Sure, like when it’s a side gig. If you’re picking up a bit of extra dough writing a few articles a month on something you care about, and then the State of California suddenly says you can’t.
> Together, over 200 people on California sites wrote thousands of blog posts in 2019 [1]
Even if "thousands" is 9,999 and "over 200" is 201, that's about 50 a year on average. Likely there are some contractors that are way above 35, and some are below. If that's the case, they could have continued hiring contractors for some things and hired full time / part time for others.
Will it cost more to hire 20% of these folks full time and pay benefits, etc., or would it cost less to create a policy that people can apply to be full time employees after their 35th article, or 30th article? Could they hire some people full time, some people part time, and simply contract with the rest?
Was this really their only option? Their best option? Only hiring full timers can also limit the kinds of things they can report on sine they always have to send a full time employee.
AFAICT here's the relevant section of the bill. [0]
> (x) Services provided by a freelance writer, editor, or newspaper cartoonist who does not provide content submissions to the putative employer more than 35 times per year. Items of content produced on a recurring basis related to a general topic shall be considered separate submissions for purposes of calculating the 35 times per year. For purposes of this clause, a “submission” is one or more items or forms of content by a freelance journalist that: (I) pertains to a specific event or topic; (II) is provided for in a contract that defines the scope of the work; (III) is accepted by the publication or company and published or posted for sale.
[0] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
[1] https://www.sbnation.com/2019/12/16/21024100/thank-you-calif...