The law is intended to reduce worker misclassification, making it harder for companies to treat workers as independent contractors. It establishes a test to determine whether workers are employees who should receive minimum wage, paid sick days and other benefits.
1 comment:
"My first inclination is that this law (or similar) could be good, eventually, for artists in the long run. That being said, the implimentation and details of this particular law are clearly having catastrophic consequences for artists in California. When introducing bills like this, lawmakers need to make sure that there aren't massive ambiguities that effect whole industries. This needed to be thought out and modeled. The entertainment industry simply isn't equipped to pay artists as employees under the guidelines laid down here.
It does beg the question, however, ""why not?"" It seems only fair that many of the artists in question should be paid as employees. The inevitable conclusion is that employers can't afford that, but this should lead to a second why. The end of this line of questioning is that we simply don't value art or artists as much as we need to, if we want to consume the amount of art that we do and if as many of us want to be artists as we do. There is obviously no easy fix for this problem. The easiest is probably massive public funding, but easiest doesn't mean easy, and it seems unlikely that the necessary resources would be poured into something like the NEA anytime soon. "
Post a Comment