캘리포니아 대법원 판결: 긱 근로자의 고용 상태

캘리포니아 대법원은 우버와 리프트 드라이버가 독립 계약자라는 판결을 내려 긱 근로자에게 영향을 미치고 다양한 분야에서 논쟁을 촉발시켰습니다.

### 캘리포니아 대법원, 우버 및 리프트 운전자를 독립 계약자로 인정한 판결
* 🚗 캘리포니아 대법원은 **Uber와 Lyft의 드라이버를 직원이 아닌 독립 계약자**로 분류해야 한다는 판결을 내렸습니다.
* 🏢 이번 판결은 차량 공유 업체가 운전자에게 **최저임금, 초과 근무 수당, 건강 보험 등의 혜택을 제공하지 않아도 된다**는 점에서 승소 판결로 받아들여지고 있습니다.
* 📊 이번 판결은 다양한 분야의 긱 워커에게 상당한 영향을 미쳐 **다른 주에서도 유사한 논쟁**이 벌어질 것으로 예상됩니다.
* ⚖ 이 문제의 배경에는 더 많은 근로자를 근로자로 분류하는 것을 목표로 한 캘리포니아의 **AB5 법안**과 차량 공유 회사가 독립 계약자 지위를 유지할 수 있도록 한 **발의안 22**가 있습니다.
* 💼 법원의 이번 결정은 **운전자도 직원 수당을 받을 자격이 있다**고 주장하는 노동조합과 근로자 권리 옹호 단체에게 좌절감을 안겨줄 것으로 보입니다.
* 🇺🇸 이번 판결은 연방 정부 차원에서 논의로 이어질 가능성이 있으며, **노동부는 이미 2022년에 새로운 근로자 분류 규칙**을 시행하고 있습니다.
* 💰 회사 입장에서는 **드라이버를 독립 계약자로 인정**하면 인건비를 최대 **30%까지 절감**할 수 있으며, 직원으로 분류할 경우 **서비스 가격 인상**으로 이어질 가능성이 있습니다.
* 🌐 이 판결은 캘리포니아의 긱 워커에게 중요한 의미를 가질 뿐만 아니라 **다른 주와 연방 차원의 유사한 논쟁과 규제에도 영향**을 미칠 수 있습니다.

The Supreme Court has ruled that Uber and Lyft drivers are independent contractors rather than employees. This ruling comes from the California Supreme Court, which determined that drivers for these ride-sharing services should be classified as independent contractors instead of employees. This means that drivers who seek more benefits as employees are not being supported, and the ruling favors the ride-sharing companies. 

This decision is not only significant for ride-sharing services but is also expected to have a considerable impact on various other sectors, such as delivery services and retail, particularly affecting what are known as gig workers—those engaged in short-term, flexible jobs. The article suggests that this ruling will serve as a major precedent and will likely influence many workers in similar situations. 

The background of this issue is somewhat complex. It revolves around the long-standing debate over whether certain workers should be classified as employees or independent contractors. From the perspective of workers, there is a general tendency to prefer being classified as employees.

From the employer's perspective, they tend to view workers as independent contractors. This is because, from the employee's standpoint, the first aspect to consider is benefits and protections. If classified as a regular employee, they are legally entitled to minimum wage, overtime pay, sick leave, unemployment insurance, and health insurance benefits. Additionally, even if they are terminated, they are likely to receive severance pay and other legal protections. In contrast, independent contractors do not have the right to these benefits. They are responsible for paying their own taxes as self-employed individuals. While there are advantages, such as flexibility in work style and hours, there is also the issue of income stability. Being a regular employee provides a fixed salary and benefits, which ensures relatively stable income.

There will be differences in income based on contracts that are variable and not fixed for independent contractors. On the other hand, from the employer's perspective, it works the opposite way. For full-time employees, cost management is actually more stable, but it can be a significant burden for employers. In addition to salaries, there are costs for benefits, health insurance, pensions, and paid leave. In contrast, when hiring independent contractors, there is no obligation for such benefits, which can lead to reduced labor costs. There is also greater flexibility in hiring and firing. In any case, there are differences in these aspects. Independent contractors work only under specific contract conditions, so while the company's control is relatively limited, on the other hand, adjusting the workforce as needed is much more flexible.

