My Photo

Twitter Updates

    follow me on Twitter

    September 2016

    Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
            1 2 3
    4 5 6 7 8 9 10
    11 12 13 14 15 16 17
    18 19 20 21 22 23 24
    25 26 27 28 29 30  

    « Alan II Not Published | Main | New Oral Argument Set in Brinker »

    Comments

    boy?

    Randy Hornibrook

    Your heading and first sentence are just plain wrong - very sloppy law. Taken at face value, you claim that the court here settled the issue of whether carriers can be independent contractors. The court indeed found, based upon disputed evidence, that *in this case with these facts* and *solely for the administrative purpose of worker's compensation insurance* these carriers were to be classified as employees. (Hint: This is why Callahan is now representing the AVP carriers in a civil suit against the AVP)

    Anyone who has worked with clients who utilize ICs understands how fact-driven each case is, whether judged by traditional control tests or the Borello factors. The AVP handled their ICs unlawfully, but that neither means all carriers are or should be classed as employees or that other publications have the same exposure if their procedures are different.

    I realize this is not peer-reviewed prose, but try to be accurate. The court did not certify for publication, and narrowly tailored the finding, for a reason.

    Michael Walsh

    Are you trying to Swiftboat us, Randy? Surely you are capable of catching the distinction between "the paperboy" and "all paperboys", and can comprehend the import of the clause in the second sentence that explains the limit in scope of the statement in the first, specifically, that the case "poses the specific question whether, for purposes of worker’s compensation insurance, persons who make deliveries of newspapers for the Antelope Valley Press are independent contractors or employees."

    To fail to make that distinction is akin to reading a headline that says "the butler is a murderer" and assuming that we are trying to call all butlers murderers. Taken at face value, the post simply declared that the court here settled the issue of whether carriers at the Antelope Valley Press were independent contractors, and explained why and how it came to that conclusion, making it potentially relevant to many other cases involving newspaper carriers. If your paper carrier case is dissimilar, it is possible, though unlikely, that you'll experience a different outcome.

    Tom

    Randy tries to be lawyerlike with a call to "try to be accurate" and then ends his argument with the inaccurate statement that "[t]he court did not certify for publication, and narrowly tailored the finding, for a reason." Sorry, Mr. Hornibrook, the court did certify the case for publication. The citation is Antelope Valley Press v. Poizner (2008) 162 Cal.App.4th 839. Next time you scold someone for what you think to be their error, you should try to come with a correct statement.

    The comments to this entry are closed.

    Become a Fan

    AddThis Social Bookmark Button