
California’s Assembly Bill 5 came for me today - pgrote
https://www.mavsmoneyball.com/2019/12/16/21024414/california-terrible-ab5-came-for-me-today-and-im-devastated
======
vector_spaces
The effects of this law are complicated -- I can't say that it's clearly a net
boon or a net fail to me.

While I sincerely empathize with Lawson here, I can name off the top of my
head a dozen restaurants, several grocery stores, and a handful of B2C
startups in the Bay Area that have historically misclassifed most of their
cooks, dishwashers, waiters, cashiers, stockers, warehouse, and shipping &
receiving staff as independent contractors. Many of those misclassified
employees would rather[0] be employees with basic protections such as overtime
pay + some degree of protection in the event that they are injured while
working.

At the same time, I know of some folks who are completely out of work as a
result.

[0] I know because I asked some of them, and was one of them in a past life

~~~
NotSammyHagar
Every worker should have those basic protections. There are some people who
are fortunate like this writer to have a real job and do not need their part-
time gig. But there are way more people who could benefit from those
protections.

I'm a software engineer so I'm already pretty fortunate. Should we change laws
so that we somehow hire more engrs, maybe pay less employment taxes or some
such thing? Probably not. And there are plenty of people even in software
engineering who lose their jobs and can't find another one for whatever
reason, they'd benefit from stronger workplace protections. Workplace
protections are a good idea, just like higher minimum wages; it's because
raising the minimum bar is better because it helps those at the bottom.

Even if a privileged person could take on a part-time passion project and now
they can't.

~~~
username90
> Every worker should have those basic protections.

So why tie them to a job? Why force people to work full time for a single
employer to enjoy them? Why not do like most countries and guarantee these
protections for everyone instead?

~~~
NotSammyHagar
I'd support this not be tied to jobs. but in the us, reality is that currently
many things like health insurance are unfortunately tied to jobs.

------
DoreenMichele
_That new law makes it impossible for us to continue with our current
California team site structure because it restricts contractors from producing
more than 35 written content “submissions” per year._

(From a link found in her first paragraph:
[https://www.sbnation.com/2019/12/16/21024100/thank-you-
calif...](https://www.sbnation.com/2019/12/16/21024100/thank-you-california))

A lot of writers do it part-time, have other sources of income, have medical
coverage and the like via other paths and do contract writing by choice
because it makes sense for them.

This law seems to be throwing the baby out with the bath water.

/2 cents from someone who does writing as a 1099 worker. Thankfully, this
doesn't impact me because I no longer live in California.

------
SkyPuncher
Anybody else think it's interesting that this article is so focused on AB5 -
and almost completely ignoring her employer's responsibility in this.

What's blocking her from being hired in a properly classified position on a
part time basis?

~~~
gregd
Because companies complain that it adds 20% - 30% to their labor costs.

~~~
godzillabrennus
Not to mention employee labor and liability is basically a personal guarantee
for a business owner.

Hard to justify committing to wages if your business is new or volatile.

Easier to just not start a business. California has great programs to help the
poor with food, clothing, and energy. At some point it becomes easier to just
stop working and live off the state.

Then you vote for the party that will let you keep your free stuff.

Then you have a land where costs are high and the people are mostly poor. You
have California in 2019.

[https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20...](https://www.politifact.com/california/statements/2017/jan/20/chad-
mayes/true-california-has-nations-highest-poverty-rate-w/)

~~~
taurath
States without a good social safety net do not do better in terms of new
businesses. Frequently the opposite - not having an educated workforce,
infrastructure, or any amount of established industry keep the bottom states
at the bottom. If they did do better at starting businesses, many of us would
be moving there.

------
tick_tock_tick
And thus the unintended but extremely predictable side effects start.

------
pcmonk
For another perspective, SB Nation's announcement:
[https://www.sbnation.com/2019/12/16/21024100/thank-you-
calif...](https://www.sbnation.com/2019/12/16/21024100/thank-you-california)

Notably, this thread is full of people blaming SB Nation for not converting
IC's to employees, which is exactly what they say they're going to do, though
not everyone will end up with a job at the end of it.

~~~
iudqnolq
You're probably right, but I see nothing about them not hiring some people in
the announcement. They do say some people will probably not want to leave
their current jobs. They also say everyone will get some amount of money for
notice. Sounds overall pretty good of them, if they actually do it

------
jameslk
I'm guessing we'll see more stories like this as the compliance departments of
companies realize their new found liabilities. Especially once the lawyers
start pumping out ads. I'm wondering how freelance networks such as Upwork,
Fiverr, Toptal, and YC's own Gigster are going to react.

