California

California Freelancers Sue To Stop Law That's Destroying Their Jobs. Pol Says Those 'Were Never Good Jobs' Anyway.

Set to take effect in 2020, AB5 will essentially eradicate large swaths of freelance jobs.

|

A nonprofit legal foundation is suing California on behalf of freelance workers who say the state's recently passed Assembly Bill 5 (AB5) will destroy their livelihoods. Set to take effect on January 1, 2020, AB5 will make it illegal for contractors who reside in California to create more than 35 pieces of content in a year for a single company, unless the outlet hires them as an employee.

"By enforcing the 35-submission limit, Defendant, acting under color of state law, unconstitutionally deprives Plaintiffs' members of their freedom of speech as protected by the First and Fourteenth Amendments to the U.S. Constitution," states the lawsuit, which was filed by the Pacific Legal Foundation.

The bill's pending implementation has wreaked havoc on publications that rely heavily on California freelancers. Just last week, Vox Media announced it will not be renewing the contracts of around 200 journalists who write for the sports website SB Nation. Instead, the company will replace many of those contractors with 20 part-time and full-time employees. Rev, which provides transcription services, and Scripted, which connects freelance copywriters with people who need their services, also notified their California contractors that they would no longer give them work. 

"Companies can simply blacklist California writers and work with writers in other states, and that's exactly what's happening," Alisha Grauso, an entertainment journalist and the co-leader of California Freelance Writers United (CAFWU), tells Reason. "I don't blame them."  

Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the architect of AB5, has heard these stories. "I'm sure some legit freelancers lost substantial income," she tweeted in the wake of Vox's announcement, "and I empathize with that especially this time of year. But Vox is a vulture."

"These were never good jobs," Gonzalez said earlier this month. "No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers."

But many of the freelance journalists, writers, and content creators who now have to navigate the disastrous consequences of Gonzalez's legislation beg to differ. 

"I've been able to earn nearly three times the amount I did working a day job, doing what I absolutely love, and having more to volunteer and spend time with loved ones," wrote Jackie Lam, a financial journalist. Kelly Butler, a freelance copywriter, echoed those sentiments. "Thousands of CA female freelancer writers, single moms, minorities, stand to lose their livelihood due to this bill," she said. "I was told by a client because I live in CA they can't use me. I made $20K from them this year."

Grauso says that CAFWU, the group fighting against AB5, is composed primarily of the people that Gonzalez claimed the bill would help. It is currently 72.3 percent women, which, according to Grauso, is no coincidence.

"The reality is it still falls primarily on women to be the caretakers and caregivers of their families, and freelancing allows women to be stay-at-home mothers or to care for an aging parent," Grauso notes. "Being made employees kills their flexibility and ability to be home when needed. I cannot stress enough how anti-women this bill is." 

The 35-piece per publication limit comes out to less than one piece per week. Anyone who writes a weekly column, for instance, is likely out of a job if their publisher cannot hire them as an employee. The bill also penalizes freelancers who create content in non-traditional formats such as blog posts, transcriptions, and listicles, the latter of which are often requested in bulk and take only "about 20 minutes to compile," writes another freelancer. 

"[AB5] was drafted by a lawmaker who had the outdated mindset that most writers work within the old, traditional newspaper and print model," explains Grauso. "But the vast majority of writers are in the digital media space, which operates completely differently."

According to the Hollywood Reporter, Gonzalez initially set the annual limit at 26 pieces, but later changed it to 35 after a backlash. "Was it a little arbitrary? Yeah," Gonzalez told the Reporter. "Writing bills with numbers like that are a little bit arbitrary."

The assemblywoman recently tweeted that unemployment trending lower is "useless" because "people have to work 2-3 jobs or a side hustle" to make ends meet. "Now is the time to demand more," she said.

According to the most recent Census data, only 8.3 percent of workers have more than one job; of that number, only 6.9 percent have more than two jobs. But Gonzalez doesn't seem to care about the data, and has made it pretty clear that she does not want to listen to her constituents. 

"[Freelancers] shouldn't fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs]," the assemblywoman, addressing a detractor, said in a Twitter exchange last week. "And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous."

NEXT: Andrew Yang Is Wrong About Prostitution

Editor's Note: We invite comments and request that they be civil and on-topic. We do not moderate or assume any responsibility for comments, which are owned by the readers who post them. Comments do not represent the views of Reason.com or Reason Foundation. We reserve the right to delete any comment for any reason at any time. Report abuses.

