The assumption of many employment protection laws is that anyone who works in the Dallas-Forth Worth Metroplex (or any other area of the country, for that matter), craves the benefits that they provide. Yet with the emergence of the gig economy in recent years, an argument can be made by both certain types of employers and employees that this is not the case. While many may view that those companies who work with independent contractors as trying to exploit their unique labor classification, a counterpoint may be made that such organizations are simply trying to provide aspiring workers with the employment conditions they prefer.
That is the argument being made by representatives of both Uber, Postmates and some of their respective employees in advance of new labor laws going in to effect in California. These laws would require gig economy employers to reclassify those that we work with as traditional employees, thus forcing them to offer benefits, manage payroll deductions and comply with minimum wage laws. While many unfamiliar with this issue may view such benefits as being perfectly reasonable expectations, the aforementioned representatives argue that forcing such practices would actually harm employees in their industry who are attracted to the work specifically for the flexibility and independence that it offers.
Standing up against an issue that would appear (at least from a high level) to have broad public support may be difficult, yet it is the practitioners within a particular industry that often know what is best for it. Making such an argument in a commercial litigation case, however, can be difficult. Thus, those hoping to take on such a challenge may find that having an attorney with experience in labor law issues to be a major benefit.
