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

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 754 posts

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#11

Post by daveFNbuck »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #6
Me1000 wrote: post #3

It seems pretty clear that the Governor is going to sign the bill, so this is going to be a pretty big deal. The law wouldn't take effect until the beginning of next year, and in that time Uber, Lyft, and Doordash will have collectively spent $90 million on a ballot prop campaign to exempt them from the law. Not looking forward to all the ads, but I will be curious where the money comes from on the other side.

I’m unsure what ad spend is going to help with three months until the bill takes effect. The bill clearly has enough support to be signed into law. What states use this initiative next as a template is the most interesting question.

The ad spend can undo this in November 2020. Ballot propositions can't be undone by the legislature or governor.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#12

Post by toomuchtodo »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #11
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m unsure what ad spend is going to help with three months until the bill takes effect. The bill clearly has enough support to be signed into law. What states use this initiative next as a template is the most interesting question.

The ad spend can undo this in November 2020. Ballot propositions can't be undone by the legislature or governor.

That seems exceedingly unlikely to occur, regardless of ad spend, in a state as progressive politically as California (similar to AirBnB’s tone deaf failed ad campaign in San Francisco).

This assumes gig companies haven’t exhausted their runway by then. Humorously, Uber and Lyft thought they might extinguish taxis if they waited them out long enough, and then the California government did the same to them.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#13

Post by dahdum »

irjustin wrote: post #4

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by…

It will be an interesting case study for sure. I think we can expect fewer drivers, mandatory time slots, and capped 40 hour weeks. Prices should go up to cover all of it, and both Uber/Lyft are cheeky enough to separate that line item as a “CA Tax Recovery Fee” or some such.

Probably will be better off for those making it their living, worse for those looking for extra income.

It’s going to be harder on all the other businesses getting hit suddenly with this, newspapers threw a fit and got a 1 year reprieve but the rest didn’t have a bully pulpit.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#15

Post by dmix »

tempsy wrote: post #7
irjustin wrote: post #4

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by…

I haven’t closely followed this but it definitely seems like something that could have serious second order effects that (surprise, surprise) politicians who optimize for optics never think about. For example I think the bar will immediately be higher for drivers who want to remain drivers, meaning less tolerance for drivers that have below median ratings. Maybe that’s a good thing for riders but it could make drivin…

This is why it's good to have states be the test beds for policy experiments.

It's not all bad for everyone. If this turns out to be a giant net negative, the rest of the world can learn from California's experience. Worst case it will be a boon for other states who will be able to offer better taxi availability for all the business people they are trying to attract away from California, putting pressure on CA to update it's laws (although let’s be honest this is pretty rare even in the face of changing marketplaces).

This could also accelerate the adoption of AI and the subsequent loss of the driver's jobs in favour of automation as the human capital costs increases and/or driver availability issues could help tilt the cost efficiency scales.

Plus a lot of people are predicting truck drivers are going first and I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an influx of people looking for urban Taxi jobs soon.

1. Although it's not always the case other states actually look at data and studies first before copying other state's policy.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#16

Post by Mathnerd314 »

pcurve wrote: post #10

“Today, our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of rideshare drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits,” What is their idea of thoughtful solution?

Full statement: Today, our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of rideshare drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits. The fact that there were more than 50 industries carved out of AB5 is very telling. We are fully prepared to take this issue to the voters of California to preserve the freedom and access drivers and riders want and need.

So basically they want to carve out an exception for their industry as well, wait 10 years until competing taxi services are dead, and then pass some token legislation based on the outcome of AB5 in other industries. Standard corporate-speak.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#17

Post by babkayaga »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #11
toomuchtodo wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m unsure what ad spend is going to help with three months until the bill takes effect. The bill clearly has enough support to be signed into law. What states use this initiative next as a template is the most interesting question.

The ad spend can undo this in November 2020. Ballot propositions can't be undone by the legislature or governor.

I saw ballots bypassed by the jegislature and the governor multiple times in MA. Ianal so no idea about the technicalities.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#18

Post by CameronNemo »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #12
daveFNbuck wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The ad spend can undo this in November 2020. Ballot propositions can't be undone by the legislature or governor.

That seems exceedingly unlikely to occur, regardless of ad spend, in a state as progressive politically as California (similar to AirBnB’s tone deaf failed ad campaign in San Francisco). This assumes gig companies haven’t exhausted their runway by then. Humorously, Uber and Lyft thought they might extinguish taxis if they waited them out long enough, and then the California government did the same to them.

Yet we are sure to see ads as long as these firms are either desperate or dumb.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#19

Post by guelo »

These "gig" companies are all unprofitable. Their current business models are consumer-friendly as they try to capture market share, so people mostly love them. But they are not sustainable, the prices will eventually have to go up or become a worse deal in some other way. They are just hoping to use all that cash to stumble into some kind of monopoly or lock-in that eventually removes customer choice. They are not good for society overall, we might get a lot of cheap convenient transportation in the short term but eventually we'll all be worse off as they kill off competition. It's basically price dumping, and the sooner they are stopped the better.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#20

Post by tempsy »

dahdum wrote: post #13
irjustin wrote: post #4

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by…

It will be an interesting case study for sure. I think we can expect fewer drivers, mandatory time slots, and capped 40 hour weeks. Prices should go up to cover all of it, and both Uber/Lyft are cheeky enough to separate that line item as a “CA Tax Recovery Fee” or some such. Probably will be better off for those making it their living, worse for those looking for extra income. It’s going to be harder on all the othe…

30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so guessing hours would be capped at 30 max per week.

I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.

Post reply on HN