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

241–250 of 754 posts

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

#241

Post by cj »

middleload wrote: post #224
throwaway_law wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 entirel…

In my country, working as an Uber driver gets you a good salary. I think it's around 1000€ (minimum wage being less than 500€). Is it different in USA? Do they get less than minimum wage for 8 hours?

According to one analysis [1], working for Uber pays $8.80-$11 per hour (after subtracting car related expenses).

The federal minimum wage is $7.25/hr. But certain cities are much higher, for example New York City is $15.00. In San Francisco, it’s $15.59.

Also worth mentioning that most of these averages are not taken from drivers working full-time (40 hours per week). So while they may be able to make near minimum wage on an hourly basis, they may not be able to achieve that hourly rate for a full 40 hours per week due to fluctuating demand for rides.

[1] https://www.ridester.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make

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

#242

Post by [deleted] »

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...

[deleted]

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

#243

Post by lexs »

RonaldSchleifer wrote: post #128
mirimir wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is misleading to lump people billing at $100s/hr with drivers, shoppers, dog walkers, etc. But what's the median billing rate for the "gig economy"? Given my experience with consulting, it seems odd to use the "gig" label. But whatever, it did suck to pay ~$1K per month for health insurance.

My thought too. I also did not get the sense that someone who “ended up billing at $300/hr and was still struggling with month to month work is someone who really realized the full cost of self-employment, because that is what he was really doing, employing himself … not “just like you guys” gigs. If you’re billing at $300/hr and working when and how you want, it actually seems immensely disingenuous to try to associ…

> the worshiped and beatified “universal healthcare” that is “free” in Europe where massive taxes are paid to augment the also massive individual monthly cost taken out of people’s paychecks

Worth noting that American per capita spending on healthcare is much higher compared to European countries despite a lower life expectancy.

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

#244

Post by School-Cotton »

throwawaynihil wrote: post #239
paul_f wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does gerrymandering affect California's representation at the Federal level? And the makeup of the Senate? It's that darn constitution again :-)

If you really don't understand how gerrymandering screws over our democracy, then you're not worth responding to. The fact is a state with 38 million people and a GDP equivalent to 20% of the nation should have more representation than moscow mitch's welfare state of kentucky.

That's not related to gerrymandering though, which is why I think the post you're replying to is confused.

The unfairly low representation of large states in the Senate is a huge issue, but it's not what "gerrymandering" means.

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

#245

Post by codingdave »

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.…

You might be reading it wrong... everything in law is in a grey area until further defined in court, but legal documents should typically be read with full boolean logic applied to all the words:

"control and direction" - sure, they give you direction. But do they control what tools you use, when and how you do it?

"connection with the performance of the work" - Are they controlling the final deliverable, or the performance, again, as in when and how the work is done?

I suspect that software consultants have a reasonable argument that they control their own work, while their clients have control over the acceptance of the final deliverable, so the above points are not fulfilled.

Edit: And for B, it just seems like having a 2nd client would fulfill that criteria. Your 2nd client is outside usual course of the 1st clients business.

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

#246

Post by whiddershins »

All these people making Uber money on the side ... the whole thing was possible in part due to the low friction in (and also complete disregard for) the regulatory environment.

I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors.

So I just coil my own cables. And I don’t mentor people who want to learn some things about the music industry.

Not a crippling loss for me, but I miss the relationship building, I miss passing on things I’ve learned, I miss the creative back and forth, being turned on to new stuff ... and frankly my studio is a mess.

I’m not sure why we can’t figure out a way to protect workers without making everything a legal minefield. One effect of this sort of legislation is it gets harder and harder to be a small player. The big companies always figure out how to deal with the rules.

It’s sad.

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

#247

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

pishpash wrote: post #168
mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Also (A) would probably be a big issue, since Uber, Lyft etc. actually do interfere fairly directly with exactly how a driver provides service, even giving them a constantly-updating rating from detailed feedback collected from riders, and manipulating rides sent to drivers to influence what time of day / parts of town they end up working in to satisfy macro level shifts in demand that the larger organization observe…

You seem to imagine what you want to see. Drivers choose whether to work, when to work, where to work, whether to accept jobs, whether to complete a job or cancel it, whether to take the route suggested or not, whether to take jobs from other gig companies at the same time, whether to run personal errands in between, whether to take breaks, whether to heed feedback given by their own customers, whether to be in areas…

Drivers do choose whether to work, just like employees do. They also choose when to be on the clock, which is the single item from your comment that can even loosely be used to argue they could be contractors. Drivers definitely don’t choose where to work, that’s dictated by the apps’ central scheduling algorithms, and only might be related to the driver’s current location, and not in any way chosen by the driver.

Choosing the route, for example, is a service the ride hailing companies rely on the driver to perform. Like an employee.

Choosing to run an errand, give me a break? You can’t be serious? Employees do that stuff all the time. That type of thing is not related to the distinction between contractor or employee.

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

#249

Post by asteli »

kryogen1c wrote: post #208
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?

I would guess very few, since driving requires a smartphone, a license, a vehicle, and a bank account. Its possible to work around these, of course, but the numbers must be small.

? You can easily get all those things as a non-citizen resident. Do you mean undocumented immigrants or something?

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

#250

Post by matthewowen »

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.

AirBnB were _successful_ in their campaign against the ballot proposition that would have given teeth to the laws limiting short term rentals.
Post reply on HN