~~~
drawkbox
Correct me if I am wrong but freelancing sites like Upwork, Fiverr, Toptal,
and YC's own Gigster won't be affected. The sites only setup contractors with
businesses on a project by project basis and meant to be temporary from the
outset.

This is meant to target companies that provide the services directly, hire
people to work non-stop for them and in the same field/line of work or
industry as the business.

Also many freelancers already have LLCs or business so this is business level
contracting corp to corp on these sites.

Places like Uber/Lyft might also be able to argue they are a matchup service
between drivers and passengers/travelers but it will probably change some
payment aspects.

Companies that provide food, cleaning, or services like janitorial and others
that cheap out by making workers contractors are probably the biggest
offenders of having people employed for years, providing that service, and
cheaping out on contractor labor instead of employment.

There will probably be lots of loopholes found as well over time, primarily
when becoming a business rather than an individual working for these types of
businesses.

~~~
unlinked_dll
Barring the exemptions on certain industries/salary thresholds, I don't see
how what these businesses do is fundamentally different than say, uber
connecting you to a driver. They're distributed consultant firms, I could see
an argument for Upwork et al needing to classify their freelancers as
employees and cover benefits if they fit the criteria.

~~~
username90
Main difference is that you negotiate contracts at Upwork, you don't do that
in Uber. I still think that Uber should't count as employees, but that is the
argument I see the proponents give.

------
vadym909
Consider yourself collateral damage- just like full-time employees were when
companies decided to hire ICs and not pay them benefits.

The real problem unfortunately lies in the fact that the Govt decided the best
way to provide people benefits was through the employer.

------
somebodythere
Does AB5 apply to independent contractors living in California or businesses
based out of California (or both)?

~~~
tick_tock_tick
Both

------
enjoyyourlife
Why is the Editor-in-Chief being classified as an independent contractor?

~~~
kasey_junk
Probably because they do piece work on their own time with flexible hours and
no set schedule?

~~~
heavyset_go
Plenty of people who are employees have flexible hours and no set schedules.

~~~
pcmonk
This is SB Nation, they have >100 separate sites (one per sports team in the
leagues they cover, plus some extras), and they each have an "editor-in-chief"
which is specific to that site and manages that community. It's not always
their day job, as in this case it isn't.

~~~
Retric
Part time employees can work 5 hours a week. That’s got nothing to do with the
employe vs contractor decide. Unless your ‘contractors’ are doing the same
thing for multiple clients over the year, their probably employees.

If in doubt:
[https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/Nat...](https://www.oregon.gov/ODA/shared/Documents/Publications/NaturalResources/20FactorTestforIndependentContractors.pdf)

------
s17n
I guess I'm a bit behind the conversation here but what exactly are the
obligations the reclassifying contractors as employees would place on
employers that are apparently impossible for SB Nation to fulfill?

~~~
gregd
It removes a mechanism that allows companies to exploit workers by treating
them like employees, but considering them legally as ICs (no Workman's Comp,
at-will, etc.) and giving them a 1099 form at the end of the year.

~~~
jcims
Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers. So you end
up with a bunch of admin overhead at the employer to manage all of these
additional requirements and maintain all of the admin burden at the regulators
to ensure that they are doing their job.

Wouldn't it be better to just tax companies for 1099 like you do unemployment
tax and pivot that over to a state-managed healthcare and retirement benefit
that 1099's could opt in to for some reasonably low cost?

~~~
gregd
"Ultimately we're forcing a bunch of societal burden onto employers."

How so?

~~~
DoreenMichele
Because the US is shockingly sucktastic wrt health care for it's people. Most
wealthy, developed nations provide good health care to its citizens via the
government. The US provides health care as a benefit of full-time employee
status. Contractor, part-time employees, unemployed people, homemakers and
others often get screwed in this deal, which is likely part of why California
is saying "You can't call these people contractors anymore."

National health care would resolve a lot of issues that get darkly joked about
a la "The third world country of America."

~~~
gregd
I don't disagree that our healthcare system is a joke. But working full-time
for a company in no way, shape or form guarantees that you'll get health
benefits too. AB5 also doesn't force employers to provide healthcare.

~~~
DoreenMichele
That doesn't mean the general climate in the US, shaped as it is by our health
care policies, didn't help foster the creation of this bill.

Policy and law isn't always rational, well-informed and wise. All too often,
it's what you can get most everyone to agree on based on shared assumptions
and biases.

------
dmode
There will be some unintended consequences of this law, and I am pretty sure
the legislature will adjust and evolve. But I find it weird that there are
businesses who just wants to get way by outsourcing the core part of the
business to contractors. What is the point of employment law then ? Supercuts
is one big example of that (and they got an exemption from AB 5).

------
newman8r
Could these people just form an LLC to get around this? So you'd be acting as
a business not an individual.

~~~
gregd
That's exactly what they have to do and some are. However, forming and running
an LLC can have it's own headaches depending on the type of business you're
running. In some industries, running as an LLC would cost you more than you'd
make as an IC.

~~~
SkyPuncher
What industries does an LLC cost _that_ much to run in?

I've had one for years, it costs less than $250 annual to actually maintain
the LLC.

~~~
kasey_junk
Piece work that doesn’t pay well. The tax complexity alone likely blows an SB
Nation writers pay out of the water.

~~~
SkyPuncher
> Tax complexity

As in Schedule C, on a standard tax form? Most online tax software can handle
basic LLC income.

Taxes only get complicated when you want to optimize the amount you owe.
Depreciating assets, hiring, firing, claiming losses, etc.

------
big_chungus
While I was a student, I was employed, part-time, as a contractor doing
software development. It was incredibly beneficial; my employer was very
flexible and I worked as I had time. This paid a significant portion of my
college expenses and gave me invaluable work experience without which I would
not be where I am today. I would have a worse job and more debt. This
California law is ridiculous. Under it, I could not hold such a position. It
is not the place of the state to dictate the terms of a private contract
between two consenting parties.

~~~
drawkbox
AB5 wouldn't affect you under the "Professionals" or "Professional Services"
label. [1][2]

Software contracting is largely excluded especially freelance.

The employer would just have to follow the AB test which is beneficial to
contractors:

Under the ABC test, a worker is presumed to be an employee unless the company
proves that the worker:

(A) Is free from the control and direction of the company in performing work,
both practically and in the contractual agreement between the parties; and

(B) Performs work that is outside the usual course of the company’s business;
and

(C) Is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation,
or business of the same nature as the work performed for the company.

If there was ever any issues with (C) which would be the only possible
conflict, software/product/creative/engineers can get LLCs to to corp to corp
contracting.

[1]
[https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...](https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5)

[2] [https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-
benefits/2019...](https://www.dwt.com/blogs/employment-labor-and-
benefits/2019/09/california-ab5-employment-law)

~~~
big_chungus
Your assumptions are incorrect; I have already showed why I wouldn't have been
able to work in a prior comment:
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21810451)

You're wrong that the "ABC" test is beneficial to contractors. I was doing
software development for a software development company, so I wouldn't have
passed B. As you have already agreed, I'd have failed C. Finally, I may or may
not have met A.

Your response to this is, "get an LLC?" You think gig economy workers and high
schoolers are capable of this? As you said, that's fine for professionals with
those kinds of resources and expertise (or the money for a lawyer). It's also
different paperwork for the company. Showing that the best solution is to
bypass the law via a loophole also doesn't exactly extol it's virtues.

~~~
drawkbox
"Professional Services" and "Professionals" are exempt which includes
engineers/software development. See here
([https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=21811997)),
engineers are AB5 exempt by law.

Also, most freelancing software engineers and developers have their own LLC
before they even begin. Asking a software engineer to make an LLC is easy, a
bunch of food workers may not have the funds. I know almost zero developers
that are contractors or freelancers that don't have their own LLC (usually
single owner).

I am a software engineer/developer and game developer that contracts and this
doesn't affect me at all.

I am very happy for food, cleaning, healthcare workers that will get more
protections now.

