Advice | Protecting the Rights of Independent Contractors
To the editor:
On “The 'Gig' Label Is Used to Exploit Workers,” by Terri Gerstein (guest essay, January 29):
We are the freelance writers and editors Ms. Gerstein mentioned sue the Ministry of Labor about the independent contractor rule which, she said, “will make it more difficult for employers to treat workers as independent contractors rather than employees.” So let's explain.
The Ministry of Labor acknowledges this in its statement Rule of 339 pages published on January 10, which reflected most of the public comments from independent contractors opposition adhered to the rule, “which criticized the Department's proposed economic reality test as ambiguous and biased against independent contracts.”
There are now more than 70 million independent contractors, who make up a significant portion of the U.S. workforce, and study after study shows that 70 to 85 percent of us want to remain self-employed. The independent contractor rule is just the latest in the Biden administration's ongoing assault on our rights to do business for ourselves.
Like the vast majority of independent contractors in America, we choose self-employment. This rule, which comes into effect on March 11, will limit our right to enter into business contracts with our customers on our own terms. We hope the court will invalidate the rule and protect our careers.
Jen Singer
Kim Kavin
Debbie Abrams Kaplan
Karon Warren
The writers are the co-founders of Fight for Freelancers USA.
To the editor:
Terri Gerstein conflates the gig economy model with the independent contractor model and blames it for the ills and exploitation of independent contracting And gig work.
Ms. Gerstein uses the case of dishwashers operated by a temporary employment agency. For such cases, federal and local statutes already on the books could address this minority of misclassification cases.
But to justify taking away the autonomy, rights and earning potential of tens of millions of independent contractors, as the Department of Labor's latest rule attempts to do, Ms. Gerstein ignores the professional class of “solopreneurs”: journalists, lawyers, emergency workers staff. doctors, nurses and musicians, as well as the small business owners who rely on this kind of skilled professionalism to sustain and advance their businesses.
Ms. Gerstein barely mentions this class, which makes up the majority of self-employed professionals. Instead, she advocates for legislative and regulatory changes that would ultimately do nothing to help low-wage workers while wreaking havoc on true independent contractors.
Jennifer Oliver O'Connell
Muscle Shoals, Ala.
The writer, a small business owner and independent contractor, is a visiting scholar at the Independent Women's Forum's Center for Economic Opportunity.
Nikki Haley and a calculation for 2024
To the editor:
In my sixth decade of voting, I find I have a different perspective. Age and voting experience have made me a little less idealistic, a little more realistic and, to be honest, a lot more scared.
The year 2016 changed things for me. I wasn't too worried when Donald Trump rode down the escalator for the first time. I didn't believe he would ever win the nomination. And when he got Republican delegates, I thought that wasn't a bad thing. He would be the easiest candidate to beat.
Now only Nikki Haley stands between Trump and the Republican nomination. Am I once again falling into the potential trap of believing that Mr. Trump is unelectable – and the easiest candidate to defeat?
President Biden has accomplished incredible feats both at home and abroad. His policies are by far the best of any candidate, and I enthusiastically support him.
But given 2016, should I hope that Republicans see the light and nominate Ms. Haley, who is far from perfect but, at least from the looks of it, far less dangerous than Mr. Trump?
It's possible that I might not like the outcome of a meeting between Biden and Haley, but at least the survival of our democracy, and perhaps even the world order, wouldn't be on the ballot.
Stephen Gladstone
Shaker Heights, Ohio
Fear of Extinction: 'The Real Deal'
To the editor:
Re “Extinction Panic Is Back, Right on Schedule,” by Tyler Austin Harper (opinion guest essay, January 28):
Mr. Harper wants us to feel reassured that actual life-changing threats to human well-being are nothing more than predictable bouts of “extinction panic” that temporarily upend global complacency. You know, take a few deep breaths and everything will be fine.
I cannot predict how and when global warming will actually overtake our ability to mitigate its effects, or whether AI-powered robots will ever surpass human dominance. But I do worry about two specific disasters that could turn our world upside down in the short term and deserve more than a “what am I worried about?” academic dismissal as yet another cycle of extinction panic.
First, less than a year ago, the head of the World Health Organization, Tedros Adhanom Ghebreyesus, said warned that we could soon face a pandemic much deadlier than Covid-19. Intensified surveillance, prevention and treatment research into the prevention and treatment of emerging pathogens must now be stepped up.
Second, Mr. Harper appears to dismiss the threat of nuclear conflict, saying the demise of the Cold War is only waning. Vladimir Putin's finger is on the trigger the world's largest nuclear arsenal, and North Korea's volatile Kim Jong-un is becoming increasingly obsessed with increasing his own stockpile.
Add to that the fact that the other seven nuclear weapons countries are always on high alert. And we should be concerned that Russia appears to be pulling out of one arms control agreement after another.
So no, Mr. Harper, this is much more than just an outbreak of “extinction panic.” It's the real deal.
Irwin Redlener
New York
The writer, a pediatrician, is the founder and director of the National Center for Disaster Preparedness at Columbia University.
Don't cut sociology
To the editor:
About “Florida drops sociology as core course” (news article, January 28):
When Florida's state university system removed “Principles of Sociology” from its list of approved undergraduate courses, it was not about protecting innocent students from “woke ideology,” as state Education Commissioner Manny Diaz Jr. claimed.
After all, Florida students had several options to fulfill the social science requirement. No one forced them to study sociology; they could have easily taken something else. They chose it, in large numbers.
Sociology often draws attention to issues of inequality, race and gender – topics that Florida's government would apparently prefer not to mention. However, many students welcome the opportunity to discuss and learn about such issues of vital public and often personal interest.
The effect of eliminating this core credit will almost certainly reduce sociology enrollments and therefore majors, perhaps setting departments up for elimination. Courses may disappear, but the issues they address will remain, no matter what Governor Ron DeSantis would like.
Daniel F. Chambliss
Clinton, NY
The writer is professor emeritus of sociology at Hamilton College and co-author of “How College Works.”
The agony of the bulls
To the editor:
Re “After 500 years, Mexican bullfighting faces a deadly challenge” (front page, February 4):
What kind of collective disconnect does it take for 42,000 people to cheer and celebrate while bulls wail in pain as swords are plunged into their spines and they die in a pool of blood?
Philip Tripp
Largo, Fla.