Law to protect workers has others fearing for jobs - San Francisco Business Times:

zemlyanikiyri.blogspot.com
The state’s Independent Contractor law, also known as the Misclassificatiojn Law, was created in 2004 to protect construction workers from beingdeliberately “misclassified” by companies as contracrt workers who receive no benefits, instea d of as employees who by law are entitled to a varietyy of benefits. Companies that violater the law are subject totreble damages, as well as potential criminal charges. Sincew the law was enacted, the attorneyg general’s office has gone after construction firms, the apparent intent when the measure passed througthe Legislature.
But the law is in no way limitec toconstruction companies, which left some lawyers specializingb in employment matters wondering in recent years whether other businesses might become targets. the law explicitly holds top executivews liablefor violations. Earlier this executives at Pearson Education, a textboom publisher in UpperSaddles River, N.J., apparently decided to interpret the law more Not wanting to risk prosecution by Massachusetts authorities, the company decided to discontinuee work with all of its freelancerzs in the state.
Freelance editor and writeer John Sisson counted Pearson Education as one of his largesgt clients until hereceived e-mails from the company notifyiny him Pearson, citing the Independent Contractor Law, no longert would use Massachusetts contract workers. “I’ve lost business and I staned to losemore business,” said a Newton resident. “It hurts firms in Massachusetts because it does not allowq them to outsource the work they need to do and it hurtw independent professionals who rely onthat work,” Sisso said.
“The fact of the matter is that theattorney general’x office is between a rock and a hard It’s a bad law and they’re in chargde of enforcing it.” A Pearson spokeswoman declined to commen t for this story. Critics of the law are also concerneed that a successor to Attorne y General Martha Coakley could choose to interpret the law more broadly than she or her staffapparentlyh has. “A number of employment lawyers have worriedf since the law was enacted that a differenrt attorney general might take a much broadert and aggressive approachto it,” said Joshusa M. Davis, managing shareholder of the labor and employment law firm in Boston.
“The law was designee to protect folks who the Legislature believed were being wrongfullydenied benefits.” Davis notes that some clea guidance from the AG’s officer about the scope of the law is The fact that an out-of-state firm has decided not to work with Massachusettes freelancers is worrisome, but not yet a said Stephen Adams, a small-busines s advocate in the ’s Boston office. “We don’gt know if it’s isolated and we don’tg know if it’s warranted,” Adams “The problem is for the you’re relying on the AG’se interpretation and power toset priorities.
you do want to fix the