California is the last state doing anything for labor and workers. No need to
pile it on labor/workers more when you have only one state out there fighting
for lower/middle class to get better employment.

~~~
big_chungus
I'll quote the reply to the comment which you linked:

"Unfortunately software engineering is not considered a "professional service"
according to the final text in AB5. I'm not sure where you're seeing an
exemption for software engineers in either of your linked resources.
"Engineers" aren't software engineers if that's what you thought it was (see
the part where a license is required)."

It covers _licensed_ professionals, which would not have been me. I didn't
even have a formal education. The only sub-specialty I could potentially see
is a security professional with certifications, but that would probably only
apply to, say, situations working on FIPS compliance audit.

~~~
drawkbox
Not sure I agree but if you are right, the software engineering job (which you
can get a degree for which would be a certification or even a software cert
like MCSD or similar) would mostly depend on the job at hand.

If it was for any company/client that their main focus isn't software
contracting then if would be fine according to the not the same field rule.

If it was for a software company already, that contracted out then maybe but
probably not for a few reasons: Contracts are usually project based or short
term anyways (in hiring case contract to hire) and contractors usually have
multiple clients and change frequently which would also fall into the non-long
term exemption.

Finally, again, if you have a degree, one certification (even MCSD or other)
or you have an LLC, which every contractor/freelancer should have anyways,
then you would be fine.

I think you are trying really hard to make this affect software
engineers/developers or other developer fields when it would easily be
avoidable.

The law was meant to target California companies abusing industry like food
service, cleaning services, healthcare services where companies are _clearly
abusing_ workers and workers would _rather be_ employed further.

Most software contractors do not want to be full/part time and enjoy their
freedom of setting their hours and picking and choosing clients.

The only software field companies this would affect would be companies that
force their developers to be in the office, between certain times, that sell
software development services and have these workers for long term periods of
time. Basically those situations the software developer probably does want to
be employed so again not really an issue.

------
purplezooey
_"...not work with California-based independent contractors ... I don’t blame
them at all."_

Wait a minute. Yes, blame them. This is a stance against paying benefits and
sustainable wages for employees.

~~~
Jamwinner
Meet globlization. This is the issue.

------
tantalor
Some more discussion on alternatives they excluded would help. Like, what
about part-time employment?

------
RiOuseR
Here we go. A law meant to protect employees is going to lead to more
unemployment. You see it with SF wait staff laws and now more and more places
either don't hire wait staff or don't hire as many as they used to.

The state is off its rocker yet again

------
scarejunba
The real problem is that California should clearly have just added these guys
to the exclusion list (which is already pretty massive) considering there's
such a large fungible labour force in this market.

------
kasey_junk
Were contractors covered by the Vox Media Union?

------
taurath
You can’t have employees in everything but name only. This this guy cheers on
being a second class citizen in the labor world doesn’t help all the people
with absolutely no job security, making worse pay and benefits for someone
with connections to take 30-60% off the top of their work.

~~~
susijdjdjxa
Those people also aren’t helped by having their employment taken away by this
legislation.

I have a friend with health issues that mean that he’s only able to work some
of the time, and can’t predict when. Gig economy jobs are the first time that
he’s been able to earn any income beyond his disability check. I hope this
bill that tries to enforce the “normal” full-time employment relationship
doesn’t deprive him of that.

~~~
taurath
I agree that people in that situation should be able to work some of the time.
Just the same as teenagers, part time workers and legit "extra income" people.
This is always the argument against, say, raising the minimum wage, or
providing more workplace protections.

Its a lie - you can absolutely fix this situation. No law is gonna be perfect,
but having a situation where the "main" job provides actual days off and
health insurance is a good thing. If disability is the main job, and you get
benefits through that, nothing should stop you from doing part time.

But, you shouldn't allow your friend who already gets a disability check to
dictate that everyone being abused by a second class labor system shouldn't
have rights too. I would RATHER your friend who is already taken care of lose
their gig economy job if people who have to work 3 jobs instead only have to
work 2. I'm sorry, thats better overall for society, to me. You can argue the
tradeoffs, and maybe have people on disability be able to work 20 irregular
hours without losing disability. But you're depriving people of time off to be
sick, time to be with their families, and health insurance so your friend can
get slightly more self-actualized while he's actively getting a check every
month? I'm being somewhat trite here but, in my mind its not even a
comparison.

