California is cracking down on the gig economy • Hacker News Board

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#101

Post by nmstoker » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 11:38 AM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #90

chungleong wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.

In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And…

It feels like this says more about the status of the law and behaviour in Prague than it does about the apparent merits of Uber style services.

In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs", but with the undercutting of Uber they are more likely to try underhand tactics.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#102

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 11:52 AM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #82

brianchu wrote: post #31

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…

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

You are correct that some business models are inherently bad. Ones that require violence like slavery or fraud like Ponzi schemes especially.

But I don't care for California to make sure privately hired cars are theoretically X% cheaper. If there are protections that are needed for drivers so their net income is more obvious or something, let's do that.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#103

Post by humanrebar » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 11:55 AM UTC

wutbrodo wrote: post #67

kmlx wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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 togeth…

> Government is intended as the expression of our collective will, and as such is the conduit of our collective responsibility

Big if true

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#104

Post by TomMarius » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

nmstoker wrote: post #101

TomMarius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And…

It feels like this says more about the status of the law and behaviour in Prague than it does about the apparent merits of Uber style services. In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs", but with the undercutting of Uber they are more likely to try underhand tactics.

Yes I can see that in London it could make problems. It is not a silver bullet, I'd say. Some cities benefit from this Uber-like form, and other cities benefit from the former London form.

While it is not a silver bullet, it is also not an universally wrong/bad way - that's my point.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#105

Post by mseidl » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:09 PM UTC

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.

Plus in Germany, you have what's called a probezeit, or probationary time. It can't be longer than one year, but it's a time where either party can end the work contract if it's not working out.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#106

Post by bko » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:12 PM UTC

cycomanic wrote: post #82

brianchu wrote: post #31

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…

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor.

How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor?

> well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone.

I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additional costs to the employers would somehow just generate wealth and tax revenue from nowhere. The money would come from somewhere (consumers and gig workers), and would result in less business as an artificially higher price would scale back quantity demanded.

> The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

Most of these businesses are losing a lot of money. They're not fleecing anyone. It might not be viable by any means but increasing the costs arbitrarily would decrease their chances. It's important to remember that most of these gig workers work these jobs because they prefer them over any other job available to them. So removing options for them is unlikely to benefit them.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#107

Post by IfOnlyYouKnew » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #21

on_and_off wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The above author did not ask for specific examples. Prominent I have seen in the past, among others: * Attempting to depict high profile YouTubers as promoting Nazism despite the given examples unambiguously not promoting nazism in context. * Alleging YouTube pushes users towards right wing content when quantitative analysis shows left-leaning content outnumbers right leaning content more than 2:!, and a slim minorit…

So in your deranged conspiracy theory, the New York Times hates Uber because Uber is "a technology company" and therefore competes with the New York Times?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#108

Post by LanceMan » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:17 PM UTC

This, along with the need to offset $1B operating losses will severely cripple Uber. I enjoy the convenience of using an Uber to get around town but afraid these coming actions will raise prices significantly.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#109

Post by CryptoPunk » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:33 PM UTC

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #107

manfredo wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The above author did not ask for specific examples. Prominent I have seen in the past, among others: * Attempting to depict high profile YouTubers as promoting Nazism despite the given examples unambiguously not promoting nazism in context. * Alleging YouTube pushes users towards right wing content when quantitative analysis shows left-leaning content outnumbers right leaning content more than 2:!, and a slim minorit…

So in your deranged conspiracy theory, the New York Times hates Uber because Uber is "a technology company" and therefore competes with the New York Times?

I can't speak to the validity of the conspiracy theory, but there is a stronger basis for it than that:

The writers at the NYT are unionized and consequently derive above-market wages as a result of labor regulations.

Gig economy companies like Uber undermine labor regulations, like the kind that empower unionized workforces like the NYT's.

Still the theory has a pretty flimsy basis of support.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#110

Post by ibeckermayer » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 12:35 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #49

brianchu wrote: post #31

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…

And why exactly should anybody care what you like and don’t like? If you don’t like Uber/Lyft, be my guest and call a taxi.

Nobody is using these services under the impression that the drivers just happen to be going to the same destination. So your semantic quibble is just that.