|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 22:55:05 GMT
You do not think they are going in the direction of them fitting the employer definition?
Youtube is already the sole source of income for many creators. That in itself is enough to tease the definition.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 23:04:45 GMT
That many people make their exclusive income from a platform isn’t enough. Otherwise eBay, Amazon and many more would be the employers of their partners too. The US legal definition is a pretty standard way of defining an employer (relevant parts The YouTube/Partner relationship lack in bold):
“An employer is a person or entity who hires another to performs service under an express or implied agreement and has control, or the right to control, over the manner and means of performing the services. An employer has the right to control an employee.”
Not allowing people to do certain things on their platform is not the same as control, just to be clear.
|
|
|
Post by bigmonmulgrew on Mar 4, 2018 23:30:39 GMT
It could easily be argued that once you are someones sole source of income then you do have the right to control even if it hasnt been explicitly stated, someone who is dependant on you is going to do what you say. That certainly does not apply to tiny channels who don't rely on the income but it does apply to the ones making their living from this. The US definition also isnt the only one that matters here. I do not know all the details but in the UK there has been some discussion recently on companies dodging employment law by subcontracting "self employed" people to replace workers. The short version is that if you are employing someone who is "self employed" but you are their sole source of income then you are infact their employer, and all the tax obligations of the employer apply as well as all the legal rights of an employee. There are a lot of youtube creators where their relationship with youtube fits that description.
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 23:35:45 GMT
Ehhh no, but never mind.
|
|
|
Post by midknightloki on Mar 4, 2018 23:44:44 GMT
It could easily be argued that once you are someones sole source of income then you do have the right to control even if it hasnt been explicitly stated, someone who is dependant on you is going to do what you say. That certainly does not apply to tiny channels who don't rely on the income but it does apply to the ones making their living from this. The US definition also isnt the only one that matters here. I do not know all the details but in the UK there has been some discussion recently on companies dodging employment law by subcontracting "self employed" people to replace workers. The short version is that if you are employing someone who is "self employed" but you are their sole source of income then you are infact their employer, and all the tax obligations of the employer apply as well as all the legal rights of an employee. There are a lot of youtube creators where their relationship with youtube fits that description. That sounds like a claim that should be backed by some sources. YouTube does not qualify or make sense as an employer unless we are talking about them funding premium content. Sent from my Nexus 6P using Tapatalk
|
|
|
Post by spartacus on Mar 4, 2018 23:46:44 GMT
Exactly!
|
|
|
Post by 4thekore on Mar 5, 2018 0:15:12 GMT
Unless you were on youtube red which I have yet to see anything better then normal youtube they did't hire you. Just like proboards has nothing to do with the memberbase here.
|
|
|
Post by maximgunn on Mar 5, 2018 1:00:54 GMT
On the topic of whether we are a "real" union or not, I believe this organization can be very influential. Much like the SAG (screen actors guild). Actors are not employees of the studios, but are contracting with the studio and it's producers to work together for a common purpose. A Motion Picture in the SAG analogy, and engaging and vital content in the YouTube scenario. In the case of the SAG, however, there are multiple studios. Not one monopoly of power as is the case with YT. This union will help level the playing field for all creators and may even bring out some YT competition to break that monopoly. I agree with this sentiment absolutely. I believe a study on how the SAG operates would offer a lot of clues as to how to proceed effectively. I have seen a lecture on it in the past and I've forgotten most of it, but I do know they have a zero tolerance for anyone found hiring outside of the guild. Again, I'm not sure they have any legal standing as a 'union' but their word is law. Similarly in regard to whether our cooperation is a union as defined by the law is a moot point; It uses the same means to provide the same ends. As for the "false self employment" issue: The nuclear option only offers mutually assured destruction (and that would be MAD).
|
|
|
Post by outdoorjo on Mar 5, 2018 1:09:03 GMT
On the topic of whether we are a "real" union or not, I believe this organization can be very influential. Much like the SAG (screen actors guild). Actors are not employees of the studios, but are contracting with the studio and it's producers to work together for a common purpose. A Motion Picture in the SAG analogy, and engaging and vital content in the YouTube scenario. In the case of the SAG, however, there are multiple studios. Not one monopoly of power as is the case with YT. This union will help level the playing field for all creators and may even bring out some YT competition to break that monopoly. I agree with this sentiment absolutely. I believe a study on how the SAG operates would offer a lot of clues as to how to proceed effectively. I have seen a lecture on it in the past and I've forgotten most of it, but I do know they have a zero tolerance for anyone found hiring outside of the guild. Again, I'm not sure they have any legal standing as a 'union' but their word is law. Similarly in regard to whether our cooperation is a union as defined by the law is a moot point; It uses the same means to provide the same ends. As for the "false self employment" issue: The nuclear option only offers mutually assured destruction (and that would be MAD). I think we have something very similar in the UK called Equity? They too have a zero tolerance (or used to) to hiring anyone from outside the union to do any acting paid work whatever the medium.
|
|