~~~
susijdjdjxa
My problem with policies that require employers to give benefits to part time
workers is that they massively increase the marginal cost of labor. There
should be a smooth curve relating hours worked to compensation provided.
Increasing the minimum wage raises the entire curve, preserving a uniform
relationship. Benefits for gig workers radically distorts the curve, which
will probably cause a bunch of economic activity to cease entirely. This seems
likely to harm everyone involved (laborers, consumers).

I claim it’s good for society that Uber can pay otherwise idle workers to use
their otherwise idle cars to drive drunk people home when the bars close, even
if that activity is only profitable for 10 hours a week.

The right way for the government to provide benefits is for it to _provide
benefits_ , not to shoehorn those benefits into an unrelated labor market
transaction.

~~~
taurath
I agree entirely. It’s pro business to not foist necessities like healthcare
on business owners. Unfortunately we have a patriarchal semi-feudal system
where the most well off are expected to dole out benefits as the market
demands or they can manipulate the market to not demand.

------
BooneJS
Complex systems are, in fact, complex.

------
drawkbox
California does not recognize non-competes [1][2]. California is also a nebula
of innovation and great companies because of it, with creator/developer
freedom.

California will do things for labor other states won't, like not allowing non-
competes and AB5. Will there be some situations that aren't ideal? Sure. Will
it ultimately help more people not get taken advantage of in the labor market
who need it most? Yes indeed.

The 'editor-in-chief' as a contractor seems like stretch reason to get
offended by AB5. They could easily be a part-time employee, deny all benefits
and nothing would change. But AB5 helps the people that don't have the
flexibility of OP.

> _California AB5 'came for me today'

> __As with many of my colleagues today, because I live in California, I was
> just told that I can no longer hold a paid position with SB Nation. This
> means that I will be forced to step down as Editor-in-Chief of Mavs
> Moneyball as of March 31_

> _For those who don’t know, California’s legislature recently passed a law,
> Assembly Bill 5, codifying a California Supreme Court decision that
> classifies many independent contractors as full-time employees. While there
> is a small carve-out in the statute that allows for paid writers or editors
> to continue to produce a very limited amount of content per company, it’s
> not nearly enough, and it would be hard for me or most of my colleagues to
> fit in that small box._

The OP makes it sounds like California kicked in the door and ripped their
keyboard from their hand and never allowing them to work for the publisher.
She can easily be part-time, start a business for it and contract, as an
'editor-in-chief' you'd think that is more involved. With the limit of 30
articles a month is about 3 per month and that is per company, other writers
that write for many publishers will be fully fine with this. I doubt most
writers that write more than 3 articles a month would mind if they got extra
protections, the editor-in-chief is a different thing entirely.

I can understand why businesses are mad about this but not labor or
contractors. California makes it easier for contractors to work by not
allowing non-competes [1][2].

Non-competes are the most anti-American, anti-business, anti-innovation, anti-
labor things in America. Support California taking a stand against the
powerful and authoritarians that want essential slaves in the worst form of
this.

I have no doubt that SCOTUS will eventually have to deal with non-competes.
With how a conservative leaning SCOTUS sided on the favor of business with
arbitration, and denying access to the legal system for many, it doesn't look
good [3]. Having California as an example of a non-compete state is great to
have in that it is innovative and contractors don't have to deal with that in
California. I have to fight non-competes in every project that isn't based in
California. Lots of these companies want developers to sign a 2-year non-
compete for a 3-6 month project which is completely asinine.

California ultimately does more for workers and low/middle class than any
other state as well as business being a competitive and innovative magnet.
With a market this large they are using their leverage for good. But there
will always be the haters and FUD from big business and occasionally some that
disagree. Ultimately these policies are better for America and labor.

[1] [https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-
california](https://www.upcounsel.com/non-compete-california)

[2] [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Non-
compete_clause#California)

[3] [https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/scotus-conservatives-
limit-c...](https://www.cnbc.com/2019/04/24/scotus-conservatives-limit-class-
arbitration-in-divided-decision.html)

~~~
ars
> Will it ultimately help more people not get taken advantage of in the labor
> market who need it most? Yes indeed.

No it won't. Who exactly will it help? Converting someone to an employee
doesn't magically change their income.

To make up for extra benefits an employee receives, their base salary is
lower. The final total is unchanged.

The only difference is now there is a lack of flexibility: An employee needs a
certain number of hours, all the benefits are based on it.

But if either party needs flexibility, well, now they are stuck. They can't
offer benefits because they don't know how many hours, but they can't make
them employees because they have to give benefits.

This law only has downsides. It will help exactly no one.

~~~
gregd
What laws exist that say an employer has to provide benefits for their
employees? A lot of employers offer flexible schedules and a flex schedule can
be negotiated during the hiring process.

------
stevespang
"California’s legislature recently passed a law, Assembly Bill 5, codifying a
California Supreme Court decision that classifies many independent contractors
as full-time employees" . . .

is that a giant sucking sound I hear as scores of independent businesses are
forced to leave California because they can no longer endure the punishment of
California government forcing more taxes and regulations on them ?

In effect, classifying more and more independent contractors as employees as
just a "backdoor parlor trick" for government to collect more employment taxes
. . .

~~~
freeopinion
I don't know California employment law and I don't know the specifics of AB5,
but I have some experience with "backdoor parlor tricks." They are most often
used by corporations looking to dodge various obligations. I have seen big
tech companies outsource entire departments of their operation in a way that
some schmo shows up to the same company every day and gets their marching
orders from an employee of that company. They do this for years. But they are
not employees, or temps. They work for some "contractor" whose only contract
is with the company in question.

Why doesn't SB Nation want to treat these "contractors" like employees? I
don't care at all for California, but I have a hard time seeing them as the
bad guy here. This editor claims many people do so much work for SB Nation
that they can't fit into the small box carved out by AB5. Before I get too
worked up, I'd ask for a definition of "small box." If you're putting in 30
hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only contract, it's pretty clear
that you are an employee and any other arrangement is a dodge.

~~~
foogazi
> If you're putting in 30 hours a week for SB Nation, and they are your only
> contract, it's pretty clear that you are an employee and any other
> arrangement is a dodge.

Why does it matter? Why can’t citizens freely arrange their own working
conditions?

Why can’t the editor decide to work for who she wants?

Because she lives in California

~~~
freeopinion
Because some poor family is struggling to eat so they send their 14 year old
kid to hustle up some income. That kid gets exploited by their employer, but
has to accept it because little sister and brother and mom are depending on
them.

Substitute 28 year old immigrant mom--or 55 year old grandpa--for 14 year old
kid. The story repeats and repeats.

When you're hungry you accept conditions you wouldn't otherwise. You may think
this is fine and fitting. But California has decided there are limits to what
is fine and fitting. Perhaps they ban child labor below age 12. Perhaps they
insist that pregnant mothers can't be forced to lift more than 100kg. Maybe
they bar disfigurement as acceptable corporate punishment for mistakes. Maybe
they say you can't pay less than $100/hr.

Some of this regulation may seem ridiculous to you. I'm guessing you've never
been hungry and exploited. You and I can argue about whether $100/hr is the
line between exploitation and entitlement. Should employers really be forced
to pay for insurance?

I hope, though, that you understand that most people think that employers do
have certain obligations. And whether you believe that or not, the reality is
that employers _are_ regulated. So it creates an unlevel playing field when
one company recognizes their employees and follows the rules, while another
rushes them out the back door into a ditch whenever somebody that looks like a
regulator shows up.

I agree that two consenting adults should be able to negotiate terms of
employment. I recognize that the power dynamic between parties is not always
equitable. That's never been the case for me; perhaps it's never been the case
for you. But it is the case for a lot of Californians. And I think that it is
reasonable to apply rules to everybody instead of trying to figure out which
employers are scummy and which aren't.

I personally think my kid doesn't need to be paid a minimum wage, because I
provide their food, roof, bed, insurance, etc. I want them to work for the
experience. Nobody is really depending on the paycheck. But perhaps their
coworker is depending desperately on that paycheck. We could regulate that
only desperate people have to be paid a minimum wage, but that seems pretty
unworkable. So, as it stands, my child's employer has to pay them minimum wage
even though my child might be willing to negotiate for less.

I'm ok blaming that on California, even though my child doesn't live or work
in California.

