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

31–40 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#31

Post by brianchu »

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low.

All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole.

We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#32

Post by manfredo »

dmode wrote: post #19

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 ma…

> I met a Uber driver the other day who drives 5000 miles per month. Clearly that is close to exploitation.

Averaging 30 miles an hour, that's 166 hours a month.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#33

Post by inferiorhuman »

manfredo wrote: post #25
inferiorhuman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. > 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. If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either.…

Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits.

That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance).

If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order to keep them from qualifying for benefits.

That's not true either. Being classed as an employee will mean that the drivers qualify for unemployment insurance, that Uber will pay half of some of the taxes typically levied on wages, oh and having W2 wages will qualify you for a tax-advantaged IRA (retirement account). There are some other perks as well depending on the locality. Being an employee versus contractor comes with a number of benefits that aren't health insurance.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#34

Post by georgeecollins »

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.

That reminds me of the posturing when they passed those child labor laws. And what did we get? A bunch of unemployed children.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#35

Post by tstgggssg »

manfredo wrote: post #7
tstgggssg wrote: post #5

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. Most Uber/lyft drivers are recent immigrants , working poor who end up taking on a lot of risk for little if any reward. Uber also uses psychological tricks to trick drivers into driving more then is rational [1] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2019/04/12/technology/uber-driver-ip... [1] https://www.nytimes.com/int…

> 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…

Inferiorhuman pointed to a marketwatch article where Uber drivers make $11 on average - that is less then min wage in California

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#36

Post by chewz »

manfredo wrote: post #30
chewz wrote: post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. Majority of land owners over the course of history had come to the conclusion that serfdom and slavery is beneficial to positive returns on landholding. Also multiple countries had been greatly improving their GDP from forced labor (Nazi Germany, Mao's China, Stalin's Russia and other). https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Unfree_labou…

Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith. On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is…

Slaves and serf were historically also free to go if they have paid off their masters. You could also argue thst they had received some protection and benefits.

"Freedom" of choice is relative term here.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#37

Post by zhoujianfu »

georgeecollins wrote: post #34
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. That reminds me of the posturing when they passed those child labor laws. And what did we get? A bunch of unemployed children.

The child unemployment rate in America is more than twice that of China!

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#39

Post by pgeorgi »

freeflight wrote: post #23
Leszek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Those German worker rights, and strong ties between companies and unions were supposedly among the reasons why Walmart failed in Germany: “They didn’t understand that in Germany, companies and unions are closely connected,” Mr. Poschmann said. “Bentonville didn’t want to have anything to do with unions. They thought we were communists.” [0] [0] https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02...

and nothing of value was lost

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#40

Post by inferiorhuman »

zhoujianfu wrote: post #37
georgeecollins wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of employees if it passes. That reminds me of the posturing when they passed those child labor laws. And what did we get? A bunch of unemployed children.

The child unemployment rate in America is more than twice that of China!

That reads like a Zippy the Pinhead strip
Post reply on HN