The Link Between Mental Health and Productivity

A legislative battle is going on at both the federal and state levels regarding the handling/classifying of gig workers. Gig workers like the freedom of choice they have in scheduling; unions want to have them covered as employees so they can collect dues; and some legislators want that same treatment for tax purposes. In Massachusetts, two ballot initiatives (among 56) are in court seeking approval to be included on the November ballot. Eight (8) of those are about requiring voter ID in a blue state. Another 8 are variations on the same theme – formalizing the status of “App-Based Drivers” as not being employees. The proponents have filed 8 (slightly) different versions of the same thing in an effort to overcome any potential objections the courts may have to their inclusion on the ballot. Conversely, as mentioned above, there is also a competing initiative to allow “Transportation Network Drivers” the option to form a union and bargain collectively. Meanwhile, the Massachusetts Attorney General has filed suit against Uber and Lyft alleging that they have unlawfully classified their workers as contractors instead of as employees. 

California passed a gig worker law requiring that gig workers be treated as employees rather than contractors, but it has already been ruled unconstitutional by the state supreme court. The primary targets are Uber and Lyft, but many other companies also use gig workers. Uber and Lyft said the cost of the California requirements would force them to cease operations in the state. 

Similar battles are going on in some major cities – especially where big labor has influence – around the country as well, so employers using independent contractors in those areas should pay attention to developments, and perhaps be ready to express their views.