Why Dynamex should be paused for further review

Recently, I've become impassioned about the #Dynamex decision wherein the test to be classified as an independent contractor in California was narrowed to a three-pronged ABC test.

You can read more about that here: ABC Test, Dynamex and Court Reporting

Quite out of character for me (as a social media shy person), I've begun engaging a little bit on Twitter about this topic. And on Twitter I've been discussing with a sincere person named Dave Craige who to his credit seems open minded enough to at least consider the opposing view point to the pro-Dynamex crowd.

Hi, Dave. Great questions! In my industry which is court reporting (not truck drivers like in #Dynamex) these are workers who have their own legitimate businesses who currently perform services for multiple companies as their clients. I know this is 100% a fact because I fought the EDD during 2014 through 2015 on this exact topic and I won. Cout reporter found to be Independent Contractor by California Appeals Board and EDD audit. Under #Dynamex that model would be destroyed. They would have to have multiple employers to make up for the lost volume since no single employer has enough work to give them. They would lose their ability to write-off expenses. They would lose their independence and autonomy which is likely a HUGE reason they became court reporters in the first place.

I'm not 100% sure (pardon my only cursory peak at your blog) but it seems like you have been blessed to work with some great startups on a full time basis! But just imagine if none of those startups had had enough work to keep you busy full time. So you had to have two or three or 10 clients who all gave you piecemeal work -- but it afforded you the income you needed, the ability to work when you wanted, how you wanted, and from where you wanted. And let's say that that arrangement was one that was a win-win for you as well as the startup... how would you feel suddenly if a blunt object like #Dynamex took it all away based not on the facts of YOUR relationship with those startups but on the facts of some third-party company's facts which had NOTHING to do with you nor your industry? Would you think it beneficial then?

(Sorry to be so wordy in getting to your questions, LOL!)

1. Won't those workers receive more benefits then?
No. Given the scenario I just wrote above, does it seem like gaining minimum wage is enough of a benefit to forfeit having your own business?

2. What is the downside?
The downside is the unintended consequences of destroying the livelihoods of people who have nothing to do with the given set of facts in the #Dynamex case. Given the scenario I just wrote above, does there seem like ANY upsides to you?

My bottom line is this: Given how narrow a set of facts the #Dynamex decision was based upon (truckers delivering for one company -- Dynamex) it is not fair to roll it out across every industry throughout California. Thus a pause of the Dynamex decision and the 'ABC test' -- in order for hearings to be held, for it to be properly studied and vetted and carefully weighed from all sides of the equation -- is the ONLY fair decision.

Thursday, August 16, 2018

Todd Olivas

Todd Olivas is a court reporter and entrepreneur.
He founded TO&A in 2003.

Leave a Comment

Your Name (Required)

Your Email (Required but will not be posted)

Please enter the following letters into the box:
(This is to help fight against spam. The letters are NOT case sensitive.)