The Assembly Bill 5 that was signed into law was done with a vision to improve the working condition, benefits, and ultimately the lives of working citizens. While this is a good vision and goal, an analysis of the signed bill speaks otherwise. The bill proposes that one is a gig worker only if he or she does not have to operate under the control of the hirer, offers a service that is not the same as that of the hirer, and operates as an independent service provider with similar nature of the work done by the hirer. However, if this law is upheld, how long will it take before a gig worker becomes a traditional employee?
A gig economy worker is more like a freelancer or a contractor that works independently. So, although they could work or carry out one task or the other for an employer, they do not commit full-time to any one particular company or organization. In as much as this working pattern does not sound as secure as a traditional full-time job with a single employer, there are those who have made the deliberate choice to work like that. One of the reasons for such a decision amongst so many others is the flexibility of time on the path of the worker. This means that even if these gig workers do not get some of these special benefits, they find the working condition and hours quite satisfactory. Now, with the signing of Assembly Bill 5 into law, much is changed and affected.
One of the ways in which the high rate and negative effects of unemployment have been dealt with over time is through contract services. As freelancers or gig workers, people offer contract services to interested employers even though they are not employed full-time. This has greatly supported the growth of the economy as it has given a lot of the unemployed a way to earn. However, if what it means to be an independent worker is redefined to something very rigid, then independent service providers like uber drivers, would automatically be unemployed.
Some companies would be put out of business completely. It is a clear fact that there are some companies that cannot afford to hire and pay staffers permanently. Hence, they employ staffers that are needed to play key roles and then work with independent service providers for other needs. The implication of this law for companies in this category is that it is either they are forced to employ these former freelance workers as full-time employees or they leave the state. Since the initial reason for not employing staffers full-time was the challenge of finances, the most feasible option for them would be to leave the state.
There may have been good intentions with Assembly Bill 5 as claimed by the California state governor. Nonetheless, every indication clearly points to the fact that the newly enacted law was a bad decision.
