Become a fan of Slashdot on Facebook

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Government Businesses

Vox Media Fires Hundreds of Freelance Writers, Blaming California's 'Gig Economy' Law (msn.com) 178

Since 2003 Vox Media has been covering California's sports on its SB Nation blogs largely with independent contractors. But they're making big changes to comply with a new California law targetting companies in the gig economy, according to the Los Angeles Times: Vox Media will end contracts with about 200 people, including non-California freelancers who cover teams based in the state, and replace them with 20 new part-time and full-time staffers, according to a source familiar with the decision... In a memo to 2,000 SB Nation contractors scattered across the country -- most of whom will not be affected by the changes -- Ness explained that, under the law, California freelance writers can maintain their status as independent contractors only if they submit no more than 35 pieces per year. Given the pace of sports blogging, many of the writers producing work for SB Nation's California blogs would easily hit that benchmark, the source said. Ness wrote in the memo that California contractors were encouraged to apply for full-time or part-time positions. For those who do not snag a job but want to keep contributing, Ness wrote that "they need to understand they will not be paid for future contributions."

The changes will also affect Curbed and Eater, two other Vox Media sites that employ a handful of freelancers in the state...

AB 5 was hailed as a victory by many Uber, Lyft and DoorDash workers who have protested slashed wages and arbitrary terminations, but it has brought fear for some who worry the law means they will have less flexibility in the hours they can work and restrict their ability to work for multiple platforms... Freelancers also have voiced fears that AB 5 will discourage employers from hiring Californians to avoid additional paperwork and legal liabilities that come with the law, and smaller newspapers and websites may not have the resources to convert freelancers to staff members.

This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Vox Media Fires Hundreds of Freelance Writers, Blaming California's 'Gig Economy' Law

Comments Filter:
  • meh, seems reasonable. The law changes make the current contractors unaffordable. Will always be some shift of employment around these type of changes. Kinda sucks for the contractors but that is the life of a contractor.
    • The life of the contractor doesn't usually include the state pushing laws that deliberately make it harder for them to find work. It's pretty much game over for them in that state; their choices are find full time work, be underemployed and/or legally homeless, or leave the state.

      Many contractors don't like full time work. When you think about it, it's kind of nice being able to just work when you want to and don't when you don't want to. If it weren't for the fact that I have a transplanted kidney and requ

      • The life of the contractor doesn't usually include the state pushing laws that deliberately make it harder for them to find work. It's pretty much game over for them in that state; their choices are find full time work, be underemployed and/or legally homeless, or leave the state.

        Many contractors don't like full time work. When you think about it, it's kind of nice being able to just work when you want to and don't when you don't want to. If it weren't for the fact that I have a transplanted kidney and require health insurance to afford the medication, I would be doing contact work, no question about it. The kind of jobs I could get would pay $90/hr for a project that lasts 6 months, and they come by all the time. That's twice what I make now, meaning I could spend 6 months a year doing whatever the fuck I want without sacrificing anything, or take every summer off for three months and make even more money.

        But no, I'm tied down.

        Why couldn't you just get your own insurance if you would make plenty of money anyway?

  • ...but it doesn't mean its a bad thing. The gig economy has its place but too many people are thinking that it *is* the economy. Or at least what they think it will be in the future. This law just makes it harder for giant companies to save a buck by not paying out health insurance or overtime to people. What the part-time employee was in the 20th century the gig employee is of the 21st century: exploited. People look at 200 jobs turning into 20 jobs and wring their hands. It wasn't 200 jobs worth of work a
    • by samdu ( 114873 )

      No one was forcing those people to contract themselves to Vox. There are upsides to being a contractors that many believe offset the downsides. Freedom being probably the primary one. The government coming in and telling those workers they can't work how they wish is a bad thing, imho.

    • This law just makes it harder for giant companies to save a buck by not paying out health insurance or overtime to people.

      There is nothing in AB5 which specifies company size. I run my family's investment property solo (basically do the accounting). I used to have myself set up as an employee, but switched and made myself a contractor because the state's insurance commission kept trying to bump me into a higher rate classification reserved for office workers who also do manual labor (lifting boxes, chan

    • ...but it doesn't mean its a bad thing. The gig economy has its place but too many people are thinking that it *is* the economy. Or at least what they think it will be in the future. This law just makes it harder for giant companies to save a buck by not paying out health insurance or overtime to people. What the part-time employee was in the 20th century the gig employee is of the 21st century: exploited. People look at 200 jobs turning into 20 jobs and wring their hands. It wasn't 200 jobs worth of work and it certainly wasn't 200 jobs worth of wages. But it was 200 jobs worth benefits savings to Vox, a hundred million dollar company.

      Yes. This.

      Get rid of shitty work that has people working all hours for peanuts when they could be looking for decent jobs. If this law works out, a lot of companies will be creating actual jobs with salaries & benefits & that should offset the thousands of shitty gigs, i.e. each worker doing 10 gigs to get by ends up with one job -- the same amount of work & number of workers, just more efficiently distributed & more fairly paid & regulated.

