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

111–120 of 754 posts

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

#111

Post by michaelmrose »

ilaksh wrote: post #60
DeonPenny wrote: post #57

Well, RIP to the Gig economy hopefully robots get here soon. Cause I can't see the market surviving this.

I am also enthusiastic about robots and doubtful about "the market surviving this". But what happens to people when the robots have all of the jobs? People think it's not going to affect them because their job is special. It's just a matter of a few years difference, everyone's job will be affected. Even computer programming. Why am I so sure about this? Because there is a very large research effort going on aimed at…

An understanding of rocketry didn't grant us the immediate route to land on the moon without also overcoming substantial obstacles. Given that we don't really understand cognition I would suspect that we don't have enough info to even estimate when we might achieve AGI.

A few years is probably hopelessly optimistic.

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

#113

Post by rsj_hn »

URSpider94 wrote: post #106
manigandham wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no state payroll tax, so California has literally nothing to gain in terms of taxation whether drivers are employees or contractors. Even at the Federal level, the taxes net out the same. For employees, your employer pays half of your social security contribution, but as a contractor, you have to pay the employers half on your taxes. The only thing I can come up with is unemployment insurance, which contract…

Like other states with income taxes, California deducts state income taxes from employee wages just as the Federal government does. Yes, as a contractor, you are supposed to do that yourself, but enforcement is an issue and I assume at least some Uber drivers (like some taxi drivers, bartenders, and others) have been underreporting, so this should bring in more tax revenue to both the state and federal governments. Not sure the drivers are going to benefit from that, but it's a real thing.

There are also immigration issues -- Uber will need to collect documentation so that workers can set their W2, and even though CA bans requiring businesses to use e-verify, Uber does business in many states and this would fall under interstate commerce concerns, and the federal government requires it for some border states and also for any business that sells to the federal government, so there is gonna be a whole host of immigration issues around e-verify, right in time for the election season. (E-verify is one of those things that is wildly popular, supported by both a majority of Democrats and Independents as well as the GOP, but hated by CA legislators and some in the business community, so expect this to set the stage for an e-verify showdown and battles over executive orders in 2020).

Then there are all the issues about whether Uber is going to limit hours, require working hours, or otherwise regulate their workforce a lot more than they currently are. Here by Uber, I mean all the taxi driving apps/companies, of course. Will Uber just "fire" drivers that don't generate enough fares to justify a set minimum wage? Will it no longer be allowed for drivers to come down from Sacramento and work in SF? Will Uber limit lunch breaks to a certain length, and force the app to be turned on during pre-arranged hours? A lot depends on how Uber responds.

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

#114

Post by fragmede »

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…

> moving between states as hard as moving between EU countries

It depends on the country of origin, but for many, moving between EU countries is about as moving between states is now. There's some bureaucracy to deal with, but it's not like moving between states in the US is hassle free. Most US states require immigrants from other states get a local drivers license and local car registration, which requires multiple proofs of residence. Don't forget the nightmare of having to deal with two states' taxes (where applicable).

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

#115

Post by kmjg88nvf8 »

"Ride-hailing drivers hailed the bill’s passage." - I wonder how happy they will be when their job simply goes away because of that bill.

It's terribly misguided and anti-freedom.

I think it is a problem if companies like Uber are not honest with their employees, like neglecting to mention that their cars may break down and require maintenance, which should be factored into the income. But that is about honest information sharing, not forced employment.

Nevertheless, people should be free to do contract work and negotiate contracts on their own terms.

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

#117

Post by kmjg88nvf8 »

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…

Seems more of an issue with health insurance than with the Gig Economy, though.

What is the reason insurance providers don't want to insure contractors?

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

#118

Post by dagw »

jameslk wrote: post #116

Can't Uber and Lyft get around this by requiring their contractors to register their own companies? E.g. a SMLLC might be sufficient.

Even if that would work from a legal perspective, I suspect that it would be enough of a practical hurdle to greatly decrease the number of people willing to drive for Uber/Lyft.

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

#119

Post by kmjg88nvf8 »

djrobstep wrote: post #56
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 well as laws like this that recognize the reality of the employment relationship, making these jobs decent requires: - unionization and industry bargaining to get decent wages and conditions - quality social welfare systems (including universal healthcare) so that people aren't afraid of poverty if they get fired/quit/change jobs I've always wondered why there isn't more of an appetite for Medicare for All and uni…

Why doesn't anybody do a startup providing health insurance to the uninsured?

Are there too many regulations? Insurance is just a business, it seems to me.

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

#120

Post by manigandham »

URSpider94 wrote: post #106
manigandham wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

There is no state payroll tax, so California has literally nothing to gain in terms of taxation whether drivers are employees or contractors. Even at the Federal level, the taxes net out the same. For employees, your employer pays half of your social security contribution, but as a contractor, you have to pay the employers half on your taxes. The only thing I can come up with is unemployment insurance, which contract…

What? California has 4 different payroll taxes: https://www.edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/What_Are_State_Payroll_...

Minimum wage requirements alone will raise incomes and thus taxes. Add in bigger salaries, benefits, vehicles, equipment, etc that the company will now have to pay for.

Post reply on HN