California AB-5 Law

What a mess. Clearly, clearly this AB-5 has not been properly thought through - and therefore I'm convinced will be strongly amended. All the complaints about how it will hurt freelancers and small production companies and small business in general - 100% valid. This law must change, and therefore will change. So I'm not going to panic until we see how this shakes out in practice - I don't think even California bureaucrats are suicidal, or want to kill the economy. It's ignorance, arrogance and lack of due diligence.

California desperately needs to become more business friendly, and I am optimistic that eventually the voters will figure it out.

All that said - it's complicated. We can't have it both ways. On the one hand we complain (rightly!) how all the red tape and power grabs and greedy goverment operators are making life hard for the little guy who just wants to make a living as a businessman or self-employed. But then I remember so well the many, many, many arguments we've had on these boards, when I complain about some permit or other or some cost or other, there are tons of people happy to jump in and say "well, if you can't afford that, then you shouldn't make a movie - your first obligation is to raise enough funds so you can afford all that, that's just part of making a movie" and generally having very little sympathy and a lot of looking down your nose. Well, coming right back atchya... if you can't afford to employ people or run through these new hoops, well, your business shouldn't exist, it's just part of the costs of business. How does that feel now? Like how the shoe is on the other foot? Exactly. Sure, you can complain about how raising the costs of doing business (including minimum wage raises, or health insurance or this new AB-5 nonsense) - how all of this is pushing the marginal operators out of business - but there's got to be a limit to that reasoning. If you can't afford to pay more than starvation wages in unsafe working conditions, maybe your business doesn't have an economic right to exist in a civilized society - after all, we don't say "hey, I need slaves, cause my business can't afford to pay".

All I'm saying is - it's not so black and white. You are as guilty of this as they are guilty - you too have told folks like me to stuff it if I can't afford this permit or that insurance. Now you complain when they do it to you? Or are you the one who is right and the other guy wrong? See?

And I laugh at all the talk about how California is losing people to other states and how dire it all is. Big LOL. And someone mentioned "the other party" - and I too will not be political, so I won't mention names, but hey, CA has done pretty well - at least economically - since the "other party" has taken over... very, very, well. California if it were a separate country would be the #5 economy of the world:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California

Not bad stewardship, "other party"! In power for many years now, and the economy has only gotten better and more powerful under this rule. Only the final results count, so you gotta think again about how much to complain - maybe it's you who is clueless, after all, the results are in, and the verdict - massive success!

And running away from CA - great news for everyone, the whole Western United States owes a huge thank you to CA, because it is this state that is powering everyone in the West, including those who leave:

California and Its Diaspora Have Fueled a Western Boom

Which states had the best 2010s, economically speaking? Those with lots of Californians or former Californians.

Meanwhile, which states have done the worst? Places like Alaska and Wyoming - none of them strong "other party" places. Funny that. Or states that are so proud not to have income taxes like the bad CA, but meanwhile, are supported by CA redistributing federal taxes to support those bum-a$$ broke states. You're welcome.

So my point is - yep, AB-5 is bass-ackward. But the way forward is to take what's good, and amend what's bad - rarely does something come out perfect at first, and lawmaking is no different. You gotta keep working on it, and make it better. And guess what, years down the road, there'll be another article about how CA is going even stronger, and in no small part to the fact that lawmakers are willing to tackle problems. The real test is whether the lawmakers will be smart enough to take criticism where it is warrented and change the law and make it better.

I like what one poster suggested - go and engage with the lawmakers, educate them, explain, vote - a lawmaker cannot be expert in every field, so when they come up with a law, they need to hear from those who are affected. Educate, explain - and VOTE. Because if the lawmaker does not respond, they'll be voted out, period. But don't presume bad faith from the outset - because you'll lose... just as betting against California has been a losing bet for decades and decades - we're only growing stronger and pulling the whole Western United States with our tremendous business productivity. Those who can't take it and run away, are running to lesser places (at least economically) - and the winners stay and WIN. CALIFORNIA WILL CONTINUE TO RULE. Bet against it - and you'll lose... years from now, we'll be reading another article about how CA just won't quit booming and is showing eveyone the way forward - now that's a good bet to make.

Lesson: be humble - don't criticize the other fellow when they complain about some permit or other and don't snootily tell them they should pack it in; and be engaged and optimistic, because running away from the biggest economy in the U.S. and the most vital center of invention in the world, will always be a losing proposition.
 
