I support Kiley's bills, of course, but I'm leery of the "opportunities and risk" criterion. Judges and agencies have sometimes taken a pretty hard line on it, insisting, for example, that simply buying a computer and an ad on LinkedIn isn't risky enough to satisfy it. I prefer establishing a business identity as a criterion instead. Ah well.
Do you know whether the hearing will be online? I didn't find anything saying so.
I think the hard truth here is that while we are all trying to be reasonable and logical, the people who want to destroy the self-employment model do not function from a logical standpoint. They function from an ideological standpoint.
I'm not so sure an established business identity works for all types of freelancers, though. For instance, journalists, photographers, visual artists, writers, actors, models, etc. all typically work under their own names, so the mandatory formation of a business entity would place an unnecessary extra burden on them (including financially, since in some states, you have to pay a fee to operate an LLC). It seems better to just look at the nature of the work they do and whether they are willfully choosing to be self-employed (i.e., have a formal contract in place, have the freedom to negotiate their rates, control their own work processes, etc.).
I know you're right that many independent contractors feel overwhelmed by the business entity complications, but all one has to do in California is register a business name with your county and you can use your personal name as your business name. What's more, many clients here demand that we have business identities.
That might be true for some types of freelancing, but not all kinds, and definitely not in all locations.
In journalism and photojournalism specifically, you're expected (required) to work under your own name for transparency and ethical reasons - this standard prevents a multitude of potentially nefarious activity in that industry.
Journalists/photogs can certainly get an EIN to protect themselves from identity theft, but it isn't typical or even practical for them to form a business entity and then file a DBA to work under their real names. In my experience, those industry norms have been consistent in California and Michigan alike.
I'm also not aware of any news outlet or magazine, anywhere, that would contract a business entity to write a news article or photograph an assignment that would then be published under a DBA. It would be impractical in that industry, and verifying the true identity of the freelancer underneath the business entity would be unnecessarily burdensome on the news outlet/magazine contracting them.
Nicely written, Kim. Thanks.
I support Kiley's bills, of course, but I'm leery of the "opportunities and risk" criterion. Judges and agencies have sometimes taken a pretty hard line on it, insisting, for example, that simply buying a computer and an ad on LinkedIn isn't risky enough to satisfy it. I prefer establishing a business identity as a criterion instead. Ah well.
Do you know whether the hearing will be online? I didn't find anything saying so.
I think the hard truth here is that while we are all trying to be reasonable and logical, the people who want to destroy the self-employment model do not function from a logical standpoint. They function from an ideological standpoint.
I'm not so sure an established business identity works for all types of freelancers, though. For instance, journalists, photographers, visual artists, writers, actors, models, etc. all typically work under their own names, so the mandatory formation of a business entity would place an unnecessary extra burden on them (including financially, since in some states, you have to pay a fee to operate an LLC). It seems better to just look at the nature of the work they do and whether they are willfully choosing to be self-employed (i.e., have a formal contract in place, have the freedom to negotiate their rates, control their own work processes, etc.).
I know you're right that many independent contractors feel overwhelmed by the business entity complications, but all one has to do in California is register a business name with your county and you can use your personal name as your business name. What's more, many clients here demand that we have business identities.
That might be true for some types of freelancing, but not all kinds, and definitely not in all locations.
In journalism and photojournalism specifically, you're expected (required) to work under your own name for transparency and ethical reasons - this standard prevents a multitude of potentially nefarious activity in that industry.
Journalists/photogs can certainly get an EIN to protect themselves from identity theft, but it isn't typical or even practical for them to form a business entity and then file a DBA to work under their real names. In my experience, those industry norms have been consistent in California and Michigan alike.
I'm also not aware of any news outlet or magazine, anywhere, that would contract a business entity to write a news article or photograph an assignment that would then be published under a DBA. It would be impractical in that industry, and verifying the true identity of the freelancer underneath the business entity would be unnecessarily burdensome on the news outlet/magazine contracting them.
Oops. It will be online at https://www.youtube.com/live/-pL9Y1h-Q_A.