  1. Just “crumbs”.
    Learn to code.

    1. Bad news; programmers contract a lot.

      1. Most IT contractors are salaried, full time employees of a large contracting firms. Risk pay (hourly/per contract) went out of style at least a decade ago.

        I’m one of them.

    2. Wikipedia: ” Gonzalez was elected in 2008 as CEO and Secretary-Treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.”

      1. That explains a lot.

      2. Oh, she’s a mob cunt. That explains it.

        -jcr

      3. It’s really hard to unionize contract workers who negotiate their own deal and don’t have to pay large dues so the union bosses can live a luxurious lifestyle. Brings to mind the recent reports of union bosses being indicted in Philly (along with some councilmen), Hawaii, California, Detroit and Chicago – all Democrat strongholds. Glad to see the Feds prosecuting corrupt unions.

    3. Indeed a great article to know more about startups. Check http://bestbusinessforstartups.xyz

  2. Freelancing isn’t speech!

    1. It is if what you are freelancing at is news articles.

    2. SCotUS decided it was in 1995:

      SCotUS has ruled (1995) for freelance writers getting paid

      United States v. Treasury Employees, 513 U.S. 454 (1995)

      The 1995 case has a similarity to California’s impending regulation: Freelance writers being treated as acceptable collateral damage in political struggles that did not concern them. In 1995, SCotUS ruled that freelance authors (and presumably artists) enjoy special protections under the First Amendment. Proposed laws that infringe their livelihood are subject to extra scrutiny, to ensure they are tailored to the minimum required to meet a valid government purpose.

      In 1989, there was a political panic about Congressional book deals– influential Congressmen making bulk sales of mediocre books to lobbyists, as a way to get around income limitations. Congress responded with typical overkill– a ban on book payments not just to Congressmen and other senior policy-makers, but also to 1,700,000 rank-and-file Federal employees. If your letter-carrier wanted, in his spare time, to supplement his income with paid lectures on local history, he would be out of luck.

      Justice John Paul Stevens wrote the opinion throwing out this ban, far too broad for any reasonable anti-corruption purpose. (He suggested Congress could try again with a bill restricted to senior policy-makers.)

      Justice Stevens specifically rejected an argument likely to be made by California officials– that free speech can be exercised under the First Amendment even if the speaker cannot be paid. In the real World, a payment ban means less speech. Speakers have to make a living like everyone else.

      >”Publishers compensate authors because compensation provides a >significant incentive toward more expression.
      >Footnote 14:
      >”This proposition is self-evident even to those who do not fully >accept Samuel Johnson’s cynical comment: ” ‘No man but a >blockhead ever wrote, except for money.’ ” J. Boswell, Life of >Samuel Johnson LL.D. 302 (R. Hutchins ed. 1952).”

      https://www.law.cornell.edu/supremecourt/text/513/454#fn2-1

      California legislators believe the “gig economy” (freelancing) is abusive to broad categories of workers. Under the First Amendment, however, they either have to exempt freelance authors, or tailor special regulations to maximize opportunities for free expression.

  3. I looked but still can’t figure out who is responsible for the 35 article limit the writer or the buyer. I think California publishers can’t pay for more than 35 articles or the writer becomes an employee and has to be given benefits. They can publish more than 35 submissions but the writer won’t be paid for them. The question is how can California apply the law to publishers outside of California?

    1. It’s actually pretty simple; UCC and tax law says that even if you both work for and live in another state like TX that has no income tax, if you perform more than 80 hours of work annually in CA they are entitled to withhold CA income taxes. Most companies simply figure that into their billables.

      CA is operating on the idea that there’s enough weasel room in the law to allow them to do this, and most people won’t be able to fight back and figure they have better things to do. The process is the punishment.

      1. Vox isn’t performing work in CA.

    2. You have just repeated a big misconception about the law: that “the writer becomes an employee” under certain circumstances laid out by the legislation. That is NOT true. In fact, the client must decide whether to hire the freelancers as an employee or stop using them. The vast majority of employers are choosing the second option, and hundreds of thousands of California freelancers are losing their income on January 1, 2020.

  4. More than 35 submissions a year? What’s next, the plebs will want more than 35 brands of deodorant? Talk about capitalist excess.

  5. “[Freelancers] shouldn’t fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs],” the assemblywoman, addressing a detractor, said in a Twitter exchange last week. “And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous.”

    So, policy makers are basically just random asshats with opinions, given power over others.

    God bless democracy.

    1. The burden is on the constituents to convince legislators that their stupid ideas are stupid.

      Makes perfect sense.

      1. nah they’ll just come to my state and vote for the same shit while calling everyone racist.

        Progressivism unchecked is a virus

        1. “Thousands of female CA freelancers, single moms and minorities stand to lose their livelihood”…….

          Haha. My god, it’s just reflex with these people. Either it’s unfair for everyone or it’s not. But just for the hell of it, let’s amp up the grievance by virtue signaling to victim groups.

          Pathetic.

    2. It is much better that the government outlaws these people’s 2-3 jobs so they have 0 jobs and can live off government handouts.

    3. What depresses me is that there’s a direct, one-to-one cause/effect relationship of this law: it passed, and it immediately caused hundreds of people to lose their jobs.

      I’ve looked at some of the people affected by this and they’re choosing to blame Vox instead of the law. They claim Vox was exploiting these people, and when a law passed that said they could no longer exploit them, they should have hired them all as full-time employees. Because Vox posts profit, and profit is evil.

      1. The funny thing is that Vox supported this bill, and celebrated when it was passed. Apparently they had no idea they were exploiting so many people, the non-sapient vultures!

        1. Disagree! The smartest people in the world (just ask them) knew this would be better for the greater good.

      2. What’s really depressing is that this law will cause thousands of Californians to move to other states and bring their bad ideas with them.

    4. If you peons don’t like being beaten with the hammer I designed, design me a better hammer!

    5. cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos

      The “chaos” she’s referring to is real. If a person works for several contractors, as I do in Texas, then the IRS has to deal with several 1099s instead of one W-2.

      Gonzales thinks everyone should be in one nine-to-five job where it’s much easier to withhold as much income for taxes as the governments (federal, state, local) want, and much simpler to collect union dues.

      She also thinks those work-from-home peons who treasure “flexibility” should just put their parents and children in state-run care centers, where they belong anyway.

      1. “The “chaos” she’s referring to is real. If a person works for several contractors, as I do in Texas, then the IRS has to deal with several 1099s instead of one W-2.”

        If that’s the “chaos” she’s referring to, it isn’t Her, or California’s problem to fix. Is the IRS complaining about this? No.

  6. OT: Former(resigned last week) MD State State Del Cheryl Glenn indicted on Federal Bribery and Wire Fraud charges.

    Seems Elijah Cummings strategy of antagonizing the Trump admin is paying off for Maryland, just not in the way he envisioned. Although really I don’t think this had much too to do with that, I think Catherine Pugh (former Baltimore Mayor) is singing.

    1. Catherine Pugh was a real stinker.

  7. You’d have to have a heart of stone not to laugh at Vox writers crushed by progressive labor policies.

    1. “But Vox is a vulture.”

      And my heart is stone.

    2. Vox is headquartered in NYC why are they following a California law?

      1. Commerce clause.
        Red states have to do what blue states say, in the areas of employment and gay marriage and stuff.
        But blue states do not have to do what red states say, in the areas of second amendment rights.

        1. Commerce clause.
          Red states have to do what blue states say, in the areas of employment and gay marriage and stuff.
          But blue states do not have to do what red states say, in the areas of second amendment rights.

          ^^^This^^^

          (btw, what happened to preview?)

      2. Because they (used to) employ people in California.

        1. Freelancers aren’t employees.

    3. the irony is deligthtful. the more ironic part is that Pacific Legal is running interference for those lefty vox hacks. as a person who supports PLF i am a little miffed that they are on that one so hard

      1. Hey Jack, I’m curious how would you rate the Institute for Justice vs. PLF? The former has argued 8 cases before the SCOTUS, while the later 14 (not that this is the only way to measure a libertarian legal non-profit) and the PLF has been around longer (since 1973 vs 1991).

  8. Hmm. Forcing people who want to make money to work for someone else. Sounds like “freedom” to me.

  9. “And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous.”

    Chaos: Peasants acting without asking permission or obeying commands from their rulers.

    1. “SHUT YER PIE HOLE!”

      1. “Good jobs”. Meaning dues paying Union jobs.

  10. “No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers.”

    The best central planners know that everyone is in agreement.

    1. Everyone who matters is in agreement. If you don’t agree then you don’t matter.

      1. Yeah man!

        Also, those weren’t GOOD jobs, anyway!

        Everyone should become an MD (high-paid doctor, physician), so that they can rake in the Big Bucks $$$, on things like giving the peons permission to blow on cheap plastic flutes!!!

        To find precise details on what NOT to do, to avoid the flute police, please see http://www.churchofsqrls.com/DONT_DO_THIS/ … This has been a pubic service, courtesy of the Church of SQRLS!

  11. This is a great success of our betters winning the culture war.

    1. They say they won yet many of them still flee to less Socialist states.

      1. And they immediately set to work making the less Socialist States clones of the shitholes they fled from.

    2. I’m thinking that the betters are lazy slackers, as they continue to permit the clingers to carry on and hold their own beliefs.

      The rev needs to get on this. He’s important!

      Haha.

  12. The assemblywoman recently tweeted that unemployment trending lower is “useless” because “people have to work 2-3 jobs or a side hustle” to make ends meet.

    I could swear I’ve heard that before. Has any other “latinx” politician ever said that before?

    1. Is OBL actually a CA assemblywoman?

  13. [Freelancers] shouldn’t fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs]

    Uh, that’s kind of the basic nature of freelancing.

    1. As a freelancer, I don’t work “2-3 jobs.” I work one job, for more than one contractor, on my terms. And each of us (and the people I teach or write for) all benefit.

      1. But you don’t pay dues to a union
        That is the point of this law

  14. California is generally such a beautiful state; a shame it is so mismanaged.

    1. “where every prospect pleases, and only [wo]man is vile”

      1. From the hymn, “From Greenland’s Icy Mountains” a well-known 19th century mission hymn.

        Also, truly fitting, in a somewhat different way, but utterly fitting.

        1. Interesting, I had always thought it was from some cynical poet of the 18th century or Romantic era.

          Perhaps because the guy who taught me that line was an atheist who apparently had various hymns drilled into him as a kid.

          1. I thought it was Rousseau.

    2. It’s no accident that bums concentrate in places where the living is easy.

  15. Still waiting to hear why incorporating does not work for this.
    When I ‘freelanced’ (contract programmer/analyst), I incorporated to shield myself and the client(s) in liability areas, as well as these kinds of ’employment’ laws. The client payed the company, the company had me on the payroll and paid the payroll taxes and everything was cool.
    Of course, even then I knew not to take contracts in CA, NY, NJ, or DC.

    1. For the writers, why incorporate when syndication would be simpler? They produce a product for themselves, sell it to you.

      1. Syndication doesn’t work because of how the law was written. As far as incorporation, I think the law explicitly covers subcontracting by “sole proprietors” – they were trying to put Uber and Lyft over a barrel here, remember. They didn’t want to leave any escape clauses to allow for the workers to do anything except unionize. What this means in practice is that they’ve fucked a lot of people who had nothing to do with it pretty hard.

    2. Referencing IceTrey’s question above:
      https://reason.com/2019/12/23/california-freelancers-sue-to-stop-ab5-law-thats-destroying-their-jobs-pol-says-those-were-never-good-jobs-anyway/#comment-8062421

      When you took a contract where you were in one state and the party contracting with you was in another, which state’s laws was the contract itself subject to?

  16. Gonzalez is well known to be a union hack – couldn’t give a shit less about the people she claims to be helping – just wants more dues paid to her union taskmasters.

  17. Commifornians are gonna get their Socialist policies GOOD AND HARD!

    1. California has its socialist moments and AB5 is misguided labor law, but how is AB5 particularly socialist?

      1. “California has its socialist moments and AB5 is misguided labor law, but how is AB5 particularly socialist?”

        It is an attempt to impose government control of a financial transaction between two free agents; the very definition of ‘socialist’.
        I really have to ask if you are serious in your question. You are a TDS victim, but are you that stupid?

      2. This is not socialist. However I’ll argue that it’s a destructive and invasive product of socialist policies.
        CA hates contract work. When businesses contract work, they aren’t responsible for workers’ compensation, insurance, healthcare, and a whole host of other overhead costs. Costs that are either assumed by the individual (gasp) or the government.
        Of prime importance (price) is healthcare: If you’re a full-time worker, healthcare coverage is often offered, and cost absorbed by the employer. Therefore less economic burden on a government that is running out of other peoples’ money.
        Problem solved, right?

      3. Technically, given the differences in economic systems between fascism and socialism, it’s more fascist than socialist, but close enough.

  18. And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous.

    Sounds like some other latinx politician lashing out at critics of the Green New Deal.

    “Unless you can come up with an all-encompassing plan to control every facet of people’s lives, you shouldn’t say anything,” she said, without considering whether controlling lives was a good thing or not.

  19. Once again, the govt deciding what is best for us instead of us. Time to buy stock in helicopter companies near the CA border.

  20. Even in CA, elections have consequences.

  21. First off this is a prime example of politicians writing laws to control market segments they do not understand. Second, the law hurts the very people it was supposed to help. See my first sentence.

    But would this be a work around? A California writer sells their work to a company outside of CA and that company, which now owns the work, sells it back into CA. In that way the writer isn’t selling their work to a CA company so the law doesn’t impact them.

    1. But why shouldn’t they just sell the work directly even within CA? If they’re licensing their syndicated product, they’re not contracting for a submission. Their products are one of a kind. Would somebody classify a fine artist as a freelancer creating products for “submission”? No, they’re producing pieces of art that they then sell. Music they can put up on Bandcamp and license for downloading. I don’t understand how this is even hard for these writers to figure out, or even why they were working under this “submission” model to begin with.

      1. Well, they’re “journalists” so functioning brains are not exactly required.

    2. If the company buys something from a CA resident, regardless of where they are, they’re on the hook for Californian law. The only way to get around this is to move, at the moment.

    3. What politician wrote this law? I thought it was pretty obvious that it was written by a union and pushed by their bought and paid for political contractor.

      Wait, shouldn’t Gonzalez be considered a union employee or does she “author” fewer than 35 bills for the union? Personally I think we should consider every section and subsection as separate “submissions” and therefore she would definitely be a direct employee.

    4. What makes you think they don’t understand this market segment? The law is working as intended.

  22. Ugh. This lines up perfectly with the “If you can’t pay a livable wage for a job then it should not exist” line of thinking.

    Up next? Wondering where all of the jobs went.

    1. Well you can’t have just any job you’re willing to do. No job is better than a job that doesn’t live up to my expectation – Liberal philosophy.

    2. “Wondering where all of the jobs went.”

      As well as wondering why it’s impossible to break into a new career, or for young people to find their first job.

  23. Is there some sort of public service announcement that can be made to people fleeing California so they know not to vote for the same shit in their new, cleaner, less expensive, freer, domain?

    1. I’m in favor of shock collars for the first four years of residency.

    2. The people leaving California for more conservative states tend to be more conservative.

      1. Strange, they seem to be turning Austin, Denver, and Boulder into new San Franshitscos.

      2. The people leaving California for more conservative states tend to be more conservative.

        Some of them, true. But a lot of people who are “forced” to move to Texas just because they can find a job and afford a house really have no clue that progressive policies caused the problems they are fleeing.
        Hence the whole “Turn Texas Blue” campaign.

        1. “Turn Texas Blue” is based on importing more Central Americans into the state, not necessarily Californians.

          1. Yup. It’s all the new Hispanic illegals and legal children of illegals that are turning Texas blue in the next few years… Which sucks.

            I really want to move to Texas, but I’m not moving to another state that’s going from centrist to left wing in just a few years.

  24. If you like your health insurance job, you can keep your health insurance job.*

    *-Unless you don’t, but if you don’t it was a shitty policy job anyway.

    1. You magnificent bastard. This comment is a 10/10, would def read again.

  25. “And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos”

    To her the free market is chaos. How can you control all that? She doesn’t understand she doesn’t need to try, it just runs itself.

    1. One each, cognizant policy proposal:
      Leave me the hell alone.

    2. Precisely. My cognizant policy proposal is to do absolutely nothing about it.

      Where do I collect my check?

    3. That remark wasn’t even the most galaxy-brained comment cited in the article:

      “Was it a little arbitrary? Yeah,” Gonzalez told the Reporter. “Writing bills with numbers like that are a little bit arbitrary.”

      Who could have expected that the cholla spawn of third-world trash would have a banana republic view of how government is supposed to work?

      1. But diversity is our strength!

      2. Don’t believe your lyin’ eyes. The betters won’t permit it.

        Haha.

    4. But cognizant of what? She clearly isn’t cognizant that monopolies are bad even when they are monopolies on labor which is what her union masters are going for.

  26. WHY DON’T YOU STUPID RUBES SHOW A LITTLE GRATITUDE TO THESE HEROIC PUBLIC SERVANTS WHO ARE FIGHTIN’ FOR *YOU* EVERY DAY?!?!?!?!

    1. NO.

      They aren’t heroic, and they sure as hell aren’t fighting for me.

      Fuck them in the ass, with a telephone pole, sideways.

  27. I’m not really seeing how this is a first amendment case.

    1. It’s like with the laws appropriating the proceeds about your writing of your own crime. It’s not an infringement on freedom of speech because you can still give it away, just can’t sell it.

    2. I kind of thought the same thing. But, not so much because this sort of thing isn’t protected by the 1A, but because the left will simply say 1A doesn’t protect commercial transactions.

      I agree that this is actually less about free speech, and more about free association.

      1. Either way, it’s about “free”, and CA politicians aren’t going to stand for it.

        1. I think it IS a 1A question. If you’re selling more than 35 stories a year to a single publication, that implies a certain amount of public success and suggests a government trying to silence that voice. Added to this, Gonzalez specifically said “Vox is vultures.” She is passing what amounts to a legal judgement that she is entitled to silence people who write for Vox. Moreover, she declared “These were never good jobs,” asserting that the state knows a good writing job from a bad writing job and has the right to discourage “bad writing”. Finally the assertion that the writers can still write, they just can’t sell it, doesn’t hold water. It’s exactly like saying ‘you can have a gun, you just can’t take it to and from your home’, or ‘you can have a demonstration, but we’re cordoning off the block and no one will see it,’ or ‘you can write a song, but no one will hear it.’ If you write something, and no one wants to buy it, that’s the market; you have indeed written something for free. But if you write something that people DO want to buy, but it’s illegal to buy it, that that is a violation of your 1A rights.

      2. What about free press?

  28. “[Freelancers] shouldn’t fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs],”

    Wow. You stay classy, San Diego.

  29. This is yet another attack on working class people. Democrats hate freelance and small business. They much much prefer us all to work for large companies where unions and government rules dictate wages and large corporate budgets can pay heftily into their campaigns. And that way when we don’t like our wages, politicians can get involved, get wined and dined with big lobby dollars to “negotiate” an extra $.25/hr for we little people.

    1. Dunno. That may be attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence.

      1. You don’t hold office if you are incompetent; at least incompetent in politics. In politics, you don’t need to be competent in anything else.

      2. “Dunno. That may be attributing to malice what can be explained by incompetence.”

        Do not remember agreeing with you, but the woman in question shows no ability to predict the outcome of her efforts, and plenty of evidence of being a fucking lefty ignoramus.
        Put another way, never presume cupidity where stupidity will suffice.

      3. It’s neither malice nor incompetence, but simple self-interest.

        Democrats are supported by unions and big corporations, that’s why they try to destroy freelancers and small businesses.

    2. It’s also easier for them to get our tax dollars — freelancers aren’t as quick to report income and cough up as the HR department at the company which employs a few thousand people.

  30. Are you or your “representatives” threatening someone with an initiation of violence today?

  31. quote: “”And until you or anyone else that wants to bitch about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous.”” The true voice of a servant, right? Nah. My dead dog makes more sense than does this wench. WHO APPOINTED HER watchdog over folks who produce bit-piece work on an occasional basis anyway? She don’t give a rip about the people she was alledgedly elected to SERVE. For her its all about the Benjamins. and she would have the rest of us nuisances to disappear/

  32. So just California trying to get more people to leave the state.

    1. oh the irony!

  33. Does this 35 pieces per year apply to the people the Dems pay to mark the ballots that fill those “we-just-found” boxes that show up a couple of days after elections?

    If it applies to the posts on social media, we can expect to lose a massive number of regular contributors, and about 80 percent of the Orange Man Bad messages on Facebook.

    1. Fuck. Them. All.

  34. “…”These were never good jobs,” Gonzalez said earlier this month. “No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers.”…”

    So, she is to decide what jobs are “good”?
    Can someone please screw her with a rusty chainsaw? I don’t want to be within miles of that sort of idiocy.

  35. ‘they shouldn’t have to work 2-3 jobs!’ says the ‘democrat’ whose legislation forces people to literally have to work 2-3 jobs. look how ‘progressive’ commiefornia is!

  36. The law was initially targeted at Uber and Lyft, but then others that were going to be affected started lobbying for exemptions. Freelance writers don’t have lobbyists.

  37. A spectacular display of vulgar, ignorant hubris.

  38. Wikipedia: ” Gonzalez was elected in 2008 as CEO and Secretary-Treasurer of the San Diego and Imperial Counties Labor Council, AFL-CIO.”

  39. California resident? I don’t know what you are talking about, I’m [insert name here] LLC a licensed corporation in Delaware.

  40. Reminds of those people who defended the ACA cutting out policies with high deductibles. “Those were crappy policies and I don’t care if you liked them.”
    Liberals always know better than the unwashed masses.

  41. the more ironic part is that Pacific Legal is running interference for those lefty vox hacks. as a person who supports PLF i am a little miffed that they are on that one so hard. my vindictive self says let them suffer the consequences of their own long term voting pattern. this one its them right in the dick but really, not only do i do not care, i am glad

  42. The word “racist” is just an anti-White slur. It really means: “Shut up Whitey! Diversity for you only! Open borders for you only!”

    Diversity is so obviously beneficial that they have to create laws to prevent you from escaping it.

    Homogeneous non-White countries/communities are exempt from ‘diversity’. They don’t have to import and ‘assimilate’ anybody. But as long as a White family exists somewhere, they’ll ‘need diversity’.

    Diversity means Chasing Down the Last White Person.

    1. Homogeneous non-White countries/communities are exempt from ‘diversity’.

      When they get “diversity,” it’s called “gentrification.”

  43. “[Freelancers] shouldn’t fucking have to [work 2-3 jobs],” the assemblywoman, addressing a detractor, said in a Twitter exchange last week.

    Here are your options, you arrogant communist cunt: A) If you and your friends didn’t have your grasping, greedy hands in everyone’s wallets they wouldn’t have to work more than one job; or B) It’s none of your fucking business how many jobs people want to work; or C) Both.

  44. “…”Now is the time to demand more,”…”

    Demand all you please, but get out of the way of that guy from Texas who can work as a contractor.

  45. Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez (D-San Diego), the architect of AB5, has heard these stories. “I’m sure some legit freelancers lost substantial income,” she tweeted in the wake of Vox’s announcement, “and I empathize with that especially this time of year. But Vox is a vulture.”

    “These were never good jobs,” Gonzalez said earlier this month. “No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers.”

    Wow. The cuntish arrogance.

    If there’s justice, Gonzalez will have to learn to code in the future.

    1. If there’s justice, Gonzalez will be hanging from a lamppost and won’t have to learn to code.

    2. She would have to learn to think before she could learn to code.

  46. CA will continue to trudge on as a poor state sustained by freakishly wealthy people until something happens to tech industry and the stock market. The thousands of CA freelancers who lost their jobs due to central planning are but a tiny percentage of the state’s legion of radical left wing voters. Even if the freelancers all have an epiphany and vote republican, nothing will happen.

    Only a certain line in the democrat party prevents CA from implementing some insane wealth tax or go all single payer healthcare. But Pelosi can’t live forever. The state has so many people to support that it only require a couple things to go wrong for the exodus from the state to start accelerating.

    What can you do? California has all the essential ingredients to be the next Venezuela – a population that increasingly supports radical collectivism / revolution, crumbling infrastructure, lack of housing and continual erosion of alternative job models that may sustain a near 40 mil population. Retail and brick and mortar is dying out, the lower middle class Californians need other options.

    It’s a powder keg ready to go off.

    1. I think the beauty of the state and the weather keep people happy if not blinded from what’s happening beneath their noses.

      1. There are other pretty places to live in the world where the rent isn’t usually over two grand a month.

        1. It is 110% the weather that keeps California going. Yes, there are other pretty places, but on the whole nowhere in the USA is remotely close to as awesome as California.

          It has every type of environment you can imagine. Living near the coastal areas all up and down the state is basically the best weather possible on planet earth. It’s fairly warm all the time, but not TOO hot because of the ocean. It’s heaven on earth.

          If, for instance, Texas had California’s policies, they would have lost 80% of their population already, because the natural awesomeness of it is not nearly so appealing. Ditto with anywhere else.

          As it has got worse and worse more people have decided the juice is not worth the squeeze though, and it will likely continue to go that way. When I was growing up there a couple decades ago the level of shitty there compared to a random different state was of course higher, but not THAT much higher. Now it’s a huge gap, hence more are leaving. As I’ve said before if you didn’t move to California in the 1960s you were an idiot… If you don’t move away from California now you’re an idiot.

    2. Except that California, unlike Venezuela, will likely receive federal bailouts.

  47. “Shut up, peasant! You starve for the greater good!”

  48. Welcome to single party government. The elite’s always know what is good for you before you do. You get what you vote for.

  49. Using the power of the State to force workers to comply with your wishes? Hmmm, I do believe that there is a name for that.
    Oh right, Fascism.

  50. Don’t these people know that they would be slaves to corporations without labor laws? /leftard retort

    Are there any examples of these whiny bitches writing stories with that exact same cry?

    1. Go read some of the comments in the Tweet. Some of them really make you wonder.

  51. Don’t worry, gentle reader, in ten years time this will be the 21st century Handmaid’s Tale once the History departments and J-Schools get it digested.

  52. I am loving how California won’t let you work two or three jobs even if you want to.
    A lot like they won’t let you buy any more than one gun per month.
    Both are perfectly legal activities, but they feel free to regulate how much you can do it

  53. Every time I see news about anything that happens in California regarding the weather or the politics, I have to ask myself why anyone lives there.

  54. I would like to remind REASON readers that the state of Taxifornucator also passed a law restricting the choices of cosmetology workers to lease chairs and workspaces from existing shops. This forced both freelancers and shop workers to pay more taxes, and limited the choices of both sides of the cosmetology business.

    When it comes to a Leftist policies, the “regulations” passed by Leftists are always marketed as “protecting the worker.”

    They ALWAYS end up REDUCING the rights and opportunities of BOTH sides of the employment structure and SOMEHOW manage to raise taxes on both.

    As far as Vox is concerned, they are a Leftist publication. I don’t wish them well. I advise their writers: “Learn to code.”

    We left Taxifirnucator in 2017.

    Should have left long before.

    Sanjosemike (no longer in CA)

  55. if you ever hear that someone punched lorena gonzalez in the nose…it was me. she’s had her snout on the taxpayer trough for a very long time and is a text book tax feeder. Voxers getting shanked by a new law enacted by their favey politico’s? fuck ’em, right in their fucking nanny state necks

  56. Has anyone pointed out the effect of this law on illegal immigrants?

    I am going to be teaching a class as part of a university’s adult education program. In the past, I did that as a freelancer. This time, I was told I would have to be a part-time employee. Part of the resulting hassle included coming in to the HR office with my passport or alternative documentation, pretty clearly part of making sure that employees are citizens or legal residents.

    For me, that’s a minor hassle. For an illegal immigrant, it would mean being unable to take the job. That might be viewed as a plus in some places, but this is California.

  57. I do sometimes wonder when even moderate leftists are finally going to break over lefty pols going too far… Maybe it’s just in my personal life, but I feel like most people I know are very much leftists who do contract/freelance work.

  58. Here is a video about very recent evidence about how out of touch CA politicians are with their voters (this exact topic). https://youtu.be/ABtkjGcIgJo Cheers and Happy New Year!

  59. “These were never good jobs,” Gonzalez said earlier this month. “No one has ever suggested that, even freelancers.”

    Uh, as somebody who does this work (thankfully not in CA), I’ll say it. This job is fucking great. Politicians don’t understand that some of us value freedom more than security. I’m sure the 180 people fired by Vox are really thankful to you.

    “Luckily” for them, government knows best and got them right out of those bad jobs and into no jobs instead.

  60. This is the single most urgent issue for lovers of liberty to fight right now.

    It is in the process of spreading to New Jersey and New York and is being supported by nearly all of the Democratic frontrunners in the national election.

    It will not merely restrict the flexibility of the careers of the so-called “gig economy” workers such as Uber drivers, nor will its spread limited to writers. If unstopped it will destroy the lives and livelihoods of nearly all independent contractors (see: http://bit.ly/359r05T), who, depending on their career or their age, may have no alternatives to fall back on.

    Please, whoever reads this, take this issue very seriously, and take concrete actions to oppose it.

    1. PS In New York it is Senate Bill S6699A, and is in committee: http://bit.ly/2N09Otp.

Please to post comments

Comments are closed.