Btw., this is why I love the dvxuser rule about "no politics" - because it prevents us not just from pointless arguing, but also from looking foolish (me included!). After all, you can see it yourself when it comes to the arguments about CA - it's OK to bag on a specific law or whatnot, because that's something that's very concrete... but when you start bagging on CA in general, and move closer to making it political ("the other party"), you'll look foolish, because the most successful states - or indeed countries with the highest standard of living and personal rights - do not fall along those lines, sorry. I always remind myself to stay humble, because reality is complicated and none of those self-righteous black and white claims come out looking good when confronted with how the world looks. Yep, CA is super successful, like it or not, economically, especially in the past 10 years (see the Bloomberg article I linked to) and those were the years of "the other party". Best not to to do politics - less chance to look wrong, wrong, silly and uninformed.

That said, I'm going to look at how I can fight AB-5... because it needs reform. And do it with polite language and not presume bad faith of any party - as always, you get more flies with honey than vinegar.
 
puredrifting said:
... This is how you destroy an industry or at least a good portion of it.
Click to expand...
That would depend on a number of factors. If someone sets up a studio/production facility across the state lines - or, across the Mexico border, which also makes sense - the industry won't suffer but the state of CA will.

In general, Hollywood is seeing a boom in production due to big players entering the streaming market to compete against the already existing Netflix, Amazon Prime, YouTube, Hulu, etc. However, given the technology of the day, the decentralization is taking place as well. And that means that video production can exist anywhere. The big studios/streamers will, obviously, play ball with the California power structure regardless of the political affiliation. But there will be a lot of challengers vying for the piece of the pie.

https://www.mediaplaynews.com/streaming-wars-niche-services-soldier-on/
 
FWIW... recently heard from two of my recurring agency clients. One has moved from San Diego to Alabama. The other is shifting a majority of its operations to its east coast branch in Florida. Granted, these are two pretty small-time outfits... canary-sized, you might say.
 
mcbob said:
FWIW... recently heard from two of my recurring agency clients. One has moved from San Diego to Alabama. The other is shifting a majority of its operations to its east coast branch in Florida. Granted, these are two pretty small-time outfits... canary-sized, you might say.
Click to expand...

In some ways, you could say that exactly the same thing has been going on forever. After all, how many companies shift production to cheaper places... often abroad, China, whatnot. Happens in every industry. How is this any different? Business will go to where it's cheaper.

But keep in mind, California is always ahead of the "new". Other states follow. So, just because someone moves to some other state doesn't mean it won't eventually catch up with them. For example, see this:

California’s contagious freelancers law spreading to New York

So, now NY will follow suit. It's usually the more economically advanced states that keep advancing, and the others catch up. NY is also super successful economically, but eventually it'll reach all states. Then business has to move on. And as states - and countries - become more successful, they become too "expensive", happened to Japan, now it's happening to China.

The choice is to move, or to fight to make things better - for example, NY will probably make some changes to their version of AB-5, and hopefully CA will too. The smart thing is to fight to make things better, but of course, moving business elsewhere is always an option. Not that those new places are necessarily desirable - if Alabama is so business friendly, how come it's not an economic super power the way NY is? It's like in the clothing business - a lot of it moved to Bangladesh, and sure it's cheaper, and as a business you can do whatever you want in Bangladesh ("business friendly"), but...

Reality bites. Like it or not, the coastal areas in the U.S. are the powerhouses. Closing ones eyes to the facts doesn't change them.

I still think the best is to stay and fight to reform stupid stuff like AB-5.
 
I wonder if this lunacy that is AB5 will be a boon for those outside of CA to do work INSIDE CA? What I mean is does AB5 apply only to residents? For example: If someone needed a small corporate shoot done(2-5 people), but now everyone would have to either be an employee of the production company or whoever is putting it together or the company needing the video done would have to agree to everyone billing directly and separately to them, would it be easier and cheaper to just fly in an out of state crew for the day/few days? Or is CA going to say that once someone sets foot within their boarders, they are considered residents and have to abide by their labor rules? I see this as being seen messier than it looks, now. Look at all of the major events that happen in CA and the amount of non-resident freelance people, be it camera guys, and even talent that travel in and out of the state.
 
mcgeedigital said:
View attachment 137766

I guess Vox learned the hard way.

Or their Karma ran over their Dogma.

Take your pick.
Click to expand...

