Late last week, New Jersey’s Senate Judiciary Committee interviewed Kevin Jarvis, who is Governor Mikie Sherrill’s nominee to serve as the state’s next labor commissioner. Nearly the whole hearing, which approached two hours long, involved questions about the Labor Department’s widely opposed ABC Test rule for independent contractors. That rule took effect October 1 under Jarvis’ watch as acting labor commissioner.
Senator after senator described statewide confusion about the rule among business owners, attorneys, accountants and constituents. Senators said people are constantly asking them about the legality of continuing to hire every conceivable kind of working person, from financial advisers to babysitters.
One senator described what’s happening in some industries as “panic mode.” Another said he convened accountants in his district to ask about the independent-contractor rule, and “they all had a different answer.” Yet another asked, “Who’s the guru of the determining if you pass or fail the ABC Test?” and wondered aloud if there was going to be a Division of ABC Test Clarification within the state’s Labor Department.
Numerous senators floated ideas about what the Legislature might do next, from discussing the ABC Test that underpins the independent-contractor rule to creating a “big, beautiful bill” that would exempt countless professions from it.
None of this chaos is surprising to the many thousands of us who expressed 99% public opposition to this independent-contractor rulemaking. What we are experiencing right now in my home state of New Jersey mirrors the chaos that befell California after its ABC Test law went into effect in 2020, ultimately harming self-employment and overall employment with significant evidence of a disproportionate, negative impact on women, immigrants, people of color and the politically powerless.
However, a couple of things did surprise me about last Thursday’s hearing in Trenton.
One surprising moment happened when acting Commissioner Jarvis testified:
“I can tell you that there are several states that have passed legislation allowing Uber drivers and gig workers to organize, right? Stating that they’re employees under their state’s law, you know: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, there are several states that have done that.”
Numerous attorneys have explained at great length (see here and here) that what these states actually did was institute a scheme called sectoral bargaining that gives union organizers a new kind of access to independent contractors. Sectoral bargaining is not reclassifying the independent contractors as employees the way the ABC Test might do, but instead is a change to how union organizing can be done. A bill was just introduced to give union organizers this kind of new access so they can target rideshare drivers in New Jersey, too.
I was also surprised during last Thursday’s hearing about how openly so many senators from both political parties described the widespread confusion and frustration about New Jersey’s ABC Test—which, if we’re being honest, is confusion and frustration the Legislature helped to create with its failure to protect independent contractors despite our continued requests for help since at least 2019.
Any or all of the ideas these senators floated at last week’s hearing could now end up becoming law, which is why I used an AI program to transcribe the hearing. That AI-generated transcript is below.
This was an audio-only hearing with no available video, and I have done my best to identify all the speakers accurately. I also noted below where I deleted parts of the hearing about topics other than independent contractors, and I deleted duplicate words that are inherent to AI-generated transcripts.
If there are any questions about the exact spoken statements, you can refer to the archived audio recording of the hearing.
Kevin Jarvis Hearing Transcript
Acting Labor Commissioner Kevin Jarvis: Honorable members of the Senate Judiciary Committee, thank you for allowing me the opportunity to come before you today. I appreciate your consideration, and I am humbled by and grateful to Governor Sherrill for the trust she’s placed in me on behalf of New Jersey’s workforce. I want to thank my wife and daughters for their unwavering encouragement, love and support. I also want to thank my mother, my father and my three older brothers for showing me what hard work with dignity can accomplish, and the many life lessons they taught me. Although, in fairness, I could have survived a couple fewer life lessons from my older brothers.
It’s an incredible honor to be asked to return to the Department of Labor and Workforce Development as commissioner. Before my most recent experience practicing labor law, I proudly served as the chief of staff at the department under then-Governor Corzine. For nearly four years, I worked closely with former Commissioner Socolow and members of the Legislature to shape departmental policies and implement New Jersey’s labor laws. Prior to that, I worked at the State House and in some of these very committee meeting rooms as a research associate for the Assembly Democratic office and a legislative affairs coordinator for the state AFL-CIO. And I represented injured railroad workers and workers who had been exposed to asbestos as an attorney in private practice.
For the entirety of my professional life, decades now, I have been at the intersection of workers’ rights and employers’ responsibilities. I have advocated for workers and collaborated with employers to navigate complex labor and employment laws to keep New Jersey’s workforce moving forward. In my private practice, I negotiated for fair contracts, defended union members that had been unjustly disciplined, and represented people in their efforts to form or join a union as part of their desire to improve their standard of living. I am immensely proud of that work.
I also grew up in a working-class neighborhood in South Jersey, a fellow Vinelander. My father worked as a machinist in a glass house, and my mother was a bookkeeper in a small retail store. Everything I am today is because of them. Our neighbors were auto mechanics, factory workers and schoolteachers. Things like unemployment insurance, workers’ compensation, job training—those are services that were critical to my friends and neighbors, and are critical for people from my old neighborhood and thousands of similar neighborhoods throughout the state.
So I recognize, on a visceral level, the importance of this department and that it be responsive to people’s needs. I understand how the law works, both on paper and in real life. I understand that workers need good employers who can prosper and make a profit. I understand that this is not a zero-sum game where workers win if employers lose and vice versa. Both sides need the other to do well. Work has dignity, and workers deserve safe workplaces and fair treatment. Employers deserve clear rules and consistent enforcement. The system should work for everyone, and it should work efficiently.
Taken together, all of my experiences have helped prepare me for this incredible opportunity. I am committed to advocating the importance of on-the-job safety, effective enforcement, and a workforce system that takes its obligations to both workers and businesses seriously.
The Department of Labor in New Jersey touches the lives of millions of New Jerseyans. In fact, there are more than 4.7 million workers in our state. That’s more than at just about any other time in our state’s history. We support families during job loss, illness and major life events. We help train people for better careers. We enforce the law so that honest businesses don’t get undercut. What we do at the department affects the heartbeat of the state’s economy.
We have just under 300,000 employers in New Jersey. That’s also more than almost any other time in our state’s history. Those numbers are reflective of the important work this legislature and the former governor did on behalf of the people of New Jersey. And Governor Sherrill is building on these efforts to move New Jersey into the next chapter by cutting red tape, strengthening our workforce training systems, and attracting new businesses to New Jersey, and I’m excited to be a part of that.
My experiences have taught me that effective leadership depends not just on listening to staff, but working in collaboration with people carrying out the mission of this department every day. These are dedicated professionals who work day in and day out through snowstorms, recessions and even global pandemics to provide the services and benefits relied upon by millions of working New Jersey residents and their families. I am proud of their work and their professionalism.