There are advantages, particularly in terms of legal responsibility. From the employer's perspective, there are various legal regulations when it comes to terminating or changing the employment conditions of full-time employees. In contrast, independent contractors have significantly fewer legal responsibilities. For this reason, employers tend to prefer independent contractors, while workers generally prefer employees. 

In this context, there was a law that came out in California in 2019, known as the AB5 law. This law introduced the ABC test to clearly distinguish between independent contractors and full-time employees. To be classified as an independent contractor, one must meet all three criteria of the ABC test; if any one of them is not met, the individual is considered a full-time employee. This law can be seen as quite employee-friendly.

The worker must be free from the company's control and directives. This means that the worker should have a significant degree of independent decision-making regarding how they work and their schedule. Additionally, the tasks performed by the worker must be different from or independent of the company's main business. For example, if a software development company contracts cleaning services, this would satisfy the second element. The third element requires that the worker independently operates a separate business performing the same tasks; only then can it be said that they are not dependent on a specific company. This condition falls under the third element. Therefore, all three elements—A, B, and C—must be met for someone to be considered an independent contractor; if they are not met, the individual is regarded as a regular employee. This has been mentioned earlier in relation to the worker's side.

The law is designed to be closer to the reality that workers generally prefer to become full-time employees. According to this law, most ride-sharing service drivers are more likely to be classified as full-time employees. The intention was to ensure that these drivers could receive benefits such as minimum wage, health insurance, and paid sick leave. However, there was a law that came out in response to this, known as Proposition 22. The content of this proposition was contrary to the previous law. In simple terms, it allowed ride-sharing and delivery service drivers to maintain their status as independent contractors while guaranteeing a minimum income, providing subsidies for health insurance, and offering protections in their working environment. This effectively circumvented the existing regulations of AB5, giving employers more flexibility in their hiring practices.

The proposition aimed at allowing the structure can be seen by the residents. Therefore, app-based service providers like Uber and Lyft naturally lobbied heavily to pass Proposition 22. According to reports, they invested as much as $250 million into this effort. As a result, in November 2020, 58% of California voters approved the law. In this context, just last week, the California Supreme Court issued a ruling on a lawsuit filed by the Service Employees International Union and several drivers, claiming that Proposition 22 was unconstitutional. Ultimately, the court dismissed the case. This ruling supports the argument made by ride-sharing service providers that there are thousands of drivers involved.

This is being evaluated as a victory for companies that have claimed that treating all employees as such would force them to suspend or propose services in California. Many experts found it somewhat surprising that California, known for having the strongest pro-union sentiment in the country, has sided with these companies. The United Service Workers Union's California chapter expressed great disappointment but stated that they would continue to fight for union rights. On the other hand, the company issued a statement saying that this ruling provides drivers with record benefits and protections while also maintaining their independence, which was supported by 58% of California residents, representing the will of ten million people.

It has been stated that, from the perspective of companies, recognizing independent contractors can reduce labor costs by 30%. Therefore, if companies in the gig economy receive a ruling that recognizes them as employees, they will inevitably have to significantly increase service provision costs. This is why it was argued that the prices for services like Uber and Lyft would rise dramatically. This ruling is not just a matter of gig workers' status in California; similar debates are occurring in various states, and it is anticipated that this will have repercussions in other states as well. Of course, it remains uncertain whether other states will adopt California's ruling as it is. Nevertheless, such a ruling could trigger discussions about enacting similar laws or amending existing laws in other states.

This is an analysis of the article. Of course, it can also trigger discussions at the federal government level. The federal government can consider these state-level rulings to review federal employment regulations or introduce new policies. Therefore, efforts to create consistent regulations across the United States can also be made at the federal level. In fact, in 2022, the federal Department of Labor announced a worker classification rule that recognizes gig workers as formal employees, which has been in effect since March. Additionally, in March, Congress introduced a bill aimed at overturning the federal government's new worker classification rule, with bipartisan support. So, today's content is about the recent ruling from the California Supreme Court.

최근 기사에서는 초단기 근로자들이 어떤 노동법상 지위에 있는지, 즉 정직원이 아닌 독립 계약자에 대한 유의미한 주 최고 법원의 결정이 내려졌다는 내용을 다루고 있습니다. 이는 캘리포니아 또는 다른 주에서 관련 업종에 종사하는 근로자나 사업주가 관심을 가질 만한 내용입니다.