I agree that this law needs to be applied in a way that addresses the individual needs of the occupations it purports to help, but there is also another angle to the Vox story. They have been accused of mis-classifying workers in the past and I'm sure they're not alone in doing this : https://www.motherjones.com/politic...ber-law-fire-freelance-journalists-sb-nation/
 
OldCorpse said:
.... So, now NY will follow suit. It's usually the more economically advanced states that keep advancing, and the others catch up. NY is also super successful economically, but eventually it'll reach all states. Then business has to move on. And as states - and countries - become more successful, they become too "expensive", happened to Japan, now it's happening to China...
Click to expand...
New York, California and Illinois are losing both businesses and population, especially the middle class. The info is not difficult to find online.

However, really big businesses - look up the Amazon distribution center move to the NYC - will get other concessions from the local political power. They may have to comply with the recent laws passed by the local legislature but will get other financial considerations in its stead, thereby lowering their costs of doing business in the area. Small/independent businesses don't have the economic/political clout to get the same breaks.

I quote from Wikipedia -

In fiscal year 2017 New York gave out $621 million in tax breaks for film and TV shoots that take place in the empire state. This works out to $31 a year in per capita.[31]

Season two of Madam Secretary received $21,217,413 in state aid.[31]
Click to expand...

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Movie_production_incentives_in_the_United_States

PS. The law applies to everyone doing business in the state of California.
 
New York, California and Illinois are losing both businesses and population, especially the middle class. The info is not difficult to find online.

Every state is different. Certainly businesses leave and people migrate. So any time a business or person leaves CA we call it "losing" - but what is the net effect? The net effect is that the economy of CA is not declining, it is going UP. You can easily look it up. Yes, there's a steady drumbeat of "CA is doomed, people and businesses are leaving" propaganda that's been going on for decades now - if it were true, the state would have dissappeared by now - but the reality is very, very different. The people who leave, on average are poorer than most Californians and less educated, and instead people coming into CA are richer and more educted - if you think that's a net loss for CA, you've fallen victim to propaganda. Here are the actual numbers:

https://www.davisenterprise.com/forum/opinion-columns/whos-leaving-california-its-not-who-you-think/

"But the majority of those departing are not the extremely prosperous residents about whom we so often hear from folks described by Gov. Jerry Brown as California “declinists.”

Rather, of those who left during the latest years for which statistics exist, the vast majority earned less than $30,000 per year. A net total of 469,000 of those leaving had no college degree. Given the prevailing levels of rents and home prices in California, it’s easy to see their financial motive in leaving for far lower-priced states like Texas, Nevada, Oregon and Arizona.

But as lower-income residents left there was a net increase of 52,700 residents from other states making more than $50,000 per year who do have at least a bachelor’s degree. The figures come from a Beacon Economics study released this spring (http://next10.org/sites/next10.huang.radicaldesigns.org/files/california-migration.pdf)."

Also you got it wrong when it comes to business - it's actually the opposite - there is giant growth, otherwise you wouldn't see the economy growing overall in CA. In fact, it's the greatest growth in tech in the world with the possible exception of Israel:

Quote:

"The upshot is that while it’s true that a few big businesses have shifted their national headquarters out of California primarily because it’s far cheaper for them to expand their facilities in states with lower land prices, most of this state has not suffered much. New businesses arise and succeed here faster and in larger quantities than anywhere except perhaps Israel, also a center of high-tech innovation."

"The bottom line: Yes, this state has lost some population to other states, but for the most part it has not been the most creative, wealthiest and entrepreneurial Californians who left. Which means that doomsaying politicians and urban “experts” who say the out-migration numbers spell impending disaster are mostly blowing self-serving smoke."

In fact, see the Bloomberg link I gave in the other post - CA is booming especially in the past 10 years, and pulling all of the Western U.S. with it. So sorry, but to say CA is losing business overall, is just false - the opposite is true.

