Labor Dept. Says Workers at a Gig Company Are Contractors


The Labor Department weighed in Monday on a query whose reply could possibly be price billions of to gig-economy corporations, deciding that one firm’s staff had been contractors, not workers.

As a consequence, the unidentified firm — whose staff, it seems, clear residences — won’t have to supply the federal minimal wage or extra time, or pay a share of Social Security taxes. And whereas the choice formally applies solely to that firm, authorized specialists stated it was more likely to have an effect on a a lot bigger portion of the business.

The transfer alerts the Trump administration’s strategy to the way in which gig corporations, a rising share of the economic system, should deal with their work power. As corporations like Uber and Lyft start to promote shares to the general public, business officers estimate that requiring them to categorise their staff as workers would elevate their labor prices by 20 to 30 %.

“Today, the U.S. Department of Labor offers further insight into the nexus of current labor law and innovations in the job market,” Keith Sonderling, an official within the division that oversees such points, stated in a assertion. It is a longstanding coverage for the division to not disclose the names of corporations receiving such letters.

“It is outrageous for the Department of Labor to set policy in such an important area through the device of an opinion letter,” Mr. Weil said. “The Obama administration discontinued opinion letters precisely because they are a capricious tool for settling complicated regulatory questions.”

Kathleen M. Anderson, a partner at the law firm Barnes & Thornburg, who represents employers in misclassification cases, agreed that the department appeared to have broader policy ambitions in devising its letter.

“This doesn’t read like a normal opinion letter,” Ms. Anderson said. “You go back historically to most opinion letters and they are short, defined, with multiple disclaimers. This is expansive — it’s back to the basics, applicable to numerous situations.”

Based on the description in the opinion letter, the company that sought it is evidently not Lyft, which went public in March, or Uber, which plans to go public in the coming weeks.

But the letter could nonetheless have important implications for these companies. Uber, in its filing for a public offering, told prospective investors that having to classify drivers as employees would cause it to “incur significant additional expenses” and “require us to fundamentally change our business model, and consequently have an adverse effect on our business and financial condition.”

Lyft has made similar statements.

In recent years, both companies and a variety of other gig-economy operations have been aggressive in seeking legislation and regulatory rulings to ensure that their workers are classified as contractors.

There are no precise figures for the number of workers in the nation’s online gig economy, but an estimate based on the methodology of two former Obama administration officials suggests there are one million to five million at any time. Other researchers have produced similar estimates.

In its letter, the department wrote that the company “does not impose requirements on how its service providers must perform their work, such as what transportation route to take, the order in which to clean an apartment” or the type of materials they must use. The description suggested that it was referring to a company, like Handy or TaskRabbit, whose platform allows customers to hire cleaners.

Sharon Block, a top official in the Obama Labor Department who is executive director of the Labor and Worklife Program at Harvard Law School, said it was hard to tell from the facts in the Labor Department’s letter whether the workers using the platform in question were truly independent contractors. But she said there seemed to be a stronger case to make for contractor status in that case than for Uber.

Still, she speculated that the finding could be procedurally useful for the department if it later sought to deem Uber drivers to be independent contractors.

“This as a strategy makes sense,” Ms. Block said. “They set the standard in a way that makes it really clear this company gets past it, and in a way that’s going to help them in the harder cases.”

The department could subsequently argue, in effect, that Uber’s business model largely overlaps with the business model of the company in question, and conclude that its workers are contractors as well.

Uber declined to comment, and Lyft said it had no immediate comment. Those companies could ask the department for a similar letter, which could help ease the anxieties of investors about profitability were the department to provide a favorable opinion.

Decisions about employment status typically hinge on several factors, including the extent to which the prospective employer controls how the worker does his or her job, and how central the job the worker performs is to the company’s business.

In explaining its conclusion about the company in question, the department cited the fact that workers had the freedom to choose when, where and how long they worked; the fact that they provided their own equipment; and the fact that the company did not have a mandatory training program.

The department also said the workers were not an integral part of the company’s business because they “do not develop, maintain or otherwise operate” the platform that connects them with customers.

All of these factors would apply to Uber and Lyft drivers as well, though some worker advocates questioned the department’s reasoning in applying them in this case. Catherine Ruckelshaus, general counsel of the National Employment Law Project, said it defied common sense to assert that people who found work through a gig company that dispatched cleaners to customers’ homes weren’t central to its business.

“It’s a narrow parsing of the business of this company,” Ms. Ruckelshaus said. “It’s a huge red flag.”

The department did cite a handful of ways in which the business in question appears to differ somewhat from Lyft or Uber. For example, workers on the platform have some room for negotiating pay, although the company provides default prices, and are permitted to schedule future jobs with the same customer without using the platform.

Ms. Anderson, the management-side lawyer, said that the workers were clearly contractors based on all the factors that the department considered, and that the case of workers on a platform like Uber might be less clear.

But Ms. Ruckelshaus questioned whether the differences between the company and Uber were meaningful in practice. A customer shown a price for a service may be unwilling to pay more if a worker tries to bargain, she said, leaving the cleaner without much more control over pay than an Uber driver.



Source link Nytimes.com

Get more stuff like this

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.

Leave a Reply

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

Get more stuff like this
in your inbox

Subscribe to our mailing list and get interesting stuff and updates to your email inbox.