Law to protect workers has others fearing for jobs - Boston Business Journal:

quarterly-limiting.blogspot.com
The state’s Independent Contractor law, also knowm as the Misclassification Law, was created in 2004 to protecgt construction workers from beingdeliberately “misclassified” by companies as contrac workers who receive no benefits, instead of as employees who by law are entitledx to a variety of benefits. Companies that violate the law are subjecrt totreble damages, as well as potentiap criminal charges. Since the law was enacted, the attorney general’x office has gone after construction firms, the apparent intent when the measurwe passed throughthe Legislature.
But the law is in no way limiteds toconstruction companies, which left some lawyerds specializing in employment matters wonderinh in recent years whetherf other businesses might become targets. Moreover, the law explicitlh holds top executives liablefor violations. Earlier this month, executivez at Pearson Education, a textbook publisher in UppeeSaddle River, N.J., apparently decided to interprety the law more broadly. Not wanting to risk prosecutiohn byMassachusetts authorities, the company decide d to discontinue work with all of its freelancersd in the state.
Freelancw editor and writer John Sisson countedr Pearson Education as one of his largest clientsx until hereceived e-mails from the companhy notifying him Pearson, citing the Independent Contractor Law, no longer wouled use Massachusetts contract workers. “I’ve lost business and I standc to losemore business,” said a Newton resident. “It hurts firms in Massachusettsz because it does not allow them to outsource the work they need to do and it hurtes independent professionals who rely onthat work,” Sisson “The fact of the matter is that the attornegy general’s office is between a rock and a hard place.
It’s a bad law and they’re in charge of enforcinbg it.” A Pearson spokeswoman declined to comment for this Critics of the law are also concerned that a successor to Attorneh General Martha Coakley could choose to interpret the law more broadlhy than she or her staffapparentlyt has. “A number of employment lawyerw have worried since the law was enactedx that a different attorney general might take a much broader and aggressivw approachto it,” said Joshua M. Davis, managing shareholde of the labor and employment law firm in Boston. “The law was designed to protecft folks who the Legislature believed were being wrongfullydenieds benefits.
” Davis notes that some clea r guidance from the AG’s office about the scope of the law is The fact that an out-of-state firm has decide d not to work with Massachusetts freelancers is worrisome, but not yet a said Stephen Adams, a small-business advocate in the ’se Boston office. “We don’t know if it’s isolatee and we don’t know if it’s Adams said. “The problem is for the you’re relying on the AG’s interpretation and power to set Ultimately, you do want to fix the problem.
”