Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California is cracking down on the gig economy

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#11

Post by manfredo »

enraged_camel wrote: post #9
manfredo wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The problem is that most are not making much money [0] and most would be better off working a min wage job. $40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. Most of the drivers I've talked to explain that it does usually equate to between minimum wage to $20-$25 an hour after expenses depending on how effective you are at getting surge priced rides. But, unlike a minimum wage job you can set your own hours which is a huge ad…

>>$40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. No, but it gets pretty close when you factor in all the expenses that contractors have to deal with.

Expenses are tax deductible. The article reports that his adjusted income was $22,378. The article did not mention how many hours he worked per year, so determining his hourly post-expense earnings is not possible.

And regardless, this is exactly one data point. Hardly enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. And as I have said before, I am not inclined to trust the New York Times' coverage of large tech companies.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#12

Post by jypepin »

egypturnash wrote: post #6

From TFA: Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court, unsuccessfully, for years. "Fighting for in court" links to https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-strike-20... - which includes these choice paragraphs: It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take 15-minute rest breaks…

It's unclear how many drivers are actually fighting this and how many are actually happy in the current situation and do not want to be classified as employees.

The article mentions "Last month, Uber settled the main court case with 13,600 Uber drivers". That doesn't seem like a lot of drivers (or the majority) of drivers.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#13

Post by inferiorhuman »

manfredo wrote: post #8
egypturnash wrote: post #6

From TFA: Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in court, unsuccessfully, for years. "Fighting for in court" links to https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-strike-20... - which includes these choice paragraphs: It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take 15-minute rest breaks…

Drivers want it, but drivers probably don't look at Uber's finances. Ask drivers this: You would get the benefits of employees, but now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber - you will not get to choose your own hours. Do you think they'd want that situation?

now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber

Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for.

Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want to drive for Uber in the first place?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#14

Post by cinquemb »

Leszek wrote: post #4
manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

Germany has similar workers' rights and protection from firing, yet it has a lower unemployment rate.

Not that I think employment rate means much (look at japan's very low employment rate compare to their economic growth since 1989, its very low [2.4% now]), but their unemployment rate for April came in at 4.9%, whereas in the US was at 3.6%.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#16

Post by inferiorhuman »

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of employees if it passes.

Will it hurt them more than making roughly minimum wage or less?

https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv...

Marketwatch is estimating under $11/hr with no insurance, no retirement benefits, etc. Even In-n-Out and Starbucks pay more, offer better benefits (even for part timers), and generally offer flexible schedules.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#17

Post by on_and_off »

manfredo wrote: post #11
enraged_camel wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>$40,000 a year is hardly minimum wage. No, but it gets pretty close when you factor in all the expenses that contractors have to deal with.

Expenses are tax deductible. The article reports that his adjusted income was $22,378. The article did not mention how many hours he worked per year, so determining his hourly post-expense earnings is not possible. And regardless, this is exactly one data point. Hardly enough to draw any meaningful conclusions. And as I have said before, I am not inclined to trust the New York Times' coverage of large tech companies.

you allege bias without giving any semblance of a factual proof, only an alleged motive.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#18

Post by pjmlp »

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

As someone that has worked across several European countries, all of them with better employee protection laws than US, I pretty much prefer our view of how employees should be handled. And yes I also enjoyed the French Alps as part of it.

There is an limit to exploitation capitalism.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#19

Post by dmode »

While I am sympathetic to Uber and Lyft drivers and other gig economy workers, I am wondering if anyone has the done the calculus on job losses vs. making something. And whether making something is better than being jobless. I met a Uber driver the other day who drives 5000 miles per month. Clearly that is close to exploitation. But if Uber is forced to pay drivers 100% more surely there will be fewer drivers. And many people may not have a path to make money. In addition, I have met many Uber drivers who are retired and only do few hours over the weekend for supplemental income. This sweeping bill will also take out those positions. It feels like short sighted without accounting for these edge cases.

Also, what is the difference between Uber and eBay / Airbnb ? Can a seller in eBay or a host at Airbnb be considered an employee ? Essentially both eBay and Airbnb have no business without their sellers or hosts. One can claim that these are marketplaces, but the only difference between these marketplaces and Uber is that Uber sets price (according to the ABC test). Can Uber then simply skirt the law by allowing a price "opt-in" suggestion ? or even outsourcing pricing to another LLC ?

Edit: just thinking more about my last point. Uber can easily let drivers set their own price and simply show the lower price range to the passenger. Will be interesting to see how that plays out

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#20

Post by [deleted] »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #16
manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of employees if it passes. Will it hurt them more than making roughly minimum wage or less? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv... Marketwatch is estimating under $11/hr with no insurance, no retirement benefits, etc. Even In-n-Out and Starbucks pay more, offer better benefits (even for part timers), and generally offer fle…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN