🐈
» Forums » Freelancers » For Zues's sake make all jobs cost 2 connects...
Page options
bfry1981
Community Member

For Zues's sake make all jobs cost 2 connects if you're going to have these disgusting fees to apply

Hey Upwork people who never respond with actual changes to anything freelancers ever post here: it's bad enough you are nickel-and-diming us just to apply to jobs after committing highway robbery with an exorbitant 20% fee, but most jobs I've applied to are 6 or 4 connects.  For Zeus's sake, make them att two if you aren't going to get rid of connects, but seriously, just get rid of connects and find a better way to handle spammers.  I can't wait to never have to use this platofrm again and give you guys even a dime of my earnigns, the way freelancers are treated here is going to help inspire a real pushback when different people are running the government. California Assbembly Bill 5, baby!!

36 REPLIES 36
florydev
Community Member


Brian F wrote:

Hey Upwork people who never respond with actual changes to anything freelancers ever post here: it's bad enough you are nickel-and-diming us just to apply to jobs after committing highway robbery with an exorbitant 20% fee, but most jobs I've applied to are 6 or 4 connects.  For Zeus's sake, make them att two if you aren't going to get rid of connects, but seriously, just get rid of connects and find a better way to handle spammers.  I can't wait to never have to use this platofrm again and give you guys even a dime of my earnigns, the way freelancers are treated here is going to help inspire a real pushback when different people are running the government. California Assbembly Bill 5, baby!!


Dude, you have been on this platform since before 2015 probably longer got tired of hitting the View More button.  If you don't want to use the platform you sure are slow at getting off of it.

 

I agree that it should just be a set number but I would make it 6. 

 

Why do you want to be treated like an employee?

 


Mark F wrote:

Brian F wrote:

Hey Upwork people who never respond with actual changes to anything freelancers ever post here: it's bad enough you are nickel-and-diming us just to apply to jobs after committing highway robbery with an exorbitant 20% fee, but most jobs I've applied to are 6 or 4 connects.  For Zeus's sake, make them att two if you aren't going to get rid of connects, but seriously, just get rid of connects and find a better way to handle spammers.  I can't wait to never have to use this platofrm again and give you guys even a dime of my earnigns, the way freelancers are treated here is going to help inspire a real pushback when different people are running the government. California Assbembly Bill 5, baby!!


Dude, you have been on this platform since before 2015 probably longer got tired of hitting the View More button.  If you don't want to use the platform you sure are slow at getting off of it.

 

I agree that it should just be a set number but I would make it 6. 

 

Why do you want to be treated like an employee?

 


Hey Dude!  So, I'm not sure if you've noticed but a.) very few platforms have the reach of Upwork and b.) establishing yourself on a platform in 2019 on which you have no history is increidbly difficult.  So my use is more out of necessity. c.) I would argue that in many ways (way I think courts will be noticing like the California Supreme Court has) that Upwork DOES treat us like employees.  Not having to pay my own payroll taxes and having a deduction are just two benefits that come to mind, but there are certianly many others, too.  Why would you make all jobs cost 6 connects?  That sure seems to be a lonley sentiment among freelancers, it not virtually nonexistent...

jodypm
Community Member

Hi Brian,

 

I completely understand how you feel, I mean, honestly, who would not want a world where we could reap all of our earnings without any overhead?

 

But from a business perspective, the way that I look at it is this: the fees you are paying Upwork are in-line with what a competitive firm should expect to spend on advertising out of gross. For example, I have a private business (in a very competitive industry) that I've owned for many years and it is not uncommon at all for my total marketing cost (of which advertising assumes a chunk) to require around 20% of gross revenue. And for industries where there is a very high competition, a firm's marketing budget can be in the neighborhood of 30% - 40%. One example to put this in light is well-known SaaS company that specializes in CRM (unnamed in order to comply with community guidelines), which has been known to invest as much as 46% of their revenue in sales and marketing. And that large investment has afforded them admirable growth.

 

Additionally, by retaining clients on Upwork, the fee is reduced to 10% at $500. Looking at your profile, I see that you've had a few jobs where billing landed you in at the 10% fee rate, so I am not telling you anything that you do not already know. Furthermore, you've been on the site a long time, so I'm hoping that you can reasonably see my points in regards to marketing and advertising.

 

If you take these things into consideration, I think that you might see that Upwork's fees are reasonable considering the great reach and tools at your disposal. 


