Reply to Thread Bookmark Thread
Posts 1 to 21 of 21
  1. #1

    User Info Menu


  2.  

    The Jazz Guitar Chord Dictionary
     
  3. #2

    User Info Menu

    Yeah, not sure what it's all about but here's the regular text on AB5.

    Bill Text - AB-5 Worker status: employees and independent contractors.

  4. #3

    User Info Menu

    California, where more gov't in your life is always better. Where guitar amps have warnings they might cause cancer....true.

  5. #4

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    California, where more gov't in your life is always better. Where guitar amps have warnings they might cause cancer....true.
    Seen it, not just amps but guitars also. Apparently, only in CA can you get cancer from playing a Fender Telecaster.

    I'll try to summarize one the issue to musicians of that AB5: If you get a group of musicians together to play a single gig at the local bar (in California), you are an employer and the rest of the group are your employees which requires extra taxes and benefits to be paid and additional accounting requirements like W-2s, W-4s etc.. Same thing if you hire a drummer to play on a track you are recording. Seems the studio musicians will have a whole bunch of employers every year. Many professions got exemptions but not musicians.
    Last edited by fep; 01-23-2020 at 10:45 AM.

  6. #5

    User Info Menu

    I smell "T-R-O-U-B-L-E."


  7. #6

    User Info Menu

    yup this state and Grusome are fucking whacked.

  8. #7

    User Info Menu

    Won't enforcement be difficult in most situations where musicians perform?

  9. #8

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Gitfiddler
    Won't enforcement be difficult in most situations where musicians perform?
    Lawyers will make money sorting out the various lawsuits. Its a great opportunity for them.

  10. #9

    User Info Menu

    I am both a bandleader and a sideman here in California. I am also still a licensed attorney here as well. The law is well intended, but will have unfortunate unintended consequences. That said, it is not as dire as many have predicted. If you are playing at a restaurant or bar where music is not part of the venue's primary business model, you should still qualify as an independent contractor, especially if you do less than 30 gigs at that venue a year. Bandleaders should be careful about their chosen sidemen. If the sideman does not work for anyone else, he/she could be considered an employee.

    The law gave many professions a pass, but musicians did not get that pass (thanks to lobbying efforts by the Musicians unions), so care will be necessary for both venue owners and bandleaders to ensure that independent contractor status applies, but the sky is not falling (yet) Chicken Little.

    IMO, ASCAP and BMI are far more dangerous to the small venue gigs than this new bill.

  11. #10

    User Info Menu

    CA new gig law affects music industry  - Forbes-big-deal-ca-jpg

  12. #11

    User Info Menu

    Vegas is hiring.

  13. #12

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by fathand
    Yeah, not sure what it's all about but here's the regular text on AB5.

    Bill Text - AB-5 Worker status: employees and independent contractors.
    Looking through that, albeit not as a lawyer, it seems that a bandleader who contracts for a gig remains independent, and musicians hired for the gig are subcontractors and remain also independent. And frankly for the $50 or so on offer, there'd be little motivation for the government to care.

  14. #13

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    Looking through that, albeit not as a lawyer, it seems that a bandleader who contracts for a gig remains independent, and musicians hired for the gig are subcontractors and remain also independent. And frankly for the $50 or so on offer, there'd be little motivation for the government to care.
    Tim, the problem is in the aggregate. If a venue pays say $200 per night for a band, 5 nights a week, that is 50K in a year. While that is small change in the $50 per night to each musician, if the State of California decides that all of those musicians were employees of the venue, the venue owner can be hit with a bill for about 20K in taxes. The threat of this has caused a few venue owners to discontinue live music and a few gigs have been lost. While the lawyer in me thinks that such a characterization by the State is very challengable in Court, some venue owners have decided (probably on advice of an overly careful CPA) to stop having live music.

    I have not lost any gigs (yet) to this new law, but a bandleader that I work for has lost a gig due to the coronavirus pandemic. The hotel that we played in (by the San Francisco Airport) has lost so much business from the slowdown in air travel that they ended his 6 year long gig.

  15. #14

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Stringswinger
    Tim, the problem is in the aggregate. If a venue pays say $200 per night for a band, 5 nights a week, that is 50K in a year. While that is small change in the $50 per night to each musician, if the State of California decides that all of those musicians were employees of the venue, the venue owner can be hit with a bill for about 20K in taxes. The threat of this has caused a few venue owners to discontinue live music and a few gigs have been lost. While the lawyer in me thinks that such a characterization by the State is very challengable in Court, some venue owners have decided (probably on advice of an overly careful CPA) to stop having live music.

    I have not lost any gigs (yet) to this new law, but a bandleader that I work for has lost a gig due to the coronavirus pandemic. The hotel that we played in (by the San Francisco Airport) has lost so much business from the slowdown in air travel that they ended his 6 year long gig.
    Hold on. This might be bad. DOW down 2,500 in the last week and it might get much worse.

  16. #15

    User Info Menu

    Because Wall Street is mostly a bunch of ninnies who overreact to everything good or bad, who knows whether the coronavirus outbreak is going to be good or bad for the stock market.

    SS, it's an interesting point and that issue may of course end up being tested in court. Back in the big band era it was quite clear that the musicians were in the employ of the bandleader. It's unlikely that anyone writing the bill particularly thought about gigging musicians. Thousands of businesses try to get out of tax liabilities by hiring "independent contractors," offloading those obligations onto the workers, which prompted the IRS to issue specific guidance 25 or so years ago about who is and who is not an independent contractor versus employee. My own employer did that for years until his accountant and lawyer finally convinced him to stop. We all worked full time, had no other employment, followed his policies and procedures, etc. It would have been a slam dunk against him in court. But not all states have reconciled their own laws to match federal law in this regard.

    If a venue has the same bandleader or musicians working on their premises week in and week out, there is a very good case that they are in fact employees of the venue or of the bandleader- especially if they are not working elsewhere. The IRS would probably have it so under their guidance, and the California law may being the state into greater compliance with federal law (remember that federal law trumps state law). If there are 52 bandleaders in a year, no problem I suspect.

    Whether it hurts gigging musicians or not depends on whether musicians are seen as adding substantive value to the venue's bottom line. In many cases, the musicians probably cost the venue more than they bring in in extra revenue. Locally for many gigs the band has to provide a tax ID number to the venue to get paid, whether that is the bandleader personally or a corporation they've set up. The venue pays by check and their accountants keep track.

  17. #16

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Cunamara
    Because Wall Street is mostly a bunch of ninnies who overreact to everything good or bad, who knows whether the coronavirus outbreak is going to be good or bad for the stock market.

    SS, it's an interesting point and that issue may of course end up being tested in court. Back in the big band era it was quite clear that the musicians were in the employ of the bandleader. It's unlikely that anyone writing the bill particularly thought about gigging musicians. Thousands of businesses try to get out of tax liabilities by hiring "independent contractors," offloading those obligations onto the workers, which prompted the IRS to issue specific guidance 25 or so years ago about who is and who is not an independent contractor versus employee. My own employer did that for years until his accountant and lawyer finally convinced him to stop. We all worked full time, had no other employment, followed his policies and procedures, etc. It would have been a slam dunk against him in court. But not all states have reconciled their own laws to match federal law in this regard.

    If a venue has the same bandleader or musicians working on their premises week in and week out, there is a very good case that they are in fact employees of the venue or of the bandleader- especially if they are not working elsewhere. The IRS would probably have it so under their guidance, and the California law may being the state into greater compliance with federal law (remember that federal law trumps state law). If there are 52 bandleaders in a year, no problem I suspect.

    Whether it hurts gigging musicians or not depends on whether musicians are seen as adding substantive value to the venue's bottom line. In many cases, the musicians probably cost the venue more than they bring in in extra revenue. Locally for many gigs the band has to provide a tax ID number to the venue to get paid, whether that is the bandleader personally or a corporation they've set up. The venue pays by check and their accountants keep track.
    With one exception (and I hire him less than 30 times a year), all the musicians I hire (as subcontractors) work for others as well (as do I). I have four regular gigs (all of which have now lasted over 10 years). The venues are not in the music business per se, hire other musicians/bands than me/my band and I have control over my hours, tunes played etc. I am not an employee, nor are my sidemen. All four venues 1099 me, I 1099 my sidemen (if I pay them over $600 in a given year). It has all worked (though like most things outside of executive pay, the money earned has not kept pace with inflation) and I hope that it will continue to work for a few more years.

    AB-5 stinks for professional jazz musicians. It will not help us a whit and has the potential to cause us harm.But like I posted above, the sky ain't falling yet.

  18. #17

    User Info Menu

    CA is doing this for the tax revenue..as its in financial trouble due to many issues..so if your a working musician in some cities in CA ..your working hard just to pay the rent..

    if your considered an emplayee..find out all you can how that classification is determined..when I (and many other players) were doing small clubs/bar bands etc..we were paid mostly in cash and were never considered employees of the club or the band "leader"..now that is not the case..the paperwork involved in this kind of mess wiil be overwhelming to some..so if you are considered an employee by 20 or so "gigs" you will/should get 20 or so W-2s and you have to report them to the IRS and in most cases the state your in..if you have worked in several states you then have to file for each state..

    if your considered an independent contractor and are issued a 1099 at years end..you will have to reconcile your tax libality with the withholding ..FICA & Medicare..State tax & Disability insurance and other taxes that may be owed..so if you get 20 of these forms..your going to be filling out forms for a few hours...and double check your math..or the FED/State may make you fill out additional forms to correct it...

    so keeping records/paper work is going to take time and effort on your part..what a nightmare..

  19. #18

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by AlsoRan
    Lawyers will make money sorting out the various lawsuits. Its a great opportunity for them.
    Some clubs in Texas seem to be experimenting with 'slumming'. That's where you draw a diverse crowd to the club- rich, poor and in-between and the rich pay high prices for boutique bottles of alcohol. I'm not a huge advocate of trickle down economics but it can work.

  20. #19

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    California, where more gov't in your life is always better. Where guitar amps have warnings they might cause cancer....true.
    At least you can still smoke on the beach in California if it's part of a religious ceremony.

  21. #20

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by cosmic gumbo
    Where guitar amps have warnings they might cause cancer....true.
    My guitar's from the EU, and has an image of a crossed-out garbagebin on the back of the headstock; I suppose they want me to recycle it when it's out of notes.

  22. #21

    User Info Menu

    Quote Originally Posted by Zina
    My guitar's from the EU, and has an image of a crossed-out garbagebin on the back of the headstock; I suppose they want me to recycle it when it's out of notes.
    ahhh..dont give them ideas....auto insurance "by the mile" is making "inroads" in CA..

    wolf can see it now...bringing your guitar to the refilling station..."give me 30K of super high speed notes..."