Attempts to classify Leased Operators as Employees continues

Alright, I'm a little slow here. Who is being FORCED to do anything? Those people made a choice.....a bad one, but the choice was theirs to make. Nobody forces anybody to do anything. They willingly entered into a contract. There was no gun to their head. I have a hard time believing your line of logic. We live in a day and age where we have an unlimited amount of info at our fingertips at any given time. Stupid people doing stupid things and people taking advantage of that is nothing new and certainly not limited to trucking or lease purchase. I choose personal responsibility. Nobody made anybody do anything.

 

So, here's some thoughts after reading the actual proposed rule.

It appears as though this regulation will actually benefit L/Os. It specifically addresses the definition of economic dependence, with an aim to provide clarity and further distinction between an independent contractor and an employee. It goes into detail, explaining the discussion and decision making process behind the regulation, with a clear emphasis on defining economic dependence, as meaning more directly, dependence for work.

The rule will place a strong emphasis on flexibility in determining wether or not a person is an independent contractor vs. an employee. This could potentially bring a great benefit to a L/O, by prohibiting a lessee from requirements to only haul in house freight, or requirements to generate a certain amount of revenue, or any other mandate a company may attempt to place on a lessor.

It does not follow California's ABC test, which places an incorrect definition on integral work, gives integral work the same or greater weight, and does not consider wether a company has employees doing the same work. Rather, it states that integral work would have a lesser bearing on determination vs. economic reality. It also explains that integral work, would mean a person being placed next to an employee, doing the same work, with the same requirements. In other words, the company treating two persons the same in practicality, but compensating with different classifications.

It doesn't say a company can't have an employee and an independent contractor working side by side. The difference, would be wether or not the independent contractor, has the ability to manage themselves, determine their own profit and loss, and have flexibility.

So, how about we go actually read the regulation, then discuss what's actually in it.

 

Well I read the act, it is trying to right a wrong that doesn’t exist in most industries.

Your right, it could potentially bring a ‘great’ benefit but reality is the more requirement to allow latitude outside of the need of the carrier, the less lease operators will be seeked out and that means larger fleets.

This already exists, it is the foundation of the relationship between the lease holder and rye company, they are for the most part independent.

what we will see is closing the doors on people who accept the situation of being an independent contractor and use it to their benefit all for a very small group of people who don’t understand what an independent contractor is.

 

The problem with the Cali ABC test [NJ is jumping on the same test] is the fact that the Independent contractor is hired to perform a service the company does not perform.

A trucking company hiring another person to truck for them does not meet the criteria.

Here in NJ the teamsters have been telling the legiscritters that ALL of the owner operators should be employees, just look at all the unemployment and disability fund moneys that are not being collected. Freddy Potter thinks making the 8500 independent port drivers employees by government mandate will make 8500 new teamsters that can be fleeced.

No way we can hire enough drivers to do what our owner operators can do, even if we could afford to add 70 - 80 trucks to our fleet so they are screwing around with the largest port on the east coast while another half dozen ports from Baltimore to Florida are drooling over the potential business they stand to gain.

Politicians and diapers [as well as teamster business agents] need to be changed often.

 

We really need good hard definitions as to who is and who is not an owner operator.

I can tell you for sure the guy who has a title for the tractor in his name is definitely an owner operator. The guy doing a lease purchase through his carrier is definitely not an owner operator.

It's all the guys somewhere between they're going to be tough to classify.

The guy who goes out and buys a tractor on his own with private financing through a third party,, yeah I would say he's an owner operator. But how close can that private lender's relationship be to the carrier that said owner operator intends to work for?

I would think the definition is going to have to be somewhere along the lines of can the guy cancel his lease, sign another lease with another company, change placards and go to work?

It's all a tricky area,and the big mega carriers have lots of people in the legal department working at making the area even trickier.

 

It's about Uber money. They don't pay taxes, with all the write offs. Then it expanded it too contractors. Greedy California people.

 

You need to understand what the intent of the legislation is. Its all about control for the government. Taking away the power of the people and securing it for the government. They are doing it now and if we sit and do nothing our children will be Soviet slaves. Its coming