      • Those 200 people HAD decent jobs!!! Now they don't. Or they have one less job, actually. You people,understand nothing about freelance work. Those 200 writers didn't only write for vox. That was one of many places they wrote articles for. Now they have one less employer and have to compete harder for the remaining article slots available to fee lancers with the other woo who got fucked over. A decent job is not what YOU think a decent job is. Not everyone wants to be a wage slave stuck to a single b
  • So, they fired 200 'gig' workers (aka underpaid people barely surviving) and hired 20 part and full time employees. That's EXACTLY what the law was intended to do. Convince companies to stop spreading out a full time work to 10 individuals.

    Yes, those 180 gig workers have lost probably about 1/10th of a job. But they have the XP to get a real job - or should not be doing it anyway.

    Best of all, those idiots told 1800 other contractors they were screwing over that they don't have to put up with this crap.

    • Re: (Score:3, Insightful)

      by alvinrod ( 889928 )
      I'm sure you'll be just as thrilled when people start telling you how you can or can't sell your labor and screw with your job.

      180 workers now have no job and it's no longer possible for them to get one doing what they've done in California. Sure there are a few additional full-time positions, but the reality is that these companies will still be hiring freelancers, only now none of them will live in California. Maybe some of the former freelancers aren't particularly tied down and will be able to move a
      • To be perfectly honest with you, I actually do like it when people tell me I'm not allowed to work in certain situations. It frees me from having to negotiate on uneven ground with my employer about things like workplace safety and unfair hiring practices.

      • by DRJlaw ( 946416 )

        180 workers now have no job...

        200 gig workers reorganized into 20 full and part time workers means that 180 workers each have 0.1 fewer jobs (FTE) each. While you choose to characterize that as "no job," I have a hard time believing that they were only working 0.1 FTE each. I have a much easier time believing that most were working multiple "jobs" and you're simply glossing over that inconvenient complication.

      • they occasionally had some piece work. That's not a job. That's why we have the phrase "piece work".

        Also given that all the other companies abusing their labor now have to actually, you know, hire people (or go out of business) they're very likely to have jobs soon.
    • Were these underpaid and exploited workers though? I’ve no idea what a writer makes. But we’ve seen a similar progression here: companies fired staff and hired them back as underpaid freelancers, so they could save on pension and social security contributions, and not pay for downtime. These were generally tradesmen or unskilled workers with few options. So a law was made to protect them, basically describing the difference between freelancers and “de facto employees”. The only pro
    • Maybe some of those people donâ(TM)t WANT a part time or time job?

      Maybe they like having freedom and just want to work enough for pocket money, or in addition to whatever real job they have, esp if it means working from home. Now they are just fucked.

    • Why is it desirable to force workers from a job they want while also forcing employers to let them go?
    • You're missing the point. Not everybody *WANTS* a full-time job. Or, sometimes, not everybody wants *ANOTHER* full-time job.

      Now, I personally prefer FTE. I don't enjoy the "business" aspects of being a contractor or consultant. I don't care for the administrative overhead. The taxes are a real PITA vs FTE. Job-hunting is annoying and stressful and I don't care for the constant hustle for the next position after a 3 or 6 or 9 month contract ends. (But, it is important to remember, some people do.). A

    • So, they fired 200 'gig' workers (aka underpaid people barely surviving) and hired 20 part and full time employees. That's EXACTLY what the law was intended to do.

      Not a lot of argument there, except how much the supporters actually thought about other freelancers other than Uber drivers. Since they carved out a lot of exemptions for other favored occupations, my guess is they thought about it but just didn't care.

      Convince companies to stop spreading out a full time work to 10 individuals.

      Yes, those 180 gig workers have lost probably about 1/10th of a job. But they have the XP to get a real job - or should not be doing it anyway.

      "Convince"? "Force" seems more accurate.

      With as much respect as I can muster, this strikes me as the height of arrogance and paternalism. Who in the world are you to say working a 9-5 job is a "real job" and working contract gigs is not? How can you possibly

  • Don't Like gigs? (Score:3, Insightful)

    by Jarwulf ( 530523 ) on Saturday December 21, 2019 @05:48PM (#59545722)
    Don't take them. Don't like driving for Uber? Press the button and turn off the App. I'm amazed that there are entitled brats that have to destroy the opportunity for flexible money for everybody else. Should be focusing on increasing both the number and type of jobs all people want not taking away the jobs you personally don't like. But this is California I guess. Didn't liberals use to complain about those trying to dictate what two consenting adults did together?
    • by LVSlushdat ( 854194 ) on Saturday December 21, 2019 @06:39PM (#59545856)

