does this mean that there is already California legislation forcing all businesses (including LLCs) to provide these benefits even if is owner operated and there are no employees?

[–]Canbot 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (1 child)

Any company with over 5 employees is required to provide certain benefits. The LLC would be responsible to provide those benefits. But I see your point about having a company with just you as an employee. Besides the paperwork being different and having to jump through all the hoops of forming a company I don't see why everyone can't just become their own company.

It guess it depends how the legislation is worded, but given that independent contractor is a form of owner operator and truckers (who generally have to set up LLCs to register their trucks) had to get special exemptions, my guess is that this loop hole is not viable. My guess is that if the customer is a company with more than 5 employees the LLC (or independent contractor) they are working with will no longer be allowed the "less than 5 employee" exemptions.

[–]whistlepig 1 insightful - 1 fun1 insightful - 0 fun2 insightful - 1 fun -  (0 children)

Yea... I foresee the employee number "exemption" to not last very long unless there is a gross amount of public kickback regarding this. I pray this craziness doesn't spread to where I'm at. It would put me out of business. I haven't been able to afford health insurance since Obama outlawed my plan. Or at least not afford it and afford other things I value more like building my savings.