Possible Corrections To AB 5 Introduced With Two New California Assembly Bills
Two California Assembly Bills were introduced very quickly after the rumble caused by California AB 5 since the Bill became law on January 1, 2020. California Assembly Bill 5 ratified the famous 2018 Dynamex court decision.
Many people in California do not think that AB 5 needs any correction.
An article from WorkCompCentral.com pointed out the two new bills’ introductions (behind a paywall). I will not load in both of the complete new bills. California always has a great useful Legislative Counsel’s digest at the top of most bills.
- AB 1925 appears first. The Bill attempts to exempt small businesses (less than 100 people) from AB 5.
- AB 1928 appears second. This Bill reverses the AB 5 Bill and Dynamex court decision and reverts to the S. G. Borello & Sons, Inc. v. Department of Industrial Relations (1989) court case used to determine who is an independent contractor. Follow the link to the Bill to see the most redlines I have seen in a Bill in a long time.
- A comment that I found in a blog on these two Bills. The comment reeks of the confusion now in California.
Articles on the California Assembly Bills and other changes may be coming to your states if your company has no workers’ comp interests in CA. Some of AB 5 came from Massachusetts. Independent contractor determination Bills have been heavily produced across the nation over the last five years. (coming to a state near you).
These two Bills were introduced within one day of each other. The speed speaks volumes.
Introduced by Assembly Member Obernolte January 14, 2020
Existing law establishes that, for purposes of the Labor Code, the Unemployment Insurance Code, and the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration is considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
Introduced by Assembly Members Kiley and Melendez
(Coauthors: Assembly Members Fong and Gallagher)
(Coauthors: Senators Jones and Moorlach)
January 15, 2020
LEGISLATIVE COUNSEL’S DIGEST
Existing law, as established in the case of Dynamex Operations W. Inc. v. Superior Court (2018) 4 Cal.5th 903 (Dynamex), creates a presumption that a worker who performs services for a hirer is an employee for purposes of claims for wages and benefits arising under wage orders issued by the Industrial Welfare Commission.
Blog Comment Covers The Situation Well
This whole thing just seems awkward.
1. Dynamex for all Labor issues, but Borello for WC.
2. Dynamex for all Labor issues, and Dynamex for WC if there are more than 100 Employees, but Borello for Employers with under 100.
3. Dynamex for Labor and WC if there are more than 100 Employees, but Borello for both if there are less than 100.
©J&L Risk Management Inc Copyright Notice