Live data from Hacker News

California is cracking down on the gig economy

vox.com

61–70 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

How did you know 30mph is the right average speed? For instance, average driving speed in Manhattan in 2016 was 7.1mph. Your working time calculation also needs to consider loading and unloading passengers, gaps between fares, time for comfort breaks, refueling, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, etc.

> How did you know 30mph is the right average speed? For instance, average driving speed in Manhattan in 2016 was 7.1mph.

And on the highway, it's 60-80 MPH. It could very well be under 160 hours.

> Your working time calculation also needs to consider loading and unloading passengers, gaps between fares, time for comfort breaks, refueling, vehicle cleaning and maintenance, etc.

True, and the 5000 mile count also needs to subtract driving for personal reasons. Judging by the previous comment the figure of 5000 was not limited to miles specifically driven for Uber.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#62

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.

Categorizing contract workers as employees and forbidding or limiting child labor are vastly different situations. I can only assume that this is some failed attempt at a joke. Child labor laws prevented parents from sacrificing their children' educations to use them for immediate economic gain. This is not at all related to extending employee benefits to contract workers that set their own hours.

And gig labor laws could prevent people from sacrificing their healthcare and other benefits for immediate economic gain. Uber's, cause the drivers aren't gaining much, apparently.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#64
post #49

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 fo…

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling".

As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#65
post #64
post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling". As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.

When you "share a ride" you go to the same place or in the same general way?

Unless the Uber takes more than one passanger it's not any ride sharing involved. Maybe the could call it vehicle sharing ...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#66
post #62

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Categorizing contract workers as employees and forbidding or limiting child labor are vastly different situations. I can only assume that this is some failed attempt at a joke. Child labor laws prevented parents from sacrificing their children' educations to use them for immediate economic gain. This is not at all related to extending employee benefits to contract workers that set their own hours.

And gig labor laws could prevent people from sacrificing their healthcare and other benefits for immediate economic gain. Uber's, cause the drivers aren't gaining much, apparently.

> And gig labor laws could prevent people from sacrificing their healthcare and other benefits for immediate economic gain.

You make the unqualified assumption that these people had healthcare and benefits before driving for Uber. And regardless, unlike child labor these are adults that are making these decisions for themselves. They looked at their opportunities and decided that driving for Uber or Lyft was best. I'm going to go out on a limb and say that these individuals are more qualified to make their own life choices than people on the internet who know nothing about their lives.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#67
post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contr…

"How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter " so basically making gig workers even more dependent on the company?

I have never understood the impulse of supposedly pro-labor people to expand the responsibility of employers towards their workers. Government is intended as the expression of our collective will, and as such is the conduit of our collective responsibility, including providing people with a resource floor to live with dignity.

Most people figure out as children that responsibility and power are intimately tied together, but apparently that concept escapes some people even into adulthood...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#68

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…

Is there any particular reason (beyond lazy, motivated reasoning) that you think that these drivers represent an appreciable fraction of the Uber workforce? "Some drivers are unhappy" seems roughly as useful a data point as "every Uber driver I've talked to seems happy", which would be rightfully dismissed as unrepresentative by anyone with a modicum of intellectual honesty.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#69
post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, slaves weren't free to go. The whole point of slaves is that they don't need to be paid so saying that they could pay off their masters is moot. There was also no requirement that theirs masters set them free even if a slave could somehow reimburse them for their initial purchase cost. They were their master's personal property, and their master could decide not to sell them if he so wished. Slaves also had next…

> Slaves also had next to no protection.

One should not base their notion of slavery on popular culture like Game of Thrones or Gladiator but on reading historic books. Or Wikipedia.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Slavery_in_ancient_Rome

> Although in general freed slaves could become citizens, with the right to vote if they were male

> Roman slaves could hold property which, despite the fact that it belonged to their masters, they were allowed to use as if it were their own.

> Claudius announced that if a slave was abandoned by his master, he became free. Nero granted slaves the right to complain against their masters in a court. And under Antoninus Pius, a master who killed a slave without just cause could be tried for homicide.[65] Legal protection of slaves continued to grow as the empire expanded. It became common throughout the mid to late 2nd century AD to allow slaves to complain of cruel or unfair treatment by their owners.

Also some slave had been administering largest empires on Earth (China, Roman Empire) or establishing empires of their own with control over lifes of milions of free people.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mamluk

> Particularly in Egypt, but also in the Levant, Mesopotamia, and India, mamluks held political and military power. In some cases, they attained the rank of sultan, while in others they held regional power as emirs or beys. Most notably, mamluk factions seized the sultanate centered on Egypt and Syria, and controlled it as the Mamluk Sultanate (1250–1517).

So back to the subject. Slavery and serfdom had been complex institutions spanning thousands of years and multiple cultures and historical circumstances.

And yes. I am personally convinced that bringing poor people and immigrants with limited citizenship rights into perpetuating economic relation where they cannot make economic progress and mostly accumulate debt and obligations with limited social benefits is modern version of serfdom.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#70
post #4
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.

German labour law and culture are utterly unlike the US. Under NLRB regulations the kind of long term, relatively collegial, give and take contract negotiation that is mundane in Germany is illegal. Volkswagen and other German car companies would like to have the same system in the US as in Germany. They don’t because it’s illegal.
Post reply on HN