Editorial - Room with a View

Room with a view: Beauticians and The Beast (aka AB 5)

My strongly held position is that the Dynamex decision was bad jurisprudence because it is way, way, way too broadly written, upending decades upon decades of employment understandings. The judge in the case used the bad behavior of a single trucking company to redefine who is an employee and who is an independent contractor. The result is a nightmare for employers.

Proof that is true are two pieces of legislation approved by the California Legislature that now await the signature of California Governor Gavin Newsom.

AB 5 sponsored by Assembly Member Gonzalez tried to codify the Dynamex ruling as written by the judge. It immediately ran into a buzz saw of opposition. It passed with a boatload of amendments exempting a bunch of categories of workers. (See Paragraph D of AB 5.)

Beauty shops are among the categories exempted.

Note that the exemption sunsets on January 1, 2023.

AB 170 was the subject of an impassioned editorial by the Orange County Register. It asked for relief in the case of newspapers and their delivery agents.

Although Orange County Breeze no longer publishes a paper edition, we entirely sympathize with the plight of newspapers that still put out a print edition. Delivery costs are one of the three largest costs faced by newspapers. The State of California shouldn’t add to the burden.

Note that the exemption for newspaper delivery agents sunsets on January 1, 2021.

Simply stated, the Dynamex decision is bad, and the codification of Dynamex is bad. Anyone who voted for AB 5 should be voted out next year.