I also place immense value on engaging directly with workers, business owners, the Legislature and local officials who care deeply about ensuring jobs and opportunities for all. Six years ago, the men and women of this department were called to action during what we can only hope was a once-in-a-lifetime pandemic and economic crisis. By any fair measure, the department more than rose to that challenge, triaging this unprecedented scenario while laying the groundwork for innovation, modernization and better customer service. I recognize there were problems. There always will be. But the test of character and resilience isn’t measured in how many times you fall, but in how many times you get back up. We are committed to learning from our mistakes as well as our successes to constantly improve the system and how it delivers for the State of New Jersey.
And make no mistake: It has been delivered. In recent years, the department has recovered tens of millions of dollars in unpaid wages and penalties, putting money back into workers’ pockets and holding bad actors accountable. Those results reflect a stronger, more strategic approach to enforcement, including expanded tools that allow the department to step in when employers violate the law and ensure businesses come into compliance.
But protecting workers also means protecting the businesses that play by the rules. Too often, responsible New Jersey employers are forced to compete against companies that try to undercut them by skirting the law. That’s not fair. It’s not fair to workers, to taxpayers or to the businesses doing the right thing. Thanks to strong bipartisan tools that allow us to enforce our labor laws, New Jersey has become the gold standard for tackling issues like misclassification and wage theft. Those efforts are paying off not just for workers, but for employers as well.
My focus will be on continuing the vital work that’s already underway, strengthening enforcement, shoring up our programs and systems, supporting our staff, delivering programs and services more efficiently, and improving interactions with our department for workers and employers alike. To do this, we need to expand modernization efforts beyond unemployment insurance. We’re already started in some of those areas that the department oversees.
As Governor Sherrill has said many times, prosperity for everyone, not just a few, must be a top priority. This role carries real responsibility for the people and businesses of New Jersey, and I don’t take that lightly. With your support, I assure you, I am ready to roll up my sleeves and get started. I would be honored to have your vote of confidence today, and I’m happy to answer any questions you may have for me. Thank you.
Senate Judiciary Committee Chairman Brian Stack: Commissioner, thank you very much. And just from my experience, working with your office has been tremendous. You’ve done a great job there, and your employees do a great job. I appreciate everything that you do.
Jarvis: Thank you, senator.
Senator Stack: Sure. Senator Bramnick.
Senator Jon Bramnick: Morning, acting commissioner.
Jarvis: Good morning.
Senator Bramnick: So recently, I hired someone, and we had the discussion of whether or not the person was going to be an independent contractor—doesn’t work necessarily with me—and we went to two or three accountants. So the amount of money being paid to him is $10,000 a month if he’s an independent contractor, $11,400 if he becomes an employee. Just take those facts for a minute. Is that consistent with how you understand about 14% increase as an employer if I hire somebody as an employee versus independent contractor?
Jarvis: Thank you for the question, senator. So I will say that we don’t track what that cost is necessarily because it may differ depending on the industry. Depending on—
Senator Bramnick: But you wouldn’t necessarily disagree with the fact there could be a 14% increase independent contractor versus employee? That’s not necessarily out of the realm of reality?
Jarvis: I wouldn’t necessarily know one way or another. It very well, it very well could be.
Senator Bramnick: Let me ask you this: Don’t you think it’s relatively important to know the extra costs that might be a burden to employee, to an employer? Isn’t that something you would consider in terms of the decision-making process of eliminating or, say, making it more difficult to have independent contractors?
Jarvis: I think that we all kind of know intuitively that there that there may be some added cost to the employer. As I stated, the amount of those added costs is going to be dependent upon the job, the industry, what exactly that is. At the end of the day, though, the thing that I believe we need to keep our focus on is that the Unemployment Compensation Law and the ABC Test was passed as remedial legislation to protect workers who have been dislocated from jobs and laid off, right? And so we do that, taking into account that employers have to pay into the fund, right? And taking into account that there is an effect on employers. But we can’t lose sight of the fact that at the end of the day, it’s designed to protect workers, right?
Now, oftentimes, what happens is we see individuals who are independent contractors who don’t necessarily appreciate all that that means, and they come to the Department of Labor and they file a claim, and we undergo our analysis, right? And the fund, if we determine that that individual was improperly classified, the fund pays benefits, even though that employer had—
Senator Bramnick: Look, I’ll stipulate that part of change, or should I say, enforcing the rules or laws or regulations regarding independent contractors has to do with supporting these type of funds like unemployment compensation. I understand that completely, but that’s—I think everyone understands that. Now I’m going to go to the next part.
This ABC Test, there is a lot of confusion because it is fact-sensitive. For example, the insurance agents may be deemed an employee. So my question is, tell us what the penalties are when you misapply this ABC Test.
Jarvis: So, there are statutory penalties. There’s interest payments if there’s a determination that the individual had been misclassified for a certain period of time. We conduct an audit. We make a determination of how many individuals have been misclassified. And so the interest and penalties are going to be kind of dependent upon that.
Senator Bramnick: Can you give us some example? Because when we talk about independent contractor or employees and a misclassification, which can happen unintentionally, because it is complicated, can you have any sense of what it might have cost an employer when they misclassify an employee?
Jarvis: Yeah, so I can get you from the statute the specific amount of penalties that the department is allowed to assess. It’s not something I have off the top of my head.
Senator Bramnick: Do you recall any examples that are public record of how much it cost an employer that misclassified an employee or employees?
Jarvis: Well, I can tell you some of the settlements that we have entered into, right?
Senator Bramnick: Yeah, that’s good.
Jarvis: I think one of the ones that everyone is very familiar with is that, you know, we had brought a case involving misclassification against Uber, right? That case involved 297,000 workers, and the ultimate settlement was $100 million, right? The percentages of that, off the top of my head, that were wages as opposed to penalties and interest, I don’t—
Senator Bramnick: That’s fair comment.
Jarvis: But that’s also 300,000 people.
Senator Bramnick: So, Uber now, in the State of New Jersey, I assume they’re on notice that their drivers are employees?
Jarvis: I would certainly think so.
Senator Bramnick: OK. And how many other states, if you know, deem Uber-type drivers as employees versus independent contractor? And is it fair to say that certain states have, by statute or other mechanism, made them independent contractors?
Jarvis: Well, every state—so, the ABC test is a product of New Jersey state law. Every state has a different test on how they make a determination of whether or not a putative employer is an employer as opposed to an independent-contractor relationship. I can tell you that there are several states that have passed legislation allowing Uber drivers and gig workers to organize, right? Stating that they’re employees under their state’s law, you know: California, Illinois, Massachusetts, there are several states that have done that.
As far as how any individual state is going to characterize what that employment relationship is, it’s going to be a process.
Senator Bramnick: So it might differ. Some states may deem them to be independent contractors or, quote, independent contractor or employees. So it depends on the state. But in our state, they’ll be deemed to be employees at least based on the prior penalty, et cetera.
Jarvis: Certainly, in that in that case, the determination that the Department of Labor made was that they were employees and had been misclassified.
Now, as I always stress, that decision is based on the facts of that case. In the intervening time, it’s quite possible that a company changes its business model or practices. And if we had to go back and look at them again, it might be a different, it might be a different result.
Senator Bramnick: As the commissioner of labor, in essence, you would agree that the governor’s office supports this ABC Test, because I know there was some request by the Senate president to delay this. So it’s fair to say that what you’re telling us about the implementation of this test is consistent with the policy of the governor’s office, correct?
Jarvis: Well, what I can say to you is that the governor’s office supported allowing the regulations to go into effect. The test itself has been a part of our law for 90 years. The regulations would simply codify—
Senator Bramnick: Apologize for the form of the question. The governor, I also agree with you on that.
So I’m just going to, a couple examples of where I think it has detrimental effect on both our economy and on employers, let’s say, doing business in the state.
So there used to be reporters who would go to a council person, a council meeting, in Westfield, and maybe they’d cover Westfield one night, Cranford the next night. They only worked two evenings a week. They wrote an article for the local TAP or newspaper or Westfield Leader, and a lot of these people are being laid off because the costs are increased by the so-called enforcement of the ABC Test, or what, or should I say, our policies in the state of New Jersey to make them, quote, employees. What’s your feeling as to whether or not it does have some effect on hiring by employers, such as the example I gave you? You think it has some effect with respect to them not necessarily hiring somebody because of the cost?
Jarvis: I, to be perfectly frank, senator, I would assume that any business, when hiring people, does some sort of a cost-benefit analysis to make a determination of whether or not the business model that they currently have can absorb those costs and balance that against the need. What I can tell you is every case is extremely fact-sensitive, right? And so the situation you laid out, there may be additional facts that would be relevant to us.
I can also tell you, I’m not aware of any enforcement action by the department to go after these individuals that, that you mentioned. And so, if the business is making that decision, the business is making it, I guess, based on how it reads the law, which is not always necessarily going to be—
Senator Bramnick: I’m going to leave you with this question: Tell the employers of the state of New Jersey, in as practical words as possible, how they know whether or not they’re paying somebody, whether or not that person may be deemed an employee and then suffer the penalties that we’ve seen employed in the past.
Jarvis: Sure, thank you. And the easiest way to do that is to read the regulations.
[Laughter]
But here’s why here’s why I say that, senator. Because the regulations take the case law and the final agency determinations that the Department of Labor has relied upon over the intervening 90 years and listed them. So those factors that everyone sees in the regulations are what the department would have relied upon to make that decision anyway. And so now, the easiest way to make that determination is to look at the regulations. It is a roadmap for employers to make a determination based on how the department views this, based on how the courts in New Jersey have viewed it, would my business model fit into the independent=-contractor model?
Senator Bramnick: I can see why you were a successful trial lawyer prior coming to New Jersey, but, well, I have nothing further.
Senator Stack: Senator Singleton.
Senate Judiciary Committee Vice-Chair Troy Singleton: Thank you, Chairman. Commissioner, it’s good to see you as always. As this is actually a surreal moment for me as his former intern when I was in college. This is really cool. Luckily, he was very kind to me, so I think he might be all right with a vote today.
[Discussion of AI and workforce development]
[Discussion of trade jobs]
Senator Singleton: And just lastly, I know my friend and colleague, Senator Bramnick, you guys had a really thoughtful dialogue on the independent-contractor piece, and every member of this committee has heard from industry X or industry Y that has talked and felt they’re aggrieved, and I know there’s a connection as relates to misclassification and independent contractors because you touched on it, and as someone who helped, as one of the folks who helped author our misclassification law, understanding the gradation of that, between knowingly and willfully, and when someone makes an unknowing violation, in the course of administrative fines, it’s like $250 when it’s an unknown piece—when someone didn’t know what they should have known, right? So it’s still relatively modest.
My overall point, though, is I think for each of us, rather than all of us put in a ton of bills trying to say, “Hey, let’s exempt this person, let’s exempt that person, exempt that person,” it is probably us to go back and take a look and make sure our regulation has not created an unintended consequence for various groups. And without naming all the various groups that’s called me, there are some who make very articulate arguments.
The crux of the piece that you talked about was always about protecting workers, and you’re not going to find, I think, anyone on this dais who are going to, you know, be against that. There’s always the devil in the details and the finite ability to do that, and I think there’s probably room for us to make sure we sharpen those edges so we do not have those unintended consequences. Because that’s the feedback that all of us are getting, Democrat, Republican, from all of our constituency, that they feel they’ve been swept in to something that is well-intentioned, designed to protect workers, and feel like there’s a little nuance to each of their situations.
So I know that our Senate president articulated trying to have a little delay in that. I associate myself with that because I want us to make sure we’re doing this right. Because the bottom line is, we’re all here to protect New Jersey’s workers, and I know you take that deeply to heart.
Jarvis: Very, very much so. Very much so.
Senator Stack: Thank you. Mr. Senate president.
Senate President Nicholas Scutari: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. Acting commissioner, thank you for all the conversations we’ve had. And I want to say, in terms of our experience with your office since you’ve taken over, has been night and day comparatively to others that may have held that position. So, yeah, I mean, literally, the feedback and the speed in which your office has responded to constituent issues has been really an outstanding job and just a tremendous difference. So I want to thank you for that.
So I’m just going to get to the point: What are we going to do about golf caddies? Are golf caddies independent contractors, or are they employees, or is it depending upon the caddie himself?
I’ve got a lot of those complaints, and then and listen, I honestly, I’ve seen it as a lawyer. How many times people have been deemed to be an independent contractor when they probably were an employee, and companies have done that, years and years, to try to get away from having to provide certain health benefits and unemployment benefits to people. So, I’m 100% on board with trying to protect our workers from that unscrupulous folks, but there are certain folks that are not employees. What about golf caddies?
Jarvis: Sure. So let me first off thank you for the for the compliment. I also want to thank the people at the Department of Labor who are the ones who are, you know, handling those constituent inquiries. They do it every single day with true empathy and concern, and recognizing that at the end of the day, every one of these numbers up here that I throw out to you, there’s a human being at the end of it, and so we realize our job is to serve people.
On the issue of the caddies, again, and as an attorney, you and I have had this conversation, right? Every case depends on the facts of that case, and the facts are going to be very different.
There may be situations where an employee in an industry, or where a worker, let me say in an industry, based on the structure of his or her employment relationship with his employer, is an employee-employee relationship. Then there may be another worker for another company in the same industry. That individual is an independent contractor, right?
And so, in the case of the caddies, you could have a situation where a golf course employs caddies directly. They work for that golf course and that golf course only, 9 to 5, or whatever the hours of the golf course are, where they would fit into the employer-employee relationship. Then there may be other times where the caddie goes to different courses, works for different people. It’s all going to depend on the structure.
And to your point, how do we classify them? There has to be a test to determine: OK what do they do? That’s the test that we have. It’s the test that we’ve had for 90 years. And I always get, you know, I always caution when we have these conversations about trying to sweep into an exemption an entire industry because as I just pointed out, there may be individuals in that industry who are legitimate independent contractors, and there may be individuals in that industry who are legitimate employees, and you don’t want to deprive those who are legitimate employees of the protections of the Unemployment Compensation Law because of some industry-wide exemption, and they happen to share the same title, even though they have a very different work structure.
So it is a very fact-sensitive determination, and that’s why we at the department, and this is the other conversation—and I have these conversations, you know, Senator Singleton mentioned that you, as legislators, hear from so many different organizations and groups and people—I do too, and I try to take every one of those meetings and every one of those phone calls and have this conversation. And what I, what I always caution is that if the Department of Labor has a case referred to us, let’s say a golf caddie were to come to the department, apply for unemployment insurance, we do our analysis and determine that he or she is an employee and was misclassified, and we issue a determination—that determination is not an industry-wide kind of edict that says, “Henceforth all golf caddies shall be.” It is a fact-specific determination for that worker and that business that applies to them in that circumstance. It, as I noted before, it may not even apply to that same employer in a subsequent case if the employer changes its business model, right? These are very fact-sensitive. We don’t issue decisions that affect entire industries. We do it on a case-by-case basis, based on the facts and the analysis.
Senator Scutari: Thank you for simplifying that, because I think you’re going to see that time and time again from different employees or workers for different industries. Yeah, certain truckers, for that matter, come to mind, and others. And so, I think I have a better idea of how we’re going to respond to these folks because I think some of them are in panic mode that they think they’re going to be having to lay off or close or be fined for, for, for certain things. And I think what you’re saying is that every case is going to be dealt with differently.
Jarvis: Correct.
Senator Scutari: And that’s not really going to help individuals that don’t know—they’re going to need to consult either your office or an attorney who specializes in the analysis of the facts as laid upon by these ABC rules that you’ve put forward. And so I think I understand that now. Certain caddies may be determined to be employees, and certain ones will be independent contractors. That’s satisfactory, and I appreciate that.
And again, I just want to say, this is one of the reasons, the chairman and I were speaking last night, and we don’t rush to judgment on commissioners. This is—you’ve been in the job for quite a while, and you’ve proven yourself to be able to lead that agency in an exemplary fashion. The experiences that the members of this committee have are not going into it with a blind, “How’s this person going to do?” We already now have the facts about how you’re going to perform as we lay them upon our rules as to whether or not you should be confirmed.
And I believe, in my estimation, that you’ve obviously passed that test with flying colors. I appreciate the work you’ve done. I wish you the best of success in your continuing part of your career. Congratulations, my vote will be yes.
Senator Stack: Thank you, Senate president. Senator Testa.
Senator Michael Testa: First and foremost, Mr. Acting Commissioner, anytime someone that is a graduate of Vineland High School comes up before this committee, I’m already strongly leaning to a yes. I have to say that.
[Laughter]
Jarvis: Thank you, senator.
Senator Testa: Because if you if you made it through the tough but hallowed halls of Vineland High School, you’re pretty much suited for almost any job, I would think.
Senator Bramnick brought up a really good point about Uber and Lyft, because it may in fact have different applications depending on states, including our neighboring states. You know, do you think it’s incumbent on the DOL with large companies that now have independent contractors that are going to be deemed to be employees—because you said, in your own words, you think they are on notice now that those individuals that were prior independent contractors are employees—do you think it’s incumbent upon the NJDOL to, like, maybe meet with those companies to let them know? To put them on that notice, not for their general counsel to do so, or for them to get, to proactively contact the DOL to say, “Hey, are these individuals still independent contractors, or are they employees?”
Jarvis: Yeah, and I welcome those, and I have met with some of those already. I’ve met with individuals from DoorDash. I’ve met with individuals from Uber. I don’t recall whether or not I met with anyone from Lyft, but I absolutely have, my door—and I’ve, as I’ve expressed to all of you, and I’ve expressed to various industry and employment groups, I’ve gone to the BIA and the Chamber of Commerce, and I’ve met with a lot of groups. I’ve met with individual companies, and I am happy to do that. My door is open to talk to them and to talk to them about that.
And just, to just to make one point on notice, in the sense that that was the determination in the prior case—now, if in the intervening time they’ve changed their business model, there very well may be a different decision. I don’t know that they have, but we are always open to having those meetings and talking, especially in an issue like this, which I do take, and the department takes very seriously because we know it impacts businesses and therefore it impacts jobs. We take it very seriously. Very happy to meet with any group and talk with them.
Senator Testa: I appreciate that. And look, you know, I think there has been a sea change in leadership since you’ve been leading the NJDOL. I want to be clear on that, and I echo the sentiments of, do I have to call him governor now, by the way? Scutari? Because he was acting governor. I mean, I know that there’s been prior people in this state that were governor for 10 minutes, and you have to call him governor the rest of their lives, right? But I’m going to stick to Senate president.
But you know, I want to echo those sentiments. New Jersey has been deemed 50 out of 50 in the United States that are business-friendly, and my concern is that, you know, companies that are larger companies may not want to do business in the state of New Jersey because just of a climate that is unsure, right? They like consist—companies like consistency, and not things that are open to interpretation. And they don’t want to make mistakes that become costly, even though they may have been well-intentioned, they didn’t realize that they were violating something.
You know, do you think that the adoption of these ABC rules as of October 1 of this year make New Jersey more or less open for business?
Jarvis: Honestly, I think it makes it more open for business, and I’ll explain why. And I think we had may have had a little bit of this conversation at the budget hearing as well, because I remember some of this came up. And the reason I say that is because, as I’ve indicated, what the regulations do are take the factors that the courts have said are determinative for the three prongs of the ABC Test over the intervening 90 years, and listed them. Now, prior to these regulations, if a business, either an existing business or a new business, wanted to know, can I set up my business as an independent contractor, or do I have to do it as an employer-employee, if they really wanted to do the due diligence and do the analysis, they would have had to hire an attorney or a business consultant to go through that 90 years of case law, find out what the factors are that the courts consider in these prongs, and make a determination. We’ve now done that due diligence for them and written it down and put it all in one place.
So our view of it is that by placing all of those court decisions and all of those factors in regulations in one place, it’s easier and less expensive for a business to just go to those regulations and say, “Hey, what are the factors that are going to be considered?” And it’s why I answered Senator Bramick’s question the way I did. That I think that one of the best ways is to look at the regs because we did it as a means of assisting businesses so that they know: What standard am I going to be held to? That was the purpose, and so I do think it helps the business climate.
Senator Testa: Senator Scutari mentioned, you know, caddies. I think of other businesses where individuals were typically independent contractors, and that may have been the individual’s choice that they want to be an independent contractor, that they don’t want to be an employee of a company. Do you think that the newly adopted ABC rules remove some of the freedoms that 1.7 million individuals who were prior deemed independent contractors, that they want to have that freedom as independent contractors, do you think that freedom’s been removed?
Jarvis: I don’t. I don’t, and I can explain why.
So, with respect to that, one of the things that we added to the finally adopted regulations was language that expressly states nothing in these regulations will change any of the statutory exemptions that already exist for individuals, right? And we added that even though, you know, from a technically legal standpoint, it probably wasn’t necessary because regulations can’t undo what statutes do anyway, but just to add that clarity and that certainty for businesses, we wrote that in there, that nothing in here is going to remove those exemptions, and nothing in the rules changes the test or the analysis, right? And so there’s nothing in the newly adopted rules that is going to do that.
The other thing I will mention to you is that the courts have held, right, that an independent contractor agreement between a putative employer and the worker is a factor to be considered, but it won’t be the dispositive factor, right? And that is really based off of the 1938 decision of the U.S. Supreme Court, where they said, in a minimum-wage case, they said workers can’t waive away their statutory rights. They can’t contract away their statutory rights because there’s this uneven bargaining power, right? And so that’s been in our case law for almost as long as the ABC Test, right?
And so that’s why the agreement between the putative employer and the worker to work as an independent contractor is a factor that’s considered, but it’s not going to be the only factor. And the important thing about that is, in considering that factor, one of the things that’s looked at is, OK, you’ve got this independent-contractor agreement. Was this agreed, you know, to by the parties through negotiation? Was it a contract of adhesion? Was the real back and forth, real bargaining in the contract, and did they really have authority to bargain in terms of it? And that’s all going to be factored into the importance of that agreement.
Senator Testa: I really appreciate that and the fact that you wrote that into the regulations. But you know, obviously, Senator Singleton had some concerns. I share some of those concerns that we don’t want to do maybe further exemptions in piecemeal, and I’m hoping that you’d be willing to meet with some or all of us to maybe go over some potential further exemptions. It sounds like that’s what you wanted, Senator Singleton. I think I’m in the same boat as you from all the calls that we receive. Again, these are calls on both sides of the aisle. Are you willing to meet with us to talk about those?
Jarvis: I am willing to meet with the members of the Legislature anytime, anywhere to talk about these issues, I welcome it. Oddly enough, I enjoy it, even when we’re on opposite sides. I really do because I really believe that that communication is key to getting things done for the people of New Jersey. And so my phone is open, my door is open. I’ll happily meet with you guys to talk about this or any other issue whenever you want.
[Discussion of unemployment claims]
Senator Stack. Thank you, Senator Testa. Senator Gopal, would you like me to come back to you? [Inaudible] OK, sure.
Senator Gopal: Commissioner, it’s good to see you.
Jarvis: You as well.
Senator Gopal: And thank you for being so responsive. And Emmy is a rock star, as you know, in your office.
Jarvis: I know it well.
Senator Gopal: You have a great team, and I think part of the challenge is that there’s not a lot of faith after Covid as far as just responsiveness. And it’s not unique to Labor. It’s just in government general. I can’t tell you how many people I think back to that were living in motel rooms because they didn’t, you know, press the unemployment right, and instead they pressed a button wrong, and it just felt like there was just a lot of a lack of empathy, and it was in Motor Vehicles and other places too. So, I think that is part of the concern when you hear from everybody up here on ABC. I actually have full faith that you’re going to do great and you’re going to interpret it, but the person after you, how are they going to interpret it? And I think that is a concern.
And that lack of empathy and what we’ve seen in previous years and across government is one of the biggest frustrating points. And all of us are elected, and we have to face residents and face voters, and there’s nothing worse than saying, “Well, we reached out on this, you know, DEP permit or DOT, and it’s been a year, and we haven’t been able to—and so, I really commend Governor Sherrill on putting together an extraordinary cabinet because all of you guys have been really aligned with her save-time-and-money agenda, and that has been working well. And you guys have all been, all of you, Commissioner Postonak, Commissioner Jain, everyone has been incredibly responsive. Your staffs have been incredibly responsive in handling these case files.
But looking again and just touching on this ABC Test, which I’m sure you’re going to hear three, four more times before we’re done, if somebody is legitimately an employee, and I know this happens a lot in the construction industry, that employer should be held accountable if they are trying to skirt the rules or they’re trying to save money. And as you said before, I thought obviously when an employer has a business model, they know the business model, they’re going to absorb the cost. I’m totally fine with that, and I understand that. And that person should be an employee.
But as everybody else here has said, Senator Bramnick and the Senate president, which I didn’t even think of caddies, but that’s another group, we have a big arts and theater and music in my district, and I’ve got folks reaching out to me constantly. And I’ll just tell you, just last week, I decided to schedule a meeting with my area district accountants, and they all had a different answer on this. So that lack of clarity is, I think, challenging. This is not—I’m not joking—I am meeting with a group of moms in my district because their kids are babysitters, because they don’t know if they’re an employee or an independent contractor. So I’ve got all of the theaters, Count Basie, Two River, the folks at Netflix, all of them without lack of clarity.
And now I truly believe you’re going to treat people if they, if they are an employer and they’re violating it, that you’re going to hold them accountable. I know that.
Jarvis: Absolutely.
Senator Gopal: Again, I just worry about who comes up after you, that they do the same thing, and not because, as everybody has said, there are circumstances whether it’s a graphic designer or whether it’s a freelance reporter who’s working for six different publications, those are the folks I truly hope don’t get caught on this.
So I just appreciate your continued consideration, focus and keeping that in mind that we’re all getting hammered on this constantly.
Jarvis: Understood.
Senator Gopal: Thank you, commissioner.
Senator Stack: Senator Corrado.
Senator Kristin Corrado: Thank you, chairman. It’s nice to see you here today. I echo the sentiments of Senator Gopal and Senate President Scutari and my colleagues. We hear it every day, and there is a lack of clarity. And when you say, “Refer to the regulations,” if the accountants and attorneys can’t agree on the interpretation of the regulations, how can we expect the businesses to?
And one industry that I hear from on a regular basis is the umpires, their association, and how they’re going to handle this going forward. And they are definitely getting conflicting information. They have been told continue as normal, nothing has changed. And then, you know, we hear from umpires every day that they’re being asked to fill out the 1099.
So I think I appreciate that you’re willing to meet with businesses and to address this, but I think there’s an urgency that we have to do this now, since we did not postpone the effective date of the legislation, we have to figure it out now because it’s going to impact people, and we don’t want people being unfairly punished or put out of business because we have not been clear.
And I think the fact that there is this much concern and this much disagreement on actually what is interpreted, I don’t know how you’re going to address that. If you’re going to keep meeting with groups, we’re willing to facilitate those meetings. We’re willing to be part of those meetings, but we have to figure it out now.
Jarvis: No, understood, and I’m happy, as I said, I’m happy to meet with those groups.
In fairness, I would I would assume that the lack of clarity that many of them are expressing they have, and I take it at face value, I take it that it’s genuine, that same lack of clarity would have existed before the regulations because they would have had to read the case law, and their attorney for one business might have come to one conclusion, and the attorney for the other business may have come to different conclusions. So as far as the clarity, it’s our feeling that by putting those factors in one place so that everybody can see them, at least gives them the factors that are going to be considered, as opposed to well, I don’t know how much do they rely on this case versus this case and all that.
But I understand that any time there’s statutory or regulatory language—look, I’m an attorney, right? We make a living finding distinctions and doing that. We all know that. And so it’s almost impossible to write a law or a bill that is perfectly clear. You and I could read the exact same book and come away with a different interpretation, but I’m always willing, like a book club, let’s have those conversations and let’s try and allay those fears. And from my perspective, in talking to these groups, we can talk about how the department views them and what our enforcement mechanisms are.
Senator Corrado: And I know Senator Singleton brought it up first about the piecemeal legislation because there’s a number of bills in already trying to do carveouts for certain professions, and we don’t want to keep doing it piece by piece. So, if we can, you know, I appreciate the ability to work with your office so that we can make it as comprehensive and as clear going forward.
[Discussion of the pandemic and the Labor Department’s lack of responsiveness]
Senator Stack: Senator Lagana.
Senator Joseph Lagana: Good morning, acting commissioner. Thank you for the phone call yesterday. We got to talk to a few issues, most of which came up today, so no surprise.
[Discussion of challenges during the pandemic]
Going back to the ABC Test, so just, you know, my experience, and I sat on the Labor Committee for, I think, for about eight years, and one year as the chairman before I went to Commerce, and I remember at the time when Senate President Steve Sweeney sponsored legislation dealing with this exact issue, and it went on for quite a few years. And I think I made this reference yesterday: It started out as a cake, and by the time we were done, it was a munchkin for who it would apply to. And of course, you know, the bill was pretty sweeping, but we heard consistently from every single group who it should not apply to. We should be exempt. We should be exempt. We should be exempt.
And you know, when you look, when I kind of look back and think about my conversations at the time and having sat through hours of hearings, part of the uncertainty in all this is with the adoption of the ABC Test is, you know, it’s a case-by-case basis, right? But are there certain employees or are there certain groups that this would never apply to, right?
Like, you know, real-estate agents was the first to come up at the time. You know, insurance agents, right? Are there situations—let’s just, for those two groups, as, you know, being the most out there, where they would never be classified as an employee, right? Would a real-estate agent always be an independent contractor?
Jarvis: I can’t answer always or never because it really is going to depend on the structure, right?
I can envision a structure where a real-estate company hires five real-estate agents. You work for this real-estate company, and you go out and you sell houses and commercial properties five days a week. You don’t work for anyone else. We tell you when to come in, when not to come in. All those elements of the ABC Test are there.
Then you could structure it in a completely different way, where the individual is independent, and one day maybe he or she, you know, sells a house for Weichert, and then for a different one on Tuesday. It really is going to depend on how that business is structured. And so I stay away from terms like never and always, right?
And that’s also one of the reasons that there’s always concern about these industry-wide exemptions when they get proposed, because what happens is you sweep up some people who may rightly be due unemployment insurance because their relationship really is an employee-employer relationship as opposed to independent contractors, so oftentimes they’re too broad because they sweep up everyone in the industry.
The other thing to always keep in mind is the effect it has on the unemployment system itself, right? The benefits are funded by the Unemployment Compensation Trust Fund. That trust fund gets those contributions from both employers and employees to pay the benefits, and I and my predecessors get asked during every budget committee, what tax column are we in? How’s the health of the fund, and is it getting healthy to the point, because it’s statutory, where the tax column will go down, and employers will get a tax break?
The more industry-wide exemptions that are made, the fewer industries, both employees and employers, paying into the fund. Therefore, it keeps the tax rate higher. So, it has an economic impact as well as the impact to individual employees.
Unidentified Senator (multiple sources tell me this was Senate President Scutari again): I’m just going to ask to jump in for a second, thank you Senator Lagana. But how do people know whether they are or not? Like, who’s the guru of the determining if you pass or fail the ABC Test? Are you that person? Is it your, is there somebody within your department?
Like, if somebody wants to know, because they’re calling us all the time: “Am I in? Am I not? I’m afraid.” Who do we tell them to call? You? Because you’re not going to take all these calls.
So, like, is there somebody in your department? Is there going to be a Division of ABC Clarification? Or [are] all of them going to have to go to court? All of them have to be determined based upon a determination, but how do people get to know the answer?
I know it’s case by case, so it’s going to be onerous to determine that because you need to know every fact of this particular case. Where do they go for that answer?
Jarvis: And I appreciate that, and that’s, you know, you actually make a great point. One of the reasons that the department is not in a position to give what, kind of what you’re asking about is an advisory opinion, is because it’s going to be determinative of all the facts in the case, and so you would have to have every single one of the facts.
What I can tell you is that our Office of Employer Accounts, which is housed in Income Security, which is part of Unemployment Insurance, is the one that conducts the ABC Test analysis to make a determination based on the facts that it has, and then there’s conversations with the employer. Employers are able to provide more information that may change the analysis, but they make an initial determination, issue that determination. The employer has the ability to challenge that, and then it becomes a contested case at the Office of Administrative Law, which will have a hearing. And so there is a process in place.
When you ask about my role as the, as the, you know acting commissioner now, and maybe one day the commissioner, the role would be after the contested case at the Office of Administrative Law, you know that’s a recommended decision, the commissioner of labor issues the final agency determination whether or not we agree, and then there’s the ability to appeal. And again, it’s why I go back to—
Unidentified Senator: It’s more like, if somebody just wanted advice, like we’re setting this business up, or I have a business and I want to know if I’m doing the right thing, are these people employees or are they not, is there some—where do we direct them? Because that’s kind of the questions that I’ve received, our office has received, like, “Hey, I want to know.”
Jarvis: Yeah. So look, I would tell you to direct them to me, and then I’ll talk to staff internally to make a determination if there’s someone. But look, I’ve had many of these conversations. People have grabbed me in hearing rooms and here and there to raise these issues, and I always start it, and I think many of you have heard me say it, I always start it with the caveat: It’s going to depend on all the facts. Based on what facts you’ve given me, here’s what I think you should consider, or what the issue may be.
But it is going to be difficult. We’re not in a position to give advisory opinions, but I’m, again, I’m happy to talk to anyone. Try and maybe put them in touch with people who can maybe help them flesh out some of those facts.
Senator Lagana: Just to continue more on that, you know, when we look historically at where this came from, and it goes back to 1936, obviously the world was a lot different in 1936. You know, the business climate was pure business, and employees were treated like, you know, pretty much like animals across the board at the time. So there’s a reason why, you know, the labor movement went into effect, why people organized, why they fought for things like eight-hour workdays and you’re taking kids out of factories and, you know, giving people lunch breaks and all those benefits we enjoyed today was from the labor movement, right? That’s why we have what we have today. And all these laws were put into effect to protect people.
I remember my dad’s father, my grandfather, would work, and at the end of the week they decided to pay him whatever they wanted, and he had to take it and shut up, right? Because there was nothing to enforce at the time. Now things are much different.
But you know, when we come to this point in time, we always have to consider a balance between, you know, predictability in the workforce and making sure that businesses are able to run their businesses, whether they’re big or small. And we know most businesses in New Jersey are small businesses. They’re not large businesses. So we need to create some clarity sometimes, and just make sure that what we’re doing has the effect of protecting employees, and at the same time, giving some clarity to businesses where they can comply. We don’t want people to not comply just because they don’t know how to comply, or don’t know what to do.
The case I’ve been I’ve been reading—and you know, again, historically speaking, the ABC Test was, you know, a common law test. It was enacted by, was it a congressional action? Or where did it—
Jarvis: So what happened was in the 1935 Social Security Act, which also created the Unemployment Insurance System, the individual states would then enact legislation to put that into effect in their state, and they had the flexibility on how they were going to determine who it applied to. So the initial act in 1936 that New Jersey passed in February did not contain an ABC Test, but nine months later, there were some amendments to it as they were fleshing it out, and that’s when the ABC Test became part of New Jersey law.
Senator Lagana: OK, so I’m reading a case, I’m reading Hargrove v. Sleepy’s, which is the 2015 Supreme Court case. I guess it was a Third Circuit case where people delivering for Sleepy’s argued that they were employees and not independent contractors. And just from reading the case briefly, the Third Circuit asked, posed the question to the New Jersey Supreme Court, which therein rule that we will have the ABC Test in New Jersey, right? We’re adopting it, right? But can you explain the difference between the wage and hour and unemployment, and how it’s applicable in those two circumstances?
Jarvis: Absolutely, and I appreciate the question. So, as I recall, and I’ve read Hargrove a couple of times, it involved the certification of the question as to what was the determination, how are we going to define an employee for purposes of the Wage and Hour Law and the wage payment laws?
Now, as I recall, one of those laws, I think it was the wage and hour, expressly referenced back to the ABC Test, and what the court said was, well, the Wage and Hour Law expressly states that it’ll use the ABC Test to determine. The Wage Payment Law is designed to kind of do the same thing and help, right? It’s designed to work symbiotically with the Wage and Hour Law. So the proper test there would also be the ABC Test.
As to your question about the distinction between the two, one of the important distinctions to make, and there’s been a lot of talk about exemptions: Exemptions in the Unemployment Compensation Law are not exemptions from the ABC Test. I want to make that clear. They’re exemptions from the Unemployment Compensation Law. It’s quite possible that if you applied the analysis, that exempt industry or employer wouldn’t meet the test, but they’ve been exempted from the Unemployment Compensation Law.
However, every law we have, every law governing the employer-employee relationship, has to have some definitions as to whom it applies to, right? So there has to be a definition of—just for instance, the definition of what constitutes an employee for purpose of CEPA, the whistleblower law, is a different statutory test than it is for the law against discrimination. Both of those are different than what the USDOL uses for the Fair Labor Standards Act. Different test for the National Labor Relations Act. Different test for the IRS in determining a 1099 employee, right? So this kind of different test is something that’s always an issue.
With respect to the UCL, the Unemployment Compensation Law, and the Wage and Hour Law and the Wage Payment Law, what they’ve determined was, well, for purposes of these laws, we’re going to rely on this same test, right? I’ve heard conversations, and I’ve been involved in conversations where industries have come and said, “Well, we’re exempt from the Unemployment Compensation Law, so we should be exempt from the Wage and Hour or the Wage Payment Law. But I would submit to you that suggesting that just because you’re exempted from the Unemployment Compensation Law means you should be exempted from the Wage and Hour Law doesn’t really make any more sense than saying, OK some employees are exempted from overtime under the Wage and Hour Law, right? If you look at our Wage and Hour Law, there are employees who are exempt because they’re deemed managerial or supervisory, right? They’re salaried employees. Well, they’re still employees. You wouldn’t apply that exemption to them under the Unemployment Compensation law. So, if a manager who’s exempt from overtime, let’s say he manages a warehouse and he’s exempt from overtime, gets fired, you’re not going to suddenly exempt him from the Unemployment Compensation Law.
And so, the fact that they used the same test was determined by an act of the Legislature and how they worded the Wage and Hour Law statutorily, and then the court’s interpretation of connecting that to the Wage Payment Law, I don’t know if that’s a little too esoteric—
Senator Lagana: No, no, no, I think it’s just completely esoteric, but that’s just how it’s built, right? Because, you know, you may be considered an employee that’s eligible to receive, like, as you said, a manager that doesn’t get overtime or somebody who does get overtime. But at the same time, if you were let go, then you do get unemployment, right? So you would be exempt in one instance, but you wouldn’t, but the business wouldn’t be exempt in the other instance.
Jarvis: Correct.
Senator Lagana: So you know, I think that’s where a lot of the—because this is extremely nuanced, right? I mean, it’s, you know, even if you’re an attorney, you don’t practice in this area, you still don’t really, you know, have much experience with it. So it is, and I just want everybody to realize it’s incredibly nuanced. And I think that, you know, what we’re trying to do here is just create as much clarity as we can.
I think a lot of the, because my conversations with the former commissioner were because I was I was a chair of the committee when a lot of this was being discussed, and I had some deep conversations with him about this issue. A lot of it was over whether or not the Legislature itself should act to enshrine this into law, right? That it was seen as a little bit of an overstep, even though it’s permitted, of course, but seen as an overstep for the department just to codify something so massive and not go through the process that we have to have hearings and to have people come testify.
