California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers. – The New York Times

By | January 2, 2020

Steve Smith, a spokesman for the California Labor Federation, which advised lawmakers on A.B. 5, conceded that the law was somewhat ambiguous in this area and that the State Legislature should clarify issues like this in the coming years. “There are going to be unintended consequences with a law like this,” he said. “We want to do everything we can to make sure we’re addressing the right problems and not having any adverse effects on workers.”

Source: California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers. – The New York Times

It seems to me that there should be a probationary period for new policies like this. These kinds of big-shift laws need to have a statement of the actual, boots-on-the-ground effect the change is intended to have, and a timeframe for when we should be able to judge whether or not it is succeeding by that measure. At the end of this period, there should be an automatic default: either the law becomes permanent, or it gets scrapped, depending. If it’s succeeding, and not burdened by excessive unintended consequences, then let it stand. But if it’s hurting more people than it’s helping, then let it automatically lapse, and allow things go back to the way they were. This just seems sensible to me. Why is this not a thing?

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.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