The federal government's rule that the workers of a company are entrepreneurs

It's a question it touches the heart of how technology giants such as Uber and Lyft are acting: are the workers in the big economy really just subcontractors, or should they be classified and remunerated as '' big business ''? employees? On Monday, the US Department of Labor hinted that he would have answered that question by writing in a letter to a gigantic economy company claiming that its employees are actually independent contractors.

This letter followed an investigation by a single unnamed company that sought advice from the Ministry on whether its workers could properly be considered lawful contractors. In 2015, the Obama administration issued general guidelines on this issue, suggesting that economically dependent workers in a company should be considered employees. However, the Trump administration immediately rejected the Obama era recommendations posted online, leaving the companies surveyed on the current situation of the Department of Labor.

The notice issued Monday applies only to the company mentioned in the letter and is not binding. But it was still widely perceived as a victory for concert companies. "Most of the network economics companies I know have very similar models," says Rich Meneghello, one of the founders of the law firm's market-based practice of law and practice. Fisher Phillips job. "I think the Ministry of Labor knew it and was trying to send a message to companies using the same model."

Union defenders saw this letter as a blow to contract workers who, in their view, were denied the benefits and protections to which they were entitled, including the minimum wage and overtime pay. "This DOL opinion letter is a cynical interpretation of labor law," said Rebecca Smith, director of the work organization program at the National Employment Law Project, a non-profit organization. But this is not a surprise on the part of the Trump administration.

The letter does not identify the company in question, but it contains revealing clues as to how the Labor Department of the Trump Administration distinguishes contractors from employees. The ministry describes the company as a "virtual market" connecting consumer service providers. To determine how to classify workers in the company, the service analyzed six aspects of the business.

First, he examined the control exercised by the employer over the workers. Since the company does not control the hours, quotas or hours of workers and does not give them the opportunity to work for competitors, the Ministry concluded that the workers were more related to contractors. . The letter also states that because the company does not inspect people's work and does not evaluate their performance, they actually work "for themselves".

Then the Ministry assessed the "permanence" of the workers and found that they "seemed to retain a high degree of freedom to leave the employment relationship", another indication of a contractual relationship. The ministry also concluded that workers pay for their own facilities and equipment. The ministry notes that workers rely on software built by the company, "but that trust only marginally diminishes their relative independence because they can use similar software on competing platforms."

Two other considerations included the level of skill required by the job and the potential for profit and loss of the workers. The Ministry stated that it did not have any information on workers' skills in this case, but the fact that workers could negotiate their own prices and accept or reject the work of many competitors indicated that this was not the case. are not the workers, but the controlled profits and losses.

Finally, the Ministry examined the extent to which worker services were "integrated" into the enterprise. In this case, the department found that the business was just a referral service, where workers and consumers could connect. For the department, this means that the services provided by the worker, whether it be to drive a person or clean his house, constitute a separate business.

The question of integration has been raised many times in the courts concerning the economy of the Great Hall, says Meneghello, including that involving the GrubHub food distribution company. In this case, GrubHub argued that delivery drivers are not employees because GrubHub is simply a platform for connecting restaurants and customers. GrubHub has prevailed in this case, which is now directed to a court of appeal. Meneghello said the standard that the Ministry of Labor applies in his letter is "potentially massive if it is taken up and applied to concert companies."

And yet, while the Ministry of Labor is certainly sending a message with this letter, some market researchers have said the results may not apply to the best-known companies. Alex Rosenblat, author of the book Uberland: How algorithms rewrite work rules, says Uber, for its part, would fail some of the tests applied by the Ministry of Labor in this case. For example, the ministry points out that the company in question does not impose on its workers requirements "such as the transport route to follow", which Uber closely supervises. And unlike Uber, the company mentioned in the letter allows workers to "arrange regular contact with a consumer, including future jobs outside the virtual market".

Rosenblat sees these distinctions as evidence that the letter does not apply as widely as some advocates of labor law fear. "I can see why the letter has caused a lot of concern," she says. "But I want to emphasize that this opinion letter is based on the facts presented by this company.These facts may or may not be false, and they do not fit some of the most controversial tactics of the economy. a spectacle."

Letters like these are mostly signs of virtue on the part of the administration. Companies that are subject to employment lawsuits still have to prove their case in court or arbitration. But some still fear that the public position of the Ministry of Labor encourages companies to push the boundaries of labor law while silencing workers that the previous administration seemed to support. Cathy Ruckelshaus, general counsel for the national employment law project, explains that the letter contains generalizations about how concert societies work. As a result, she adds, "it's potentially a free pass for many companies."

More great cable stories