      What annoys the living shit out of me, being that I drive Uber on a very part-time basis here in Nevada, is the FACT that this AB5 crap is going to "leak" over the border into Nevada before too much time has passed, and Uber will be forced into cutting drivers, making drivers follow a schedule, and all of the other sewage that comes with being an "employee". I'm retired and I use Uber to make around $400/mo after expenses, driving only when I have some hours free where I don't have to take wife to doctors appointments etc. Being made into an "employee" of Uber, with all of the bullshit that accompanies being a employee would be a deal-breaker for me and I strongly suspect MANY other part time drivers. Oh I'm SURE the drivers who do Uber full-time are coming in their pants on the likelyhood that they'll be employees... (shudder)

    • don't sign the indentured servitude contract. You're free to starve to death. Also monopolies, company towns and script are myths. Like the Easter Bunny, Santa Claus and Polio.
  • by BobC ( 101861 ) on Saturday December 21, 2019 @05:58PM (#59545750)

    No company changes it's employment structure in reaction to a new law until *after* that law has been tested in court and upheld.

    AB 5 has parts that are brand-new, borrowing nothing from established law, meaning those parts need to be tested.

    It is certain this is just the "first draft" of the gig regulations, and will contain significant defects that will need to be identified, tested and resolved.

    Any company taking actions now is doing so for political purposes, or perhaps simply to gain media attention. The business impact of this law has yet to be evaluated in court.

    A smart company would simply try to find the weakest part of the law, then volunteer itself to be a test case. Until that happens, there is literally nothing for any company to worry about.

    Smoke & mirrors.

    • They might have seen all this coming if they actually read their own site [vox.com].
    • by hawk ( 1151 )

      This is complete and utter nonsense.

      Yes, the laws will change and be challenged.

      But in the *real* world, the cost of dealing with the litigation involved in challenging a law can be enough to take out most small business, and many medium businesses.

      And that's if they *win* . . .

      A company with good legal counsel will position itself to survive the hit under the terms of the law . . .

      hawk, esq.

  • by Anonymous Coward

    I have been letting my neighbor's teenage son mow my lawn and do gardening for money for the last couple of years. I didn't want to risk running afoul of California's new gig economy law by paying him as a contractor even though he works for me on a routine and regular basis and has been doing so for more than 1 year.

    Rather than set up a formal business entity, obtain all the necessary permits CA and my county require, and retain a business attorney and CPA as required by California Law, I just decided to f

  • This is how you can tell Vox is full of crap. OK, they can't keep all their freelancers, that makes sense. Although I do question how much they were doing if 200 freelancers can be replaced by 20 staff, not even all of them being full-time. But then they say that the people can continue to contribute, but they won't be paid? Why can't they pay them up to 35 articles a year like the law allows? What is stopping them from just utilizing freelancers less and still following the law instead of trying to get peo

  • I'm guessing at least 1/2 of the people reading this right now are either former contractors or current contractors where the "contract" was doing production work like keeping the lights on and basic computer systems running. I'm also guessing that you all didn't come out ahead in this since after the 90s those contracting gigs stopped being super high paying where they gave you cash instead of health benefits and PTO and just became an excuse to cycle employees in and out without reporting layoffs.

    What
  • Great oppurntunity for those journalists to learn to code.
  • All these contractors who are being dumped are being replaced by full-time employees. Which is exactly the intended result. The law is intended to make employers hire people as official employees instead of hiding behind contractor status in order to skimp out on things like retirement plans and health insurance and paying their writers on net-90 terms (or worse).

    The post on SB Nation, a Vox media site, said exactly that: [sbnation.com]

    To comply with this new law, we will not be replacing California contractors with contractors from other states. Rather, we’re encouraging any contractors interested in one of our newly-created full-time or part-time employee positions to apply

    Yes, lots of stringers will no longer get to sell an article or two a month to Vox.

  • Do they also fall into that category?

  • https://fee.org/articles/calif... [fee.org]

    Freelance work empowers women to choose how they spend their time. Female workers have repeatedly told pollsters from across the globe—as far as Australia [acuitymag.com] and Denmark [henrikkleven.com]—that their top workplace desire is the flexibility [acton.org] to create greater work-life balance. Some 40 percent [usnews.com] of women say they would take a lower salary in exchange for more control over their schedule.

  • The whole gig economy thing may have some upsides, but on the whole it's allowed companies to wash their hands of any employer-employee commitments. Long term, that's not healthy for the economy as a whole. It means that "jobs created" are temporary and provide unpredictable income and no benefits/insurance.

    I think most people are much better off in normal jobs with predictable hours providing steady income. They're not stressed trying to stitch together 3 part time gigs to live. The economic picture overal

  • They aren't "fired".

    Anymore then you "fired" the kid down the street when you don't use him to cut your lawn anymore and contract with a regular gardening service.

    This kind of garbage hyperbole is akin to calling a protest a strike. It hurts the veracity of the speaker and those who simply repeat it with out thinking about what was said. It's also not a "gig economy"... It's piece work. Something that was rejected by the work force over one hundred years ago

    You can put lipstick on a pig. That doesn't mak

Beware of Programmers who carry screwdrivers. -- Leonard Brandwein

Working...