I am not at all trying to be combative, but what I am trying to do, in all honesty, is appeal to your logic in evaluating the current fees against any given firm and market's median advertising and marketing costs.

 

Best regards,

 

Jody PM

bfry1981
Community Member

Jody, how about 20% off the top of most contracts covers the overhead?  20% seems awfully high relative to the industry and job placement agencies, wouldn't you say?  Your position owuld make sense if a.) They were not taking 1 out of every 5 dollars I earn on most contracts and 2.) most contracts do not hit the 10% mark.  That is, I maintain, highway robbery.  If they just charged 10% or 5% the connects thing wouldn't hit so hard.  But since most contracts lose 20% of the payoff, this really is insult ito injury.  It's about degree!  Overhead!! When they charge 20% most of the time?  Please... 


Jody P wrote:

Hi Brian,

 

I completely understand how you feel, I mean, honestly, who would not want a world where we could reap all of our earnings without any overhead?

 

But from a business perspective, the way that I look at it is this: the fees you are paying Upwork are in-line with what a competitive firm should expect to spend on advertising out of gross. For example, I have a private business (in a very competitive industry) that I've owned for many years and it is not uncommon at all for my total marketing cost (of which advertising assumes a chunk) to require around 20% of gross revenue. And for industries where there is a very high competition, a firm's marketing budget can be in the neighborhood of 30% - 40%. One example to put this in light is well-known SaaS company that specializes in CRM (unnamed in order to comply with community guidelines), which has been known to invest as much as 46% of their revenue in sales and marketing. And that large investment has afforded them admirable growth.

 

Additionally, by retaining clients on Upwork, the fee is reduced to 10% at $500. Looking at your profile, I see that you've had a few jobs where billing landed you in at the 10% fee rate, so I am not telling you anything that you do not already know. Furthermore, you've been on the site a long time, so I'm hoping that you can reasonably see my points in regards to marketing and advertising.

 

If you take these things into consideration, I think that you might see that Upwork's fees are reasonable considering the great reach and tools at your disposal. 


I am not at all trying to be combative, but what I am trying to do, in all honesty, is appeal to your logic in evaluating the current fees against any given firm and market's median advertising and marketing costs.

 

Best regards,

 

Jody PM


 

jodypm
Community Member


Brian F wrote:

Jody, how about 20% off the top of most contracts covers the overhead?  20% seems awfully high relative to the industry and job placement agencies, wouldn't you say?  Your position owuld make sense if a.) They were not taking 1 out of every 5 dollars I earn on most contracts and 2.) most contracts do not hit the 10% mark.  That is, I maintain, highway robbery.  If they just charged 10% or 5% the connects thing wouldn't hit so hard.  But since most contracts lose 20% of the payoff, this really is insult ito injury.  It's about degree!  Overhead!! When they charge 20% most of the time?  Please... 


Jody P wrote:

Hi Brian,

 

I completely understand how you feel, I mean, honestly, who would not want a world where we could reap all of our earnings without any overhead?

 

But from a business perspective, the way that I look at it is this: the fees you are paying Upwork are in-line with what a competitive firm should expect to spend on advertising out of gross. For example, I have a private business (in a very competitive industry) that I've owned for many years and it is not uncommon at all for my total marketing cost (of which advertising assumes a chunk) to require around 20% of gross revenue. And for industries where there is a very high competition, a firm's marketing budget can be in the neighborhood of 30% - 40%. One example to put this in light is well-known SaaS company that specializes in CRM (unnamed in order to comply with community guidelines), which has been known to invest as much as 46% of their revenue in sales and marketing. And that large investment has afforded them admirable growth.

 

Additionally, by retaining clients on Upwork, the fee is reduced to 10% at $500. Looking at your profile, I see that you've had a few jobs where billing landed you in at the 10% fee rate, so I am not telling you anything that you do not already know. Furthermore, you've been on the site a long time, so I'm hoping that you can reasonably see my points in regards to marketing and advertising.

 

If you take these things into consideration, I think that you might see that Upwork's fees are reasonable considering the great reach and tools at your disposal. 


I am not at all trying to be combative, but what I am trying to do, in all honesty, is appeal to your logic in evaluating the current fees against any given firm and market's median advertising and marketing costs.

 

Best regards,

 

Jody PM


 


Hi Brian,

 

Thank you for continuing the conversation and sharing more insight.

