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

211–220 of 754 posts

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

#211

Post by dangerface »

monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

Seems fair to me no one wants to deal with the bureaucracy of employing people or being employed why not out source that to a third party?

The main problem Americans seem to face with gig economy is the lack of health care but thats americas problem you can't blame employers or employees for it.

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

#212

Post by wokemillennial »

fergie wrote: post #108

How do we get past the NYT paywall these days? Incognito mode no longer seems to do the trick?

Or you could, you know, pay for the news that you want to consume.

"How do I get past the Uber paywall these days?"

See how absurd that sounds?

Pay for the products and services that you consume.

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

#213

Post by mbarronj »

mikekchar wrote: post #150
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

I would imagine most software "contractors" that work for a major company are not 1099 - that carries a bunch of risks. Most "Contractors" are W2 employees of a labor for hire company. That still seems perfectly legal. "Hiring entity" would be Big Staffing Company, your customer would be Big Internet Company.

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

#215

Post by dsirola »

michaelmrose wrote: post #111
ilaksh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

People can't even align divs properly. I would say AGI is further away than most people think.

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

#216

Post by kkarakk »

Aeolun wrote: post #201
monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

Does it matter who the employees are employed by? All rules for an employer apply just as well for the employing company as they would for Amazon if they employed them directly.

yup it does, just like contractor employees at amazon/google/tech company of choice don't get any of the nice benefits or perks of working at the client company, these guys won't get anything.

Those employees can't sue the client company, they can only sue contractor company - that suddenly goes poof and doesn't pay out anything when a dispute happens. Good luck forming a union coz then the company will go poof too

It basically just moves the onus onto the employee willing to sign up for a shit job with no perks and absolves the govt/client company.

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

#217

Post by edouard-harris »

mikekchar wrote: post #150
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

The bill makes an exception for engineers, among other professions:

> An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

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

#218

Post by magashna »

lr wrote: post #189

“Some of the companies are not done fighting the bill. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have pledged to spend $90 million to support a ballot initiative that would essentially exempt them from the legislation.” And how may people who drive for these companies are not citizens and cannot vote?

If they pledged that money to pay their employees properly, wouldn't it be a wash?

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

#219

Post by throwaway_law »

monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

Cost/Benefit.

Uber doesn't want drivers classified as employees so they don't have to pay minimum wage, provide employee benefits, pay payroll taxes, or otherwise comply with the law vis-a-vis employees.

Yet, it is one thing for Uber to hire drivers as contractors individually where Uber has full control over the terms, in other words no driver is in a position to negotiate their contract with Uber...it is an entirely different thing for the drivers to be organized and those organized drivers now be in a position to negotiate (almost like a union).

I think the last thing Uber would do is assist the drivers in organizing...its not just the ability for them to negotiate with Uber collectively either, at that point said driver contracting firm(s) would then be in a position to launch their own ride-share app to compete, unlike say these Amazon driver firms would can't just launch an Amazon competitor.

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

#220

Post by kkarakk »

dangerface wrote: post #211
monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

Seems fair to me no one wants to deal with the bureaucracy of employing people or being employed why not out source that to a third party? The main problem Americans seem to face with gig economy is the lack of health care but thats americas problem you can't blame employers or employees for it.

Healthcare, Insurance, Repairs to machinery, Discrimination - There a TON of problems with the gig economy that are being "subsidized" by investors right now.
Post reply on HN