Skip to main content

Labor Department Releases Proposal on Independent Contractor v Employee Classification


Last Tuesday, the Labor Department released its proposal on how workers should be classified in regard to being independent contractors or employees.

The proposal, which marks a stark contract from prior proposals from the Labor Department during President Donald Trump’s term, would dramatically shift things as currently set.  Under the proposal, a multi factor “economic realities” test would be utilized to determine whether a worker was an independent contractor or employee.  This new test, which would examine the totality of the circumstances, would involve equal consideration of a wide range of factors including investment by the worker and the employer, the degree of permanence of the working relationship, the extent to which the work performed is an integral part of the employer’s business, the degree of skill and initiate exhibited by the worker, the worker’s degree of control over their work, and the “opportunity for profit or loss” based on personal investment or initiative.  Notably, the proposal would allow for additional factors to be considered beyond these six if they indicate the worker may be in business for themselves.

(President Trump’s Labor Department had identified five factors to consider when examining whether a worker was an independent contractor or employee but emphasized two in particular:  1) A worker’s degree of control over their work and 2) “opportunity for profit or loss” based on personal investment or initiative as the two paramount factors to consider.)

Following the release of this proposal, employers such as Uber & Lyft criticized the new standard and argued it would lead to a rash of litigation and an overwhelming rise in labor cost to cover the workers being reclassified as employees rather than independent contractors.

Currently, the general public has time to comment on this proposal before it is amended or adopted.  If I were a betting man, I would expect this proposal to take effect as is (or with minimal changes.)


For a copy of the Labor Department’s proposed rule:  https://public-inspection.federalregister.gov/2022-21454.pdf

Comments

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

NLRB: Discussion Among Employees About Tip Pooling is Protected Concerted Activity

  This Advice Memorandum from the National Labor Relations Board’s Associate General Counsel, Jayme Sophir, addressed whether employees which discussed and complained about tip pooling at work constituted protected concerted activity. In relevant part, an employer in New York operated a chain of steakhouses.  While tip pooling was in place at these steakhouses, some of the employees objected to it on the grounds that it was not transparent and improperly divided tips among the workers.  Employees were told not to complain or talk to each other about the tip pool and were told that doing so would endanger their jobs.  Despite the employer later attempting to provide some clarity as to how the tips were being divided, rancor still existed among some employees.  At one point, the employees were told by a general manager that some employees that had been talking about the tip pool were “cleared out” and the employer would continue to do so. In the Advice Memorandum, it was noted that emplo
Post a Comment
Read more

What I’ve Been Reading This Week

A few years ago, I remember when the “Fight for $15” movement was taking off around the country.  Lo and behold, it appears that a $15/hour minimum wage is not the stopping point, which should be no surprise.  As the below article notes, New York is aggressively moving to ramp up hourly wage rates even higher.  While all the  below articles are worth a read, I called particular attention to that one. As always, below are a couple article that caught my eye this week. Disney World Workers Reject Latest Contract Offer Late last week, it was announced that workers at Disney World had rejected the most recent contract offer from the company, calling on their employer to do better.  As Brooks Barnes at The New York Times writes, the unions that represent about 32,000 workers at Disney World reported their members resoundingly rejected the 5 year contract offer which would have seen workers receive a 10% raise and retroactive increased back pay.  While Disney’s offer would have increased pa
Post a Comment
Read more

Utah Non-Compete Bill Falters in House

Last month, a non-compete bill sponsored by Representative Brian Greene (Republican from Pleasant Grove) & up for vote in the Utah House failed to make it through the Legislature.  The bill sought to ban enforcement of non-competes if they came after a worker was already employed, given no compensation (such as a bonus or promotion) for signing the non-compete, and laid off within six months.  However, by a 22 - 49 vote, the bill was resoundingly defeated after some business groups lobbied to kill the non-compete bill.  One group in particular, The Free Enterprise Utah coalition, argued that the Utah State Legislature should hold off on any changes to non compete laws in the state until a survey about non competes was done among Utah businesses.  Representative Greene had countered this claim and argued that a survey was not needed to show that the current non compete laws in the states allowed many businesses, including some small high tech companies in the state, to per
Post a Comment
Read more