 

But in reading your response, I think that you've completely missed my point: Upwork is not a 'job placement agency' as you've put it. You have to look at the 20% as more than just a fee for the escrow services that they provide. This 20%, as I mentioned in my post, covers the marketing and advertising costs that you do not have to pay. Upwork has great reach, and their most current advertising campaign has made seemingly good inroads. Upwork is a globally recognized brand that many clients trust and will trust in the future. Try to step back and consider the value that you do get as opposed to being stuck on Upwork's fees. No system or platform is perfect and you can never get all of the people to agree all of the time, but I do challenge you to run any service-oriented business where your overhead would be below 20%.

 

Best regards,

 

Jody PM


Brian F wrote:

Jody, how about 20% off the top of most contracts covers the overhead?  20% seems awfully high relative to the industry and job placement agencies, wouldn't you say?  Your position owuld make sense if a.) They were not taking 1 out of every 5 dollars I earn on most contracts and 2.) most contracts do not hit the 10% mark.  That is, I maintain, highway robbery.  If they just charged 10% or 5% the connects thing wouldn't hit so hard.  But since most contracts lose 20% of the payoff, this really is insult ito injury.  It's about degree!  Overhead!! When they charge 20% most of the time?  Please... 



In my industry recruiters take typically around a 33% slice and on top of that the salary you are paid is decided between them and the client, you have very little say in the matter.  In this case you do have a say, charge 20% more.  If you make it to $500.00 it's just additional gravy.

 

I also don't know what the statistical amount of most is...but if you have solid numbers on this I would be curious to see it.  I think Upwork would definitely prefer that every freelancer continue a relationship with a client as long as possible even if it lowers the percentage.  


Mark F wrote:

Brian F wrote:

Jody, how about 20% off the top of most contracts covers the overhead?  20% seems awfully high relative to the industry and job placement agencies, wouldn't you say?  Your position owuld make sense if a.) They were not taking 1 out of every 5 dollars I earn on most contracts and 2.) most contracts do not hit the 10% mark.  That is, I maintain, highway robbery.  If they just charged 10% or 5% the connects thing wouldn't hit so hard.  But since most contracts lose 20% of the payoff, this really is insult ito injury.  It's about degree!  Overhead!! When they charge 20% most of the time?  Please... 



In my industry recruiters take typically around a 33% slice and on top of that the salary you are paid is decided between them and the client, you have very little say in the matter.  In this case you do have a say, charge 20% more.  If you make it to $500.00 it's just additional gravy.

 

I also don't know what the statistical amount of most is...but if you have solid numbers on this I would be curious to see it.  I think Upwork would definitely prefer that every freelancer continue a relationship with a client as long as possible even if it lowers the percentage.  


We're talking about recruiters for high paying jobs, not $50, $100, $250 gigs man... It's also not up to us much because as I am sure you know the vast majority of job postings are sketchy one-offs that provide few details in the postings and where the clients have little or no history, so beggars can't really be choosers, can they?

drahony
Community Member

It is a poor system and a lot of people disagree with it from reading these forums.

I waste about 70-90% of my connects on jobs I never get.

I know I should " select the jobs I propose to better " but I blinking well do!

When there is 50 odd proposals for one job the statistics alone say you you have a 2% chance if every one is equally qualified.

Must be a better way surely?


Martin D wrote:

 

When there is 50 odd proposals for one job the statistics alone say you you have a 2% chance if every one is equally qualified.

Must be a better way surely?


But, of course, everyone is not equally qualified. That's the point, isn't it? You win jobs by offering something that sets you apart from the competition.


Tiffany S wrote:

Martin D wrote:

 

When there is 50 odd proposals for one job the statistics alone say you you have a 2% chance if every one is equally qualified.

Must be a better way surely?


But, of course, everyone is not equally qualified. That's the point, isn't it? You win jobs by offering something that sets you apart from the competition.


Heresy.

 

I will go one leap further and say that you can even be less qualified than the field but way better at convincing a client you can do the work.


Tiffany S wrote:

Martin D wrote:

 

When there is 50 odd proposals for one job the statistics alone say you you have a 2% chance if every one is equally qualified.

Must be a better way surely?


But, of course, everyone is not equally qualified. That's the point, isn't it? You win jobs by offering something that sets you apart from the competition.


It is Tiffany, you are right.

