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

111–120 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#111

Post by Shivetya »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #13
manfredo wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I will have to ask my coworkers who drive for uber/lyft but my impression is they can turn off the app/take breaks when they want and there is no let up in rides once they turn it back on.

As for the FTE quandary, blame the party who put themselves before the people and pushed the ACA out with a the twenty nine hour rule. That has done more damage to lower income workers than nearly any change before it.

Now if Uber or Lyft penalize drivers for turning the app off that could be regulated but mandating a break time when the use of the app is wholly in the hands of the driver?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#112

Post by CryptoPunk »

lozenge wrote: post #81
CryptoPunk wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>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. At the risk of going down the partisan rabbit hole, this reminds me of the video segment where Ami Horowitz questioned people of liberal political persuasions on the ability of black voters to meet photo ID requirements, and then asked black A…

He should have asked some Republican strategists, many are on record saying their voter ID laws are meant to suppress the black vote. He also isn't asking the black voters "the same questions" at all.

The black voters were saying every black person they know had photo ID and that instituting photo ID requirements would not prevent blacks from voting.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#113

Post by Shikadi »

bko wrote: post #106
cycomanic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 additio…

OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model.

My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer. Hypothetically, some place like Walmart could see a chance to pay less for their workers, and if they actually went through with it then one of the largest employers would be taking a massive chunk of money out of the working class. They're a good example because they're already a burden on tax payers (about 6.2 billion depending on your source) since so many of their workers are on welfare. The reality is, if you let companies exploit workers, they will, and the workers will be happy to be exploited until it's too late. See: Working conditions in China over the past few decades

I'm not an economist, so maybe someone with more knowledge on the subject can hopefully put it more eloquently, or maybe even give an explanation as to why I might be wrong

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#114

Post by wiggler00m »

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…

Well said. The legal origins of the separation between contractors and employees pre-date computers, not to mention the internet.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#115

Post by antisemiotic »

esolyt wrote: post #54
dnautics wrote: post #38

Just charge drivers $1/day to use the platform and now they aren't contractors, they're customers.

Even better, categorize your app as a game. Now they're players. Pokémon Go players don't even get paid, yet they drive from pokestop to pokestop just to earn virtual items.

By default you get 5 uses of GPS per day, for more than that use in-app purchases. Also try our lootbox for a chance at winning fancy avatars to display near your name!

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#116

Post by Frost1x »

bko wrote: post #106
cycomanic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 additio…

Voluntarily doesn't disqualify something from being slavery. Historically, if you look at indentured servitude you'll see this very trend and indentured servitude is classified as a form of slavery (albeit, arguably, not as bad).

Interestingly, if you want to look at a modern parallel, it's not too far off from how H1Bs are used. There are of course more modern rights that allow individuals to quickly terminate these responsibilities but essentially contracts hold needs (income, assets) and desires (citizenship) hostage as the bargaining mechanisms, not too far from what many indentured servants entered into. To be fair, working conditions and treatment have also of course increased drastically.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#117

Post by [deleted] »

mseidl wrote: post #105
Leszek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#118

Post by erikpukinskis »

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.

Don’t German companies penalize you for quitting sometimes?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#120

Post by panitaxx »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #72
pishpash wrote: post #57

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don't they go work there then? Come back when you have an answer.

So why don't they go work there then? Come back when you have an answer. You'd prefer that I answer "because gig economy companies provide unmatched flexibility and freedom to their employees^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontractors", right? I'm not really here to play that game, so how's this? - They may not work in an area where In-n-Out exists or Starbucks is hiring. Note: this doesn't mean that the other available low/no ski…

So basically your answer tldr is "gig economy workers are dumb and financial/life decisions must be made for them in group and disregarding their particular situation and free will"
Post reply on HN