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

91–100 of 754 posts

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

#91

Post by michaelmrose »

hayksaakian wrote: post #38
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.

Good health is a temporary condition. Everyone eventually craps out. If you only buy health insurance when you are old and or sick then you wont be able to afford it when you need it.

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

#92

Post by dmode »

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.

It will cost California $400bn to run a Universal Healthcare system, which is double the entire general fund budget. You have to essentially declare private insurance void, and corral that employee and employer contribution to the healthcare system. It is a huge risk. And best be done at the Federal level

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

#93

Post by dmode »

erichocean wrote: post #37
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.

Why would state enforce a federal employment requirement ?

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

#94

Post by UK-Al05 »

dmode wrote: post #89
Mizza wrote: post #71

Can anybody here with proper experience break down the "ABC" test for me? It seems to me like the "C" part (that the work is "part of a company’s regular business") applies to literally any company who would hire a freelancer to work on their product or service.

Just read through the text of the bill, looks like the work you describe is explicitly exempted from the bill https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

When you have to exempt the majority of professions then it's just bill targeting specific companies which in my opinion is wrong.

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

#95

Post by dmode »

UK-Al05 wrote: post #94
dmode wrote: post #89

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just read through the text of the bill, looks like the work you describe is explicitly exempted from the bill https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

When you have to exempt the majority of professions then it's just bill targeting specific companies which in my opinion is wrong.

The principle behind exemptions are those that already make far more than minimum wages, but I agree with your overall point

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

#96

Post by manigandham »

YokoZar wrote: post #90
manigandham wrote: post #73

This is more about the state collecting more taxes than actually helping workers, especially with ride-sharing drivers used as bait. People can already be full-time drivers if they wanted. Those jobs have existed for a century. In reality, the vast majority of Uber/lyft drivers already have a FT job and drive for secondary income with the time and location of their choosing. Retirees, students, fixed income, disabled…

Could you explain how taxes are involved? What about reclassification causes the state to see more taxes raised?

Employees cost more for the company in terms of taxes paid, along with all the required benefits, minimum wages and making sure there's enough inelastic supply to meet the demand.

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

#97

Post by 9HZZRfNlpR »

scarejunba wrote: post #76
9HZZRfNlpR wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I would assume they offer healthcare to people who are working or are disabled and not able to work. It's not like you get healthcare in Europe for not putting anything back in the system. Freedom of movement is not a problem in this case.

You are full of it. Germany, for instance, (and other European nations are similar) puts so many barriers in the way of a disabled immigrant that they'll never end up a resident. You're telling me if I were disabled and could not work I could just move to Europe and live on the healthcare system? That's not at all true.

I don't claim it what so ever, that was the point of my comment. Only people who put the money in the system get the benefit of healthcare.

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

#98

Post by onion2k »

username90 wrote: post #58
onion2k wrote: post #28

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post makes it sound like the gig economy is actually unworkable right now, so the right solution, at least in the short term while we don't have an answer to problem of how to make it workable , would be to make those 'jobs' actual jobs with real benefits.

California loves making bandaid state fixes to federal problems, I think this is the wrong way to go. Problem: You need a full-time job at a company to get benefits such as healthcare. Californian solution: Reclassify as many as possible as full-time workers. Problem: USA immigration laws are horribly inflexible. Californian solution: Make it illegal to go after illegal immigrants. I don't think that these passive-ag…

Making laws is very similar to writing code - you can't just jump straight to the final, feature-complete, scalable solution (and, just like code, that probably isn't even a thing anyway). It's an iterative process. This is very much the v0.1.1 of the law around gig economy jobs.

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

#99

Post by ivanhoe »

hayksaakian wrote: post #38
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.

Your health is of very little significance if you get in a traffic accident, for instance. Or you fall and break something. Or get hurt in training. Or get bitten by lyme disease carrying tick. Etc...

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

#100

Post by pkaye »

astockwell wrote: post #82
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…

As an American living in Ontario, Canada for a time, I literally COULD NOT BELIEVE the gig economy there. It is what the US aspires to: a guy owns a snow plow business, employs 30 other gig workers 6mos a year. A woman does city/house hunting tours. Contractors are consistently self-employed. On and on. These folks, earning enough to live, and (to another commentor’s point) without fear of medical bills/issues. That…

That is partially because they are skilled workers. The guys who mow lawns in my bay area neighborhood can command hefty rates too. Of course health insurance remains an issue.
Post reply on HN