There must be a better way than the connects system with 20% cut is what I mean.

I've been doing OK on Upwork but mostly small jobs. I'm quite new and I've had 'scraping the barrel' clients and some great clients. It is when you get mostly small jobs the system doesn't work well and the costs are more painful.

I've been complaining on here mostly but I think Upwork is great, not perfect but it is great.

Maybe small contracts under say $100 should only get 5% cut then $200 at 10%??

Something to that effect would alleviate a lot of the sting.


Martin D wrote:

Tiffany S wrote:

Martin D wrote:

 

When there is 50 odd proposals for one job the statistics alone say you you have a 2% chance if every one is equally qualified.

Must be a better way surely?


But, of course, everyone is not equally qualified. That's the point, isn't it? You win jobs by offering something that sets you apart from the competition.


It is Tiffany, you are right.

There must be a better way than the connects system with 20% cut is what I mean.

I've been doing OK on Upwork but mostly small jobs. I'm quite new and I've had 'scraping the barrel' clients and some great clients. It is when you get mostly small jobs the system doesn't work well and the costs are more painful.

I've been complaining on here mostly but I think Upwork is great, not perfect but it is great.

Maybe small contracts under say $100 should only get 5% cut then $200 at 10%??

Something to that effect would alleviate a lot of the sting.


Yeah, Upwork isn't a good option for people whose business models rely on a lot of small jobs. There are some niches where that's just the way it is, but that makes Upwork a bad fit. Those little jobs aren't good for Upwork. They don't really want small one-offs, and they tend to be more expensive to service. In fact, that's why we have the current fee structure. It used to be 10% across the board, but those small jobs were just too expensive for Upwork to keep servicing at that rate. 

 

Though what you're proposing makes sense from a freelancer perspective, what you're asking is in effect that Upwork give special treatment to the jobs it doesn't want and charge more to its preferred customers. That's not a recipe for a successful business.


Martin D wrote:

....I've been complaining on here mostly but I think Upwork is great, not perfect but it is great.

Maybe small contracts under say $100 should only get 5% cut then $200 at 10%??

Something to that effect would alleviate a lot of the sting.


That is exactly opposite of the business model Upwork is pursuing. [edited to add: As Tiffany wrote,] It finds small contracts expensive. It finds larger/longer contracts push it toward profitability, even when they take a smaller cut. They have been explicit about this since they introduced the tiered commissions years ago, and lately have been even clearer about deprecating the "gig work" market, as spelled out in their latest quarterly investor letter.

chrisprince
Community Member

Hi Brian, 

 

I can certainly empathize with your frustration.  

 

Personally, I'd be happy to pay the fees and I'd be happy to pay for the connects _if_ I were sanguine about how those connects were valued.

 

I see a lot of proposals where the cost or duration of a project isn't clear.  Yet the number of connects to submit a proposal is set to 6.  If the client is unsure about the processes involved then it requires some explaining and that all takes time.

 

As things are, it takes between 20 and 90 proposals to secure one project.  I've been asking around and I'm trying to get a more accurate consensus on that number.

 

So, if you're spending an average of $20 to secure each project (before fees) and the nature of your work is such that you need to take on many short projects then it's grim times indeed.  

 

Trying to find a valid strategy and I'll post here if I come across any useful info

 

The determination of the number of connects is bizarre, but I think it's here to stay. We should either get used to it, write lengthy posts about how wrong it is and get used to it nevertheless, or go someplace else.

 

 

 

-----------
"Where darkness shines like dazzling light"   —William Ashbless

Or Renee, we can unite and make out voices heard in a more organized or forceful manner that this abritrary system (no explanation is really offered for 2 vs 6 connects, is there?) and 20% off the top for most contracts is just unacceptable.  But hey, it's nice having a giant share of the market because then you can ignore complaints, right? I am paying generally $1.50 to not even applyt two whole jobs, that's an exorbitant rate!!!  And I don't want to hear abotu overhead/administrative costs, it's


Rene K wrote:

The determination of the number of connects is bizarre, but I think it's here to stay. We should either get used to it, write lengthy posts about how wrong it is and get used to it nevertheless, or go someplace else.

 

 

 


 


Brian F wrote:

Or Renee, we can unite and make out voices heard in a more organized or forceful manner that this abritrary system (no explanation is really offered for 2 vs 6 connects, is there?) and 20% off the top for most contracts is just unacceptable. 

 

Where are you getting "most contracts"? What data do you have to support the idea that most freelancers are doing mostly tiny one-off jobs and never getting rehired by their clients?

 

That said...I'm currently paying on off-platform channel partner 20% for the first 12 months with a client he connected me with. I don't know what the value of that contract will be over 12 months, but I've made a bit over $2,000 from that client so far this month. Potentially, that referral fee could run to thousands of dollars. 

 

You know what he did to earn it? Recognized a fit, sent an email introducing us, and followed up a couple of weeks later to make sure we'd connected. 

 

Sound "unacceptable" to you? Or maybe like a good investment, since I would otherwise never have connected with this great client? 


Tiffany S wrote:

Brian F wrote:

Or Renee, we can unite and make out voices heard in a more organized or forceful manner that this abritrary system (no explanation is really offered for 2 vs 6 connects, is there?) and 20% off the top for most contracts is just unacceptable. 

 

Where are you getting "most contracts"? What data do you have to support the idea that most freelancers are doing mostly tiny one-off jobs and never getting rehired by their clients?


Sixty-five percent of Upwork's revenue comes from "relationships" of $1000 or more. A fifth comes from Agency engagements, and only 15 percent from the ≤$1K relationships that they are now calling "gig work" and apparently strategically deprecating.

 

The writing is on the wall. And here

 

 


Douglas Michael M wrote:


Sixty-five percent of Upwork's revenue comes from "relationships" of $1000 or more. A fifth comes from Agency engagements, and only 15 percent from the ≤$1K relationships that they are now calling "gig work" and apparently strategically deprecating.

 

 


In other words, the oft-repeated claim that Upwork takes a 20% fee on "most jobs" is just blatantly false.

Umm, come on now.  This isnn't advanced math.  If you have 10 jobs at $15,000 and 100 jobs at $100, both the vast majority of contracts would have 20% taken off the top and the vast majority of revenue would be from $1000+ contracts.  OBVIOUSLY smaller contracst account for less revenue but that doesnt mean that most jobs are not small ball.  I'm talking about being a freelancer on the site and going through available contacts.  If they are doing a different kind of model that's a wholemother sector.  It's like I say Amazon sell way more paperback books than hardcover and you're saying NO Amazon makes more from Blu Rays than books...

Tiffany S wrote:

Douglas Michael M wrote:


Sixty-five percent of Upwork's revenue comes from "relationships" of $1000 or more. A fifth comes from Agency engagements, and only 15 percent from the ≤$1K relationships that they are now calling "gig work" and apparently strategically deprecating.

 

 


In other words, the oft-repeated claim that Upwork takes a 20% fee on "most jobs" is just blatantly false.


 


Brian F wrote:

Umm, come on now.  This isnn't advanced math. 

 

If you have 10 jobs at $15,000 and 100 jobs at $100, both the vast majority of contracts would have 20% taken off the top and the vast majority of revenue would be from $1000+ contracts.  OBVIOUSLY smaller contracst account for less revenue but that doesnt mean that most jobs are not small ball. 

 

You're oversimplifying this a bit. Yes, it takes more tiny jobs than large ones to equal the same amount of money, but not nearly as much as you think. For example, a freelancer who does $50,000 worth of work for one client pays $3,050 in fees. Freelancers who earn $50,000 through individual $500 or less contracts pay $10,000 in fees. 

 

Yes, your point still stands (though watered down considerably). 

 

But, your observations of available jobs are absolutely meaningless, since we know that 1) most Upwork jobs are never filled, so there's no telling what percentage of the jobs actually filled are low-dollar versus high-dollar, and 2) Posted job prices say nothing about the variable that actually matters, which is the ongoing client relationship--I've had quite a lot of clients hire me on a $100 job and end up paying me several thousand dollars over time.

 

 

 

 

I'm talking about being a freelancer on the site and going through available contacts.  If they are doing a different kind of model that's a wholemother sector.  It's like I say Amazon sell way more paperback books than hardcover and you're saying NO Amazon makes more from Blu Rays than books...

 

Very good points! I just saw a job that I'd have bid for under the old system with no-fee bids:

Looking for a reliable content developer who can work with me on 3 websites. Need a solid content strategy written and implemented for each. I have lots of content and info to provide. We will go over content needs and I am available round the clock for input.

First site is personal site. Keynote speaking, coaching, advisory
Second site is non profit organization focused on performance management.
Third is a strategy firm being formed with a couple partners.


But I don't know enough about this gig. He has no history - first time on Upwork. He doesn't share anything about his business ("performance management" could mean many things and that's just one site). And he gives no idea of what he's willing to pay. So he's not getting a lot of bids, which means no feedback for him either. He could leave Upwork none the wiser. 

I could easily take the time to answer 30-100 bids like this and get nothing. The old platform had a lot of things going for it. 


Catharine G wrote:

Very good points! I just saw a job that I'd have bid for under the old system with no-fee bids:

Looking for a reliable content developer who can work with me on 3 websites. Need a solid content strategy written and implemented for each. I have lots of content and info to provide. We will go over content needs and I am available round the clock for input.

First site is personal site. Keynote speaking, coaching, advisory
Second site is non profit organization focused on performance management.
Third is a strategy firm being formed with a couple partners.


But I don't know enough about this gig. He has no history - first time on Upwork. He doesn't share anything about his business ("performance management" could mean many things and that's just one site). And he gives no idea of what he's willing to pay. So he's not getting a lot of bids, which means no feedback for him either. He could leave Upwork none the wiser. 

I could easily take the time to answer 30-100 bids like this and get nothing. The old platform had a lot of things going for it. 


Part of the solution would be to have reasonable requirements on job-posters for thier postings, but since Upwork is mostly interested in havign accountability on the freelancer side to for the ease of the clients, as has been from the beginning, who cares right? 😕

tlsanders
Community Member


Brian F wrote:

Hey Upwork people who never respond with actual changes to anything freelancers ever post here: it's bad enough you are nickel-and-diming us just to apply to jobs after committing highway robbery with an exorbitant 20% fee, but most jobs I've applied to are 6 or 4 connects.  For Zeus's sake, make them att two if you aren't going to get rid of connects, but seriously, just get rid of connects and find a better way to handle spammers.  I can't wait to never have to use this platofrm again and give you guys even a dime of my earnigns, the way freelancers are treated here is going to help inspire a real pushback when different people are running the government. California Assbembly Bill 5, baby!!


I'd love to see all jobs cost the same, though I don't care whether it's 2 or 6 or 12. There's  just too much angst associated with the variation.

 

I would also agree with making bidding free, if and only if each freelancer were allowed 5-10 bids per month and that was it...no exceptions, no buying extras, no do-overs if the job gets pulled. 

 

On a side note, that bill you're cheering will do more to limit freelancing opportunities for CA freelancers and with CA companies than any other single thing that has happened in the history of freelancing. 


Tiffany S wrote:

Brian F wrote:

Hey Upwork people who never respond with actual changes to anything freelancers ever post here: it's bad enough you are nickel-and-diming us just to apply to jobs after committing highway robbery with an exorbitant 20% fee, but most jobs I've applied to are 6 or 4 connects.  For Zeus's sake, make them att two if you aren't going to get rid of connects, but seriously, just get rid of connects and find a better way to handle spammers.  I can't wait to never have to use this platofrm again and give you guys even a dime of my earnigns, the way freelancers are treated here is going to help inspire a real pushback when different people are running the government. California Assbembly Bill 5, baby!!


I'd love to see all jobs cost the same, though I don't care whether it's 2 or 6 or 12. There's  just too much angst associated with the variation.

 

I would also agree with making bidding free, if and only if each freelancer were allowed 5-10 bids per month and that was it...no exceptions, no buying extras, no do-overs if the job gets pulled. 

 

On a side note, that bill you're cheering will do more to limit freelancing opportunities for CA freelancers and with CA companies than any other single thing that has happened in the history of freelancing. 


That's one interpretation of the bill but there are other credible ones, too...

 

What they really need a 3rd worker category, not employee, not contractor, but something else with a hybrid of regulations, such as having some sort of income deductions and and not having to pay double payroll taxes up to a certain amount of income, too...


Brian F wrote:


That's one interpretation of the bill but there are other credible ones, too...

 

That's actually not an interpretation of the bill at all. It's an observation-based prediction about how companies currently using freelancers will respond to the bill.

 

What they really need a 3rd worker category, not employee, not contractor, but something else with a hybrid of regulations, such as having some sort of income deductions and and not having to pay double payroll taxes up to a certain amount of income, too...


What they really need is to enforce misclassification as it has existed for decades and leave real freelancers alone.

 

 

It is very hard to impossible to be all things to all people. In the end you wind up being perhaps a jack of all trades, but a master of none. That is a recipe for mediocrity. I think UW is understanding that the portion of the gig economy where it can add and receive the most value is in the higher-end of the market. However, instead of just saying that, they are being a bit passive aggressive in making changes that will push the lower-end out or at least to the margins. Perhaps I am wrong and this is really just them being indecisive as to what their strategy ought to be so they hang onto everything waiting to see which way the wind blows. 

 

There is no more legitimacy with the "high end" of the market as the "low end". There is a legitimate need and market for all rates and services. However, it would be perfectly acceptable for UW to drop one end and let some other company better support that group.  In fact I believe today there are better sites for the lower cost end of the market. The problem today is that UW will support that lower end but at the same time they will make it less appetizing. As long as they support it though they remain open to fair criticism. 

 

It would be better if UW took an open stance and if they really want to handle both ends perhaps they can take a lesson from car companies. I realize this does not apply to all part of the world but the model should make sense. Honda has Acura. Toyota has Lexus. Nissan has Infinity. It would be a thought to create a separate marketplace that better serves the smaller lower cost gigs versus the larger higher cost gigs. Be hyper focused on the market you are assigned to and be great. Both sides win when that happens. Today though it's apply the same approach for a $20/1 hour gig as one for a $20k/125 hour gig and then wonder why everyone isn't happy.    

I really do not understand why people are so upset about the CA bill. I live in CA. I work with CA businesses as a consultant. I have always used the ABC test mentioned by the bill to determine if I am a freelancer or not. I am a vendor to a large university, and they, in fact, have paperwork you have to fill out to determine if you fall under the regulations as a consultant or must be hired on as an employee. 

 

Unless, clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor, then there really is nothing to worry about. And why would you cheer on a bill that you think will make you an employee of UpWork? Then UpWork would just be another temp agency. And then no wonder they're not making money, because there's no money in short data entry, low paying jobs. But there is money in skilled, professional consulting referral fees. Which I think is what someone else was saying UpWork was trying to gear towards more. 

drahony
Community Member

I had no idea Upwork was trying to move away from smaller jobs or "gig work"!

I am in the wrong place then.

 

That's a shame.

Where should I go Fiver? or the likes?

browersr
Community Member


Martin D wrote:

I had no idea Upwork was trying to move away from smaller jobs or "gig work"!

I am in the wrong place then.

 

That's a shame.

Where should I go Fiver? or the likes?


UW has made no such declaration. This is just some of us intuiting based on what we witness of their behavior. You'll have to come to your own conclusions. As for small gigs, you know the sites. You'll have to check the out and see what they can offer you. It doesn't need to be all or nothing. You can try as many platforms out simulataniously as you wish. 


Scott B wrote:

Martin D wrote:

I had no idea Upwork was trying to move away from smaller jobs or "gig work"!

I am in the wrong place then.

 

That's a shame.

Where should I go Fiver? or the likes?


UW has made no such declaration. This is just some of us intuiting based on what we witness of their behavior. You'll have to come to your own conclusions.... 


This quote from the CEO that Christine provided in another thread comes pretty close.


Amanda L wrote:

I really do not understand why people are so upset about the CA bill. I live in CA. I work with CA businesses as a consultant. I have always used the ABC test mentioned by the bill to determine if I am a freelancer or not. I am a vendor to a large university, and they, in fact, have paperwork you have to fill out to determine if you fall under the regulations as a consultant or must be hired on as an employee. 

 

And that's great for you, because as a consultant, you pass the test. But, a great many professional freelancers do not. For example, any writer who is working through agencies rather than directly for clients, or any programmer who is providing services to a company in the business of software development. 

 

Unless, clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor, then there really is nothing to worry about.

 

Absolutely false, both legally and because many companies are spooked by this and more reluctant to work with freelancers now. I was already seeing some reports of long-time freelancing relationships being terminated by skittish companies after Dynamex, and the buzz around that wasn't nearly what we're facing now.

 

I would particularly be concerned if I were a California freelancer who worked remotely, since the bill creates a bunch of issues a company won't even have to think about if they simply opt not to work with CA freelancers. 

 

 


Tiffany S wrote:

Amanda L wrote:

I really do not understand why people are so upset about the CA bill. I live in CA. I work with CA businesses as a consultant. I have always used the ABC test mentioned by the bill to determine if I am a freelancer or not. I am a vendor to a large university, and they, in fact, have paperwork you have to fill out to determine if you fall under the regulations as a consultant or must be hired on as an employee. 

 

And that's great for you, because as a consultant, you pass the test. But, a great many professional freelancers do not. For example, any writer who is working through agencies rather than directly for clients, or any programmer who is providing services to a company in the business of software development. 

 

Unless, clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor, then there really is nothing to worry about.

 

Absolutely false, both legally and because many companies are spooked by this and more reluctant to work with freelancers now. I was already seeing some reports of long-time freelancing relationships being terminated by skittish companies after Dynamex, and the buzz around that wasn't nearly what we're facing now.

 

I would particularly be concerned if I were a California freelancer who worked remotely, since the bill creates a bunch of issues a company won't even have to think about if they simply opt not to work with CA freelancers. 

 

 


Unless it's by where the company is based and not the freelancer...


Brian F wrote:

Tiffany S wrote:

Amanda L wrote:

I really do not understand why people are so upset about the CA bill. I live in CA. I work with CA businesses as a consultant. I have always used the ABC test mentioned by the bill to determine if I am a freelancer or not. I am a vendor to a large university, and they, in fact, have paperwork you have to fill out to determine if you fall under the regulations as a consultant or must be hired on as an employee. 

 

And that's great for you, because as a consultant, you pass the test. But, a great many professional freelancers do not. For example, any writer who is working through agencies rather than directly for clients, or any programmer who is providing services to a company in the business of software development. 

 

Unless, clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor, then there really is nothing to worry about.

 

Absolutely false, both legally and because many companies are spooked by this and more reluctant to work with freelancers now. I was already seeing some reports of long-time freelancing relationships being terminated by skittish companies after Dynamex, and the buzz around that wasn't nearly what we're facing now.

 

I would particularly be concerned if I were a California freelancer who worked remotely, since the bill creates a bunch of issues a company won't even have to think about if they simply opt not to work with CA freelancers. 

 

 


Unless it's by where the company is based and not the freelancer...


In which case it would be super-weird that the California Department of Industrial relations consistently uses the language "workers in California" when describing who the bill covers.

 

I'd argue, though, that it doesn't even matter at this point how the law is ultimately interpreted. Companies don't make decisions like which freelancer to hire thinking, "Well, it's still a gray area, and there's a decent chance that if they come down on us, we can spend a few hundred thousand dollars and establish that the law didn't apply to us." They take the easy, safe, economical route and choose the freelancer who doesn't open that door.


Amanda L wrote:

I really do not understand why people are so upset about the CA bill. I live in CA. I work with CA businesses as a consultant. I have always used the ABC test mentioned by the bill to determine if I am a freelancer or not. I am a vendor to a large university, and they, in fact, have paperwork you have to fill out to determine if you fall under the regulations as a consultant or must be hired on as an employee. 

 

Unless, clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor, then there really is nothing to worry about. And why would you cheer on a bill that you think will make you an employee of UpWork? Then UpWork would just be another temp agency. And then no wonder they're not making money, because there's no money in short data entry, low paying jobs. But there is money in skilled, professional consulting referral fees. Which I think is what someone else was saying UpWork was trying to gear towards more. 


"Unless clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor"-- Umm, that's a HUGE portion of what's going on when you look at the postings.  They use internships and online freelancers to avoid having to hire entry level of less advanced-skill employees.  The whole system is being abused and there is practically no enforcement, including of Department of Labor's legally binding restrictions on internships...


Brian F wrote:


"Unless clients are using freelancers as temp workers instead of skilled, professional labor"-- Umm, that's a HUGE portion of what's going on when you look at the postings.  They use internships and online freelancers to avoid having to hire entry level of less advanced-skill employees.  The whole system is being abused and there is practically no enforcement, including of Department of Labor's legally binding restrictions on internships...


agree. Those laws should be enforced. They already exist and are languishing unused. There was no need for a new, more restrictive definition. That's like routinely ignoring drunk drivers and choosing not to prosecute them when you notice them and then deciding the way to cut down on drunk driving is to change the legal limit to .05. The most dangerous people are already out there breaking the existing law...use the mechanism you have to fix that.

Latest Articles
Featured Topics
Learning Paths