Search results
Results from the WOW.Com Content Network
Several Uber drivers have claimed to be employees, despite their classification as independent contractors. Some of the drivers sued after California passed a law aimed at requiring gig economy companies to classify workers as employees that took effect January 1, 2020. [13] Likewise, many more workers in the gig economy are making similar claims.
The distinction between independent contractor and employee is an important one in the United States, as the costs for business owners to maintain employees are significantly higher than the costs associated with hiring independent contractors, due to federal and state requirements for employers to pay FICA (Social Security and Medicare taxes) and unemployment taxes on received income for ...
California Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman issued his ruling on August 10, 2020, stating that Uber and Lyft must treat their drivers as employees under AB-5, as their work in the context of the "ABC test" was not outside the usual course of their business, nor was a "multi-sided platform" as Uber and Lyft had argued but simply ...
A driver for Uber is an employee, not a contractor, according to a California ruling that eventually could push up costs for the smartphone-based ride hailing service and hurt the closely watched ...
The Act requires general contractors and subcontractors performing services on prime contracts in excess of $2,500 to pay service employees in various classes no less than the wage rates and fringe benefits found prevailing in the locality as determined by the United States Department of Labor, or the rates contained in a predecessor contractor's collective bargaining agreement.
A leading court decision discussing the conflict between California law and the laws of other states is the 1998 California 4th District Court of Appeal decision Application Group, Inc. v. Hunter Group, Inc. [18] In Hunter, a Maryland company required that its Maryland-based employee agree to a one-year non-compete agreement. The contract ...
The Boston Harbor reclamation project that began in the 1980s became the focus of debate over the legality of PLAs. [12] [13] When the Massachusetts Water Resources Authority elected to use a PLA for the project that mandated union-only labor, [14] the Associated Builders and Contractors of Massachusetts/Rhode Island, Inc. challenged its legality, asserting that the use of a PLA was prohibited ...
If you want to spook a California state employee, just utter the words “revenue shortfall.” ... But as of Oct. 25, California had only collected $18 billion — a far cry from the $42 billion ...