I apologize for having nothing further on SB 622.  Senator Padilla’s office, who is usually very quick to get back to me, has not returned my calls asking for comment on the veto of SB 622.

I’m going to go out on a limb and guess that there will be no veto override attempt, because it won’t happen.  I will also guess that another independent contractor bill will be coming next year.  I would like to properly report these things instead of just analyze and guess, but that’s all I’ve got right now.

More to come….

To the Members of the California State Senate:

I am returning Senate Bill 622 without my signature.

Although this bill is intended to promote the worthy goal of ensuring employees are not
intentionally misclassified as independent contractors, thus deterring employers from
conduct which may give them unfair economic advantages against their competitors, this
bill also creates new mechanisms and incentives for litigation where sufficient remedies
already exist. In creating new and redundant exposure to litigation and sanctions, this bill
may cause businesses to avoid use of the independent contractor model even where it
may be appropriately utilized. This will ultimately contribute to a negative perception of
California as an inhospitable business climate.

For these reasons, I am returning this bill without my signature.

Sincerely,

Arnold Schwarzenegger

UPDATE: I will follow up with Senator Padilla’s office to see if they intend to attempt a veto override (waste of time) or if they will introduce a new measure next year.  Remember: last year’s bill didn’t even pass the committee.

Independent contractor misclassification becomes a bigger and bigger trend.

[display_podcast]

If you wonder why I obsess over S.B. 622—which stands little chance of becoming law—it’s because I believe it is part of a trend of increasing enforcement of the independent contractor/employee distinction.  Shaw Valenza has a good rundown of the case here, and I won’t repeat their work.

In a nutshell, the Court of Appeal wasn’t buying the independent contractor argument.

It includes SB 622. None of the others that I am tracking are listed.

Based on the Legislative Calendar, I believe the Governor has until October 14 to veto or sign the bills that were presented at the end of the session (as opposed to the 12-day rule that applies to earlier bills). I’m not 100% how or if the extraordinary sessions (there are technically 2) affect that. Leave a comment if you know for sure.
None of the listed supporters have much on this bill up on the ‘tubes. If you work for a group supporting a bill I’m tracking, please send me your materials.

New developments on the end of the Legislature’s session.

I completed my interviews for this early, and I will be in Sacramento on business next week, so I wanted to be sure to get this up ASAP. Enjoy.

[display_podcast]

[display_podcast]
The Legislature’s end-of-session flurry.

The Senate concurred in the Assembly amendments by a vote of 22-16 this morning.

SB 622, which I felt would have been the one potentially paradigm-shifting piece of employment law legislation this session, has been significantly amended. The new version of the bill drops the private right of action for independent contractor misclassification.

A spokesperson for the bill’s sponsor, Senator Padilla (D-San Fernando), told SCEL this afternoon that the amendment was made in “an attempt to work with the opposition,” for whom the private right of action was a huge concern. Senator Padilla’s office was hopeful that, with these amendments, the bill would make it through the Legislature, but felt that it was still “highly unlikely” that the Governor would sign the bill, even as amended.

The bill had passed the Senate 23-15 prior to the recent amendments.

Last year, a similar bill, A.B. 2186 (Torrico), was introduced stating only that it would be “the intent of the Legislature to prohibit deliberate misclassification of employees as independent contractors and to”penalize intentional misclassification.” No specifics or enforcement mechanisms were ever set out.

That bill died in committee after the author gutted it. This year, a bill on this topic appears to be headed to the Governor’s desk. Take note of this trend, and consider accordingly when dealing with issues of independent contractor classification.