New York is more complicated - yes, it is losing people, but note that's only since about 2016, and that comes on the back of tremendous growth in the number of people that has been going on like crazy since early 90's added more than 1.3 million people! Nothing grows to the sky endlessly - at some point, you are going to have shrinkage. And housing costs are causing it in the last 3 years or so. But business is NOT shrinking in NY, it is growing, even as it is losing people:

https://www.bloomberg.com/opinion/articles/2019-04-22/new-york-city-is-creating-jobs-but-losing-people

And NY remains one of the highest per capita GDP producers in the nation. Illinois is not a coastal state, and is indeed in a kind of a mess. But, note, it is still #5 by GDP in the nation - and the economy of Illinois has still been steadily growing:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_Illinois

Extremely successful states, such as CA and NY face a challenge - you can't grow forever. It's a challenge of success - real estate pricing and housing costs and living costs eventually become impossible, because so much wealth is competing for those places and well, as the old saying goes "God doesn't make more real estate". Eventually, at some point, since land is not expanding, the costs become too much for most people. How CA and NY will meet those challenges, we'll see. So far, business is still growing (sorry doomsayers), but like anything else, it can't continue forever - "trees don't grow to the sky".

How the movie business will react in CA and NY remains to be seen - laws change, subsidies change, economic conditions change. Focusing just on film/TV production narrows what's really going on - the business is changing, and the tech industry is impacting everything from production to distribution, and CA is leading in innovation in this space too, because this is where the tech and entertainment industry is very strong. We need better metrics to capture the economic impact, instead of focusing solely on film/TV production. We'll see what happens - I have a feeling AB-5 will see some amendments and changes.
 
Yeah, saw several articles today... Uber, Lyft and even some individuals that stand to be negatively affected have filed lawsuits. I believe I also read that Uber has already spent over $100 million in a campaign to make "AB5" a 'Ballot Initiative' that would take it to the polls and it would have to be voted-on in November by the public to become law(if I'm understanding it correctly).
 
jcs said:
AB5 temporally blocked for truckers. First step in getting this garbage thrown in the trash where it belongs. https://www.freightwaves.com/news/b...porarily-blocks-ab5-enforcement-in-california
Click to expand...
I respectively disagree with you that the law is "garbage" and belongs in the "trash". IMO it's a well intentioned piece of legislation that needs to be vetted and tailored to protect the workers that it intends to protect - primarily low income platform economy workers that don't make $500-$1000 dollars a day like some of us do at times. Many gig workers i.e. Uber, Taskrabbit, etc. make below minimum wage when you factor in expenses and that the full tax burden falls upon them. Governments need to modernize their way of thinking and produce legislation that is in-step with the technological times...
 
scorsesefan said:
I respectively disagree with you that the law is "garbage" and belongs in the "trash". IMO it's a well intentioned piece of legislation that needs to be vetted and tailored to protect the workers that it intends to protect - primarily low income platform economy workers that don't make $500-$1000 dollars a day like some of us do at times. Many gig workers i.e. Uber, Taskrabbit, etc. make below minimum wage when you factor in expenses and that the full tax burden falls upon them. Governments need to modernize their way of thinking and produce legislation that is in-step with the technological times...
Click to expand...

It's a Trojan Horse. Do the deep research about the silent war that's been going on to destroy this country: truthful information (verifiable evidence and facts) is being leaked and the public is waking up. If there's any benefit to being W2 vs 1099, the power to choose which is best should be left to each individual. Forcing everyone to W2 reduces freedom and is not OK. We're all in this together- we need help each other become educated and put a stop to what's been going on ASAP.
 
Well, I do agree that we are in this together and we need to educate each other. I'm actually pretty well versed on this subject because I'm currently producing a documentary film about the "gig economy" and have spoken to many involved, including scholars, lawyers, politicians -- and most importantly -- workers...

As far as choice goes many low skill workers don't have much of one. As one of my subjects (an economic professor) said in an interview, the choice for many of these workers isn't between Uber and a 9-5 desk job, it's between Uber and McDonald's.

However, I do think the law needs to be tailored to the specific needs of the industries and individuals involved. It was probably written so broadly as to stand up to lawsuits from certain industries/companies claiming discrimination. I'm also not from CA and I feel bad that you guys are basically being used as guinea pigs.

In any case, I hope this all gets straightened out and our CA peers don't get harmed too badly whatever the intent of the law...
 
scorsesefan said:
I respectively disagree with you that the law is "garbage" and belongs in the "trash". IMO it's a well intentioned piece of legislation that needs to be vetted and tailored to protect the workers that it intends to protect - primarily low income platform economy workers that don't make $500-$1000 dollars a day like some of us do at times. Many gig workers i.e. Uber, Taskrabbit, etc. make below minimum wage when you factor in expenses and that the full tax burden falls upon them. Governments need to modernize their way of thinking and produce legislation that is in-step with the technological times...
Click to expand...

There's an old saying, "The road to Hell is paved with good intentions". Thankfully I don't live in CA and I also don't really believe this piece of legislation necessarily has good intentions behind it. I think it's mostly about control. If it really is altruistic, then CA legislators are even dumber than I imagined.
 
scorsesefan said:
Well, I do agree that we are in this together and we need to educate each other. I'm actually pretty well versed on this subject because I'm currently producing a documentary film about the "gig economy" and have spoken to many involved, including scholars, lawyers, politicians -- and most importantly -- workers...

As far as choice goes many low skill workers don't have much of one. As one of my subjects (an economic professor) said in an interview, the choice for many of these workers isn't between Uber and a 9-5 desk job, it's between Uber and McDonald's.

However, I do think the law needs to be tailored to the specific needs of the industries and individuals involved. It was probably written so broadly as to stand up to lawsuits from certain industries/companies claiming discrimination. I'm also not from CA and I feel bad that you guys are basically being used as guinea pigs.

In any case, I hope this all gets straightened out and our CA peers don't get harmed too badly whatever the intent of the law...
Click to expand...

And that may be one of the good things in the end, for those fighting it. I've seen cases of laws being struck-down when challenged in court, because they were written so broadly and the courts said they had to be tailored more narrowly and specifically.
 
I read some statements from the author of this bill and I was livid. She comes across as arrogant and thinking it is her role as a politician to mold people's lives.

When someone complained to her that " people won’t be able to do 2-3 side hustles anymore. Thanks to you ", she replied:

"They shouldn’t f*cking have to. One job should be enough. And until you or anyone else that wants to ***** about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous. Good God."

She doesn't even consider that some may want to work a second job, even though they do not have to.

The fact that she uses profanity in response to her constituents and is so nasty towards critics of the bill who have legit concerns reflects poorly upon her.

I read a news article about a truck driver who is moving his family to Utah because of AB5 even though he loves California and all his extended family are in CA. His kids are having to give up their schools and friends. His kids regularly saw their grandmother when living in CA but now they will be far away and barely see her.

Pols like Gonzalez are a reason people are fleeing CA for states such as Texas.

Because of Gonzalez, I had to spend time filling out time cards and box rental forms and other paperwork where I used to just crank out a simple invoice. She's impacting me all the way down here in Louisiana. I don't live in CA yet Gonzalez is costing me money.
 
JPNola said:
I read some statements from the author of this bill and I was livid. She comes across as arrogant and thinking it is her role as a politician to mold people's lives.

When someone complained to her that " people won’t be able to do 2-3 side hustles anymore. Thanks to you ", she replied:

"They shouldn’t f*cking have to. One job should be enough. And until you or anyone else that wants to ***** about AB5 puts out cognizant policy proposals to curb this chaos, you can keep your criticism anonymous. Good God."

She doesn't even consider that some may want to work a second job, even though they do not have to.

The fact that she uses profanity in response to her constituents and is so nasty towards critics of the bill who have legit concerns reflects poorly upon her.

I read a news article about a truck driver who is moving his family to Utah because of AB5 even though he loves California and all his extended family are in CA. His kids are having to give up their schools and friends. His kids regularly saw their grandmother when living in CA but now they will be far away and barely see her.

Pols like Gonzalez are a reason people are fleeing CA for states such as Texas.

Because of Gonzalez, I had to spend time filling out time cards and box rental forms and other paperwork where I used to just crank out a simple invoice. She's impacting me all the way down here in Louisiana. I don't live in CA yet Gonzalez is costing me money.
Click to expand...

More proof that this is all about control is that what they're doing means that those affected are going to make significantly LESS money which equates to paying LESS in taxes which is obviously LESS money for the state.
 
Trying to not let this get too political but as a lifelong Californian, this state has become all about MICROMANAGEMENT and CONTROL over every aspect of it's citizens lives. This state thrives on inventing stupid laws that remove personal freedoms and screw over businesses and workers,
causing them to flee this state. Every small business owner I know is either making plans to leave for a more business friendly state or have already left. The largest employer in my county will eventually flee which will leave a huge hole here that will economically devastate this
region.

AB5 is a disaster for our business, to the point where I am looking at either stopping producing or a wholesale career change. The politicians that think up this cunning stupidity (I should trademark this phrase!) are making everyone's work lives a nightmare, the lawmakers and legislators
are smug, arrogant and filled with hubris.
 
Last edited:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top