And whether or not, and I know Senator Singleton mentioned something about working on legislation. I know there is legislation, and we try not to piecemeal stuff. Piecemealing things is not the way to do this. And I know the senator has been, has had his eye on this, and I look forward to working with him if he, you know, if he wishes to pursue this.
But I think, you know, if we do get to a point where the Legislature feels like it should act itself to codify into statute and not be just subject to regulation, one way or another, but I think we’re all on the same page as far as this being applicable. And I agree with you. You know, it is a pure codification of the test, and you know, no more, no less. And I think a lot of it is, you know, a little bit of sticker shock where people are like, well, wait a minute, doesn’t apply. You know, what existed yesterday exists today. It’s the same thing. But in there, any circumstances where people may have the ability to change things and enshrine them, they would want to.
So I think that’s why you’re seeing certain groups want, you know, they want it up in neon that they’re not employees, right? But I do appreciate the fact that it is a case-by-case basis, and unfortunately, that’s just how it is, right? What do we say all the time? It is what it is, right?
So I think that, you know, unless there’s some other better method that we would be examining these types of matters where there are, where we can agree that there are wholesale groups that will just never be independent contractors, I think sometimes it can be hard, like you stated, but you know, it’s something that I think we have to tackle—the department and the Legislature and the governor’s office—together to try to figure out what’s best for our employees and at the same time, you know, give clarity to businesses.
I mean, you know, I have family members that have small businesses. You know, they ask me these questions and I sometimes don’t know how to answer them. And I think that all they’re looking for is, we just want to make sure if we have to do it this way, that’s how we do it.
We don’t want to get in trouble because what happens later on was, you know, the heavy hand of government comes down, and then, you know, it’s a little bit difficult to put the toothpaste back in the tube afterwards. And sometimes you have employees, you know, you have all kinds of businesses, all kinds of employees. You have some people who are just incredibly disgruntled, you know, who were treated well by their employer, and then all of a sudden they see this hammer that they can hit them over the head with, and they take advantage of it.
So you know, we just want to be fair in this marketplace, but understanding that these laws went into effect because businesses were not treating employees well, right? Always having to keep that in mind.
So thank you for your testimony today, and you know you have my full support. I look forward to working with you.
Senator Stack: Thank you. Senator Bucco.
Senate Republican Leader Anthony Bucco: Thank you, Mr. Chairman. I promise, I’m going to be brief. Welcome back to the commissioner. You and I have had a number of conversations during your tenure. I appreciate your leadership in the department. I think the change has been very recognizable, night and day, compared to what we were used to under the prior commissioner.
I just have just two brief questions. The first is, I think we beat up ABC to death today, but it goes to the point of the uncertainty. You know, the request for clarification, the added cost to businesses. My question is, I know that the Senate president sent a letter to the administration. I know many of my colleagues on both sides of the aisle had sent in requests to delay the implementation of the regulations. Why didn’t we do that?
Jarvis: So thank you for the question, senator. The reason we didn’t do it is, again, and I keep going back to this, is that the regulations were not doing anything different than simply stating what the case law already is. Much of that case law, I mean, in doing that, there are cases that go all the way back to 1940 and ’50s, ’60s, ’70s. That was the law. This wasn’t a change in the law. It wasn’t an expansion of law. It wasn’t a contraction. It was literally listing it. So delaying it wouldn’t have changed anything, right, in the sense that these were still the factors that the department and the courts were going to consider when making a determination, and because those were still the factors.
And you know, it was even recognized there was a federal district court case in New Jersey in May of 2026, shortly after the regulations were adopted, although they hadn’t gone into effect yet, where the federal district court judge, in a footnote, noted the new regulations, and the judge herself noted that the regulations only synthesize existing case law, right? And so it’s not even just coming from myself at the Department of Labor or different advocacy groups, but the federal courts are recognizing that it’s just a synthesis of existing law. So delaying it wouldn’t have done anything besides holding off on having these things for businesses to use.
Senator Bucco: I mean, it might be just that now seeing it on paper rather than it being out there in a hundred different places has now put this question into everybody’s mind that started this ball rolling, right? Because now there’s a focal point.
Before, it existed in cases all over, and I know that there’s legislation that’s been proposed to exempt certain categories. I hope that we don’t pick winners and losers, that we don’t just, you know, do this by the adoption of legislation. I hope that as these questions get developed, we come to some understanding to help give these businesses some comfort in knowing that they’re not violating the law.
So, I just say that, because I do think that it’s an issue. I do think it’s adding costs to businesses unnecessarily, and we all know that that’s not the place we want to be here in New Jersey because we already have the worst business tax climate in the country, so I just think we need to think about that.
[Discussion about the pandemic and the Labor Department’s lack of responsiveness]
Senator Stack: Senator Burgess.
Senator Renee Burgess: Good morning. How are you?
Jarvis: I’m good.
Senator Burgess: I must say, you answered a lot of questions today, and you’ve done a great job. Your demeanor, your intellect and your knowledge—it speaks volumes, and it just says why I’m not on the fence anymore. You know, I just want you to know you have my support. I appreciate what you’ve done. A lot of my colleagues have already touched on a lot of important subjects that I did have concerns about. Most importantly, you know how your office take care of our constituents, and I thank you for that. And I know you’re going to do a great job. And thanks for being here.
Jarvis: Thank you for the kind words, senator. I appreciate it.
Senator Stack: Senator Bramnick.
[Discussion of how to contact the Department of Labor]
Senator Bramnick: Down in Washington, they have this “big, beautiful bill.” I don’t think it’s beautiful. I’m not a supporter. But what I would say to my colleagues is we should start to draft a “big, beautiful bill” of all the exceptions of the industries in this state that shouldn’t be independent contractors, just in case you’re not around, or somebody’s not reasonable, or they decide to go after industries that, you know, it’s questionable. So I think we should begin to draft that bill and have that bill in our side pocket or back pocket, just in case this thing goes haywire.
But on the other hand, you are articulate, you’re very experienced, and we’re going to hope that, you know, your decision-making is based on common sense and reality.
Charles Wowkanech, president of the New Jersey AFL-CIO, then testified in support of the nomination, which the New Jersey AFL-CIO also issued a press release about. At the witness table, Wowkanech described meeting Jarvis three decades ago, Jarvis at one time working for the New Jersey AFL-CIO, and Jarvis being “a dear friend.”
Members of the Senate Judiciary Committee then voted unanimously in favor of advancing the nomination of Jarvis to serve as New Jersey labor commissioner.
[Applause]