우버 리프트

미국 진출에 관심이 있는 개인, 기업에게 다양한 법률, 세무, 자산관리 도움을 드리고 있는 미국 변호사, 회계사 존청입니다.

미국이라는 나라가 여러 가지 면에서는 이제는 많이 익숙하게 느껴질 법하지만, 막상 비즈니스를 하기에는 어디에서부터 시작해야 할지 여전히 어렵게 느껴지는 게 사실이라 사람들이 쉽게 다가가지 못하는 경우가 많은 것 같습니다. 개인, 스타트업 및 여러 기업들의 성공적인 미국 진출을 위한 법률뿐만 아니라 회계, 재무 및 투자까지 다양한 정보를 쉽게 알려드리겠습니다.

더 자세한 정보는 https://jclawcpa.com 에서 확인하실 수 있습니다.

콜라보 및 협업문의는 info@jclawcpa.com 로 부탁드립니다.


John Chung No.1 Korean U.S. Attorney

우버 및 리프트 드라이버에 대한 대법원 판결

캘리포니아 대법원은 Uber와 Lyft 드라이버를 독립 계약자로 분류해야 한다는 판결을 내려 차량 공유업체의 손을 들어주었습니다.

이 판결은 긱 워커에 대한 중요한 선례가 될 것으로 예상되며, 차량 공유를 넘어 배달 서비스, 소매업 등 다양한 분야에 영향을 미칠 것으로 보입니다.

이 판결은 근로자의 분류에 대한 중요한 논쟁을 촉발시켰으며, 근로자의 혜택과 보호에 영향을 미쳤습니다.

AB5 법: 독립 계약자 및 정규직 직원에게 미치는 영향

2019년에 도입된 캘리포니아의 AB5 법은 근로자의 자유와 독립성을 우선시하여 독립 계약자와 정규직 직원을 구분하기 위해 ABC 테스트를 시행했습니다.

ABC 테스트는 개인이 회사의 통제에서 자유로울 것, 회사의 주요 업무와 독립적인 업무를 수행할 것, 별도의 사업을 운영할 것 등 특정 기준을 충족해야 합니다.

이러한 기준 중 하나라도 충족하지 못하면 정규직 직원으로 간주됩니다.

캘리포니아의 AB5 법안과 발의안 22가 차량 공유 서비스 운전자에게 미치는 영향

캘리포니아의 AB5 법은 차량 공유 드라이버를 정규직으로 분류하여 혜택을 제공하는 것을 목표로 했지만, 발의안 제22호로 인해 일부 혜택을 받으면서도 독립 계약자로 남을 수 있게 되었습니다.

발의안 22는 AB5의 규제를 효과적으로 우회하는 법안으로, Uber와 Lyft 같은 앱 기반 서비스 제공업체의 전폭적인 지지를 받았습니다.

이 발의안은 캘리포니아 유권자의 58%가 최종적으로 찬성했고 최근 소송에서 승소하여 차량 공유 서비스 제공업체의 입지를 강화했습니다.

긱 워커 지위에 관한 캘리포니아 판결

캘리포니아주의 강한 친노조 정서를 고려할 때 긱 워커의 지위에 대해 회사의 편을 들기로 한 캘리포니아주의 결정은 놀라운 일입니다.

전미서비스노조 캘리포니아 지부는 실망스럽지만 노조의 권리를 위한 투쟁을 계속할 것을 약속합니다.

이번 판결은 캘리포니아 주민의 58%가 지지하고 있으며, 긱 경제에 종사하는 기업의 인건비를 크게 줄여 서비스 가격의 급격한 상승을 초래할 것으로 예상됩니다.

이번 판결은 다른 주에서도 유사한 논쟁에 영향을 미치고 긱 근로자 고용법에 관한 논의를 촉발할 것으로 보입니다.

캘리포니아 대법원 판결이 긱 워커에 미치는 영향

최근 캘리포니아 대법원의 판결은 긱 워커를 독립 계약자로 분류하는 데 중요한 영향을 미쳤습니다.

연방 정부도 이 문제를 해결하기 위한 조치를 취하고 있으며, 노동부는 새로운 근로자 분류 규정을 시행하고 의회는 이를 뒤집는 법안을 발의했습니다.

이러한 발전은 긱 워커에 대한 일관된 규정을 마련하기 위한 연방 차원의 논의와 잠재적인 정책 변화를 촉발할 것으로 보입니다.