How does AB2257 fix the issues with AB5 that needed to be fixed (I'm genuinely curious)? From what I've read it all boils down to the interpretation of the "ABC Test".

For those unfamiliar with the AB2257 ABC test...

The provisions of AB 2257 sets forth the ABC Test in statute. The statutory ABC Test codified the language used by the state Supreme Court in its Dynamex decision. “A person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied:

A. The person is free from
the control and direction of
a hiring entity in connection
with the performance of the
work, under the contract for
the performance and in fact.

B. The person performs work
outside a hiring entity's
usual course of business.

C. The person is customarily
engaged in an independently
established trade, business,
or occupation of the same
nature as the performed work

Let's apply the ABC test to an Uber Driver (Umar); and for comparison a violinist (Viola, ironically) who is often hired by Joel Nelson Bay Area wedding Productions (JNP) [joelnelson.com/weddings].

A. The person is free from
control and direction of
the hiring entity for the
performance of the work

- Umar is given the location of the pickup, and the dropoff destination. The Uber app suggests pickup and dropoff routes, however Umar has some flexibility on which routes he takes, how fast or careful he drives, how chatty he is, the cleanliness of his vehicle, and any 'extras' (e.g. phone charger) he provides.

- Viola is given the location of the venue and a list of songs to play. She has some flexibility in the specific musical arrangements of those songs, and her performance. Ultimately she is trusted to show up on time and play, to her ability, the requested songs.

B. The person performs work
outside a hiring entity's
usual course of business.

- Umar provides transportation/taxi services. Uber will claim they are not a 'transportation' company, but a software company that caters to the vehicle-for-hire, food delivery, courier/freight & package delivery industries. They will claim programmers and IT specialists fall within their 'usual course of buisness', not vehicle drivers. Nevertheless, to the customer, it seems like Uber provides transportation services.

- Viola provides musical performance services. JNP will claim they are not a musical performance company, but a wedding & event planning agency. Nevertheless, JNP offers wedding music and entertainment right on their website ("String quartets, variety bands, experienced and diverse Disc Jockeys and MC’s, specialty lighting and photography packages, and more... Joel Nelson Productions has the right plan at the right price to make your wedding dreams a reality."

C. The person is customarily
engaged in an independently
established trade of the same
nature as the performed work

- Umar mostly drives for Lyft. He only gives Uber rides on weekends.

- Viola has a full-time job as an accountant. She only does violin gigs on some weekends. She only gigs through JNP.

Who is an employee and who is a contractor? Seems like Viola would be classified as an employee, because doesn't fulfill requirement 'C'. IMO all three of these stipulations are not very concrete, open to many interpretations/arguments, and thus not a very good law.

----

I think a better law would be something simpler, and less open to interpretation, like... Has the person (A) performed service for the company longer than X months, (B) more than Y hours a week, and (C) is this their primary source of income.