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

31–40 of 754 posts

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

#31

Post by amadeusw »

tempsy wrote: post #20
dahdum wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Perhaps this will encourage tech companies to recognize access to health services as a basic human right.

I look forward to day when corporations support universal health care from purely selfish grounds: if government takes care of employee's health, companies won't have to deal with it, or worry whether driver crosses the threshold of working over 30 hours a week.

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

#32

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

You’d be surprised. Californians love their ability to Uber, if this gets rid of that (or severely curtails it), they would have no problem overriding the legislature at the ballot box.

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

#33

Post by syspec »

siphor wrote: post #22

Does anyone know how this will effect Google contractors? Seems like they'd have to make them employees under this ABC test.

Those contractors typically ARE full time employ, just not of Google.

They’re typically employees of the staffing company which hired them

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

#34

Post by forrestthewoods »

Gig economy workers are neither contractors nor employees. They're something in-between. They are neither a square peg nor a round peg. They're a triangle. Forcing a triangular peg through either a round hole or a square hole is wrong.

We need a new, third type of classification.

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

#35

Post by azurezyq »

siphor wrote: post #22

Does anyone know how this will effect Google contractors? Seems like they'd have to make them employees under this ABC test.

I actually never understood that case.

For Uber, drivers are not employed and treated as contractors.

For Google, chefs are employed by another company (food services), which has contracts with Google. And also treated as contractors.

I think these two types of contractors are different. Let's say if contractors are already employed and offered insurance and minimum wage, is it ok for them to work as contractors for other companies like Uber or Google?

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

#36

Post by seanmcdirmid »

tempsy wrote: post #20
dahdum wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Drivers will simply split their time between Uber and lyft like they do already.

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

#37

Post by erichocean »

antropofagico wrote: post #23

Does this mean drivers will need working visas? If so, it will drastically reduce the number of drivers.

Unlikely, California is a "Sanctuary State" and essentially has no enforcement of state (or federal) laws governing "illegal" employment.

If anything, they consider it to be a good thing.

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

#38

Post by hayksaakian »

tylerl wrote: post #25

They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to…

Your case seems to be a consequence of how healthcare works in America (insurance).

For those of us lucky enough to be in good health, the "Gig economy" as-described would be just fine.

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

#39

Post by toomuchtodo »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #32
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’d be surprised. Californians love their ability to Uber, if this gets rid of that (or severely curtails it), they would have no problem overriding the legislature at the ballot box.

Maybe! In the interim, burn rates of already unprofitable companies are going to increase drastically. Does it matter if you overturn the law if you’ve already ceased operations?

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

#40

Post by pcwalton »

xbeta wrote: post #27

Workers have no choice but to get W2 status to get health care insurance, retirement compensation, etc. And they fix it by simply moving them as FT employees, because to the State of California that's the easiest thing they can do. Single-payer free healthcare for all - which is the right thing to do is too much for the State. This is just how bad the State of California is being run.

California already has among the most generous state-level medical benefits in the country. Here, it's hard to be in a situation in which one simultaneously can't afford insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medi-Cal (California Medicaid).

Singling out California for not taking the unprecedented step of rolling out single-payer alone--which is a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarantees freedom of movement--is bizarre.

Post reply on HN