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

251–260 of 754 posts

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

#251

Post by hypersoar »

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.

These are all obtainable without citizenship. There are clearly a lot of immigrants driving for Uber.

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

#252

Post by dustinmoris »

whiddershins wrote: post #246

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…

What do you expect from your studio assistant that you think might put you at risk of a number of lawsuits?

Honestly, if you want to hire someone to do some work a few hours a week then you are basically hiring a part time employee. There's nothing dangerous around doing this and it's certainly not a minefield if you treat them with the respect that any employee deserves.

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

#253

Post by gwbas1c »

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.…

Most of the software contractors I know easily meet (A) and (B). In these cases, they bid on the job based on its requirements, have multiple customers, define how they will implement the software, and sometimes even have employees.

When I personally worked as a contractor, the other contractors I worked with mostly bounced from short gig to short gig. That would probably meet (B). (A) was a bit more subjective.

If you're a long-time contractor for a single customer, and that single customer has a high level of direction over your day-to-day work, you are at risk of being defined a W2 employee by a legal entity like the IRS. (Or the state of CA.) In such a case, it's important that you clearly understand the legal difference between a contