New Law - California Contractors

Arborist Forum

Help Support Arborist Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
that's a rip off as workers comp does not apply to owner or self employed unless Kalifornia is got some weird rules on the state level. I am in WI own my shop no employees, maybe we are just backwards? worker comp not available except to employees here as far as I know - haven't looked it up in years.
 
sorry to hear you are having that trouble!
my state of Iowa doesn't require WC but my WC insurer company forces me to pay wc for any 1099 contractors who do not have their own policy. The state has a waiver which company owners can sign and exclude themselves from WC. one friend said that his WC accepted this exclusion waiver in lieu of forcing him to back pay for the contractor's WC, but it was a close call. this is my first year having an employee, having to report 1099 to the WC company, will see what comes of the audit
 
This kind of legislation has applied to roofing contractors in CA for a while now. It was only a matter of time.

I used to live in CA and would pay upwards of 50% of payroll for WC with state fund. Having said all of this, I can't imagine not having it. You would be subjecting your ground crew to incredible risk. In October, one of my workers was pruning a crab apple from a deck. As he leaned against the railing, it gave way and he fell 10'. He broke his wrist and shoulder and is just now finally getting back to work after 2 surgeries. I can't imagine what that would have been like without work comp coverage.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where you would do tree work without employees and be exempt. Maybe stump grinding?
 
This kind of legislation has applied to roofing contractors in CA for a while now. It was only a matter of time.

I used to live in CA and would pay upwards of 50% of payroll for WC with state fund. Having said all of this, I can't imagine not having it. You would be subjecting your ground crew to incredible risk. In October, one of my workers was pruning a crab apple from a deck. As he leaned against the railing, it gave way and he fell 10'. He broke his wrist and shoulder and is just now finally getting back to work after 2 surgeries. I can't imagine what that would have been like without work comp coverage.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where you would do tree work without employees and be exempt. Maybe stump grinding?


I've been working in the woods and have done fill-in groundie work at times for the last thirteen years, and only a small percentage of jobs (through a foresters business we occasionally contract with) have had workman's comp.

Really gotta be safe when there's no parachute.
 
I've been working in the woods and have done fill-in groundie work at times for the last thirteen years, and only a small percentage of jobs (through a foresters business we occasionally contract with) have had workman's comp.

Really gotta be safe when there's no parachute.
If your boss doesn't have worker's comp coverage, and you're an actual employee (not a subcontractor that provides his own tools and sets his own schedule), he is still financially on the hook for the injuries, and is also criminally liable for not having the required worker's comp insurance. You could report him to the state worker's comp board, and he'd be investigated. You could either make a claim against the state uninsured worker's fund or sue his company directly for any injuries that occurred. Some injuries may bankrupt a company that doesn't have worker's comp, such as permanent paralysis or brain damage from a tree that fell the wrong way and hit someone. Safe work practices are good, but only go so far, and tree work is intrinsically dangerous no matter which precautions are in place. Personally, I'd favor abolishing the worker's comp system, and replacing it with an at-fault system, where the employer would only be liable for the direct actions he took. For instance, if you picked up a log the wrong way and hurt your back, that would be on you, but if your boss dropped a branch on your head and didn't warn you first to get out of the way, he'd be liable. This would greatly reduce the costs of the system and make it much more fair. In the meantime though, compliance with the law is the only acceptable option.
 
This kind of legislation has applied to roofing contractors in CA for a while now. It was only a matter of time.

I used to live in CA and would pay upwards of 50% of payroll for WC with state fund. Having said all of this, I can't imagine not having it. You would be subjecting your ground crew to incredible risk. In October, one of my workers was pruning a crab apple from a deck. As he leaned against the railing, it gave way and he fell 10'. He broke his wrist and shoulder and is just now finally getting back to work after 2 surgeries. I can't imagine what that would have been like without work comp coverage.

I'm trying to imagine a scenario where you would do tree work without employees and be exempt. Maybe stump grinding?
Little confused about this situation . The railing on a deck gave way ? Seems the owner of the deck would end up being liable .
NY has the phantom WC insurance. Not because the state requires it but because the private contracting company or homeowner requires anyone working on their property have it .
 
If your boss doesn't have worker's comp coverage, and you're an actual employee (not a subcontractor that provides his own tools and sets his own schedule), he is still financially on the hook for the injuries, and is also criminally liable for not having the required worker's comp insurance. You could report him to the state worker's comp board, and he'd be investigated. You could either make a claim against the state uninsured worker's fund or sue his company directly for any injuries that occurred. Some injuries may bankrupt a company that doesn't have worker's comp, such as permanent paralysis or brain damage from a tree that fell the wrong way and hit someone. Safe work practices are good, but only go so far, and tree work is intrinsically dangerous no matter which precautions are in place. Personally, I'd favor abolishing the worker's comp system, and replacing it with an at-fault system, where the employer would only be liable for the direct actions he took. For instance, if you picked up a log the wrong way and hurt your back, that would be on you, but if your boss dropped a branch on your head and didn't warn you first to get out of the way, he'd be liable. This would greatly reduce the costs of the system and make it much more fair. In the meantime though, compliance with the law is the only acceptable option.


We're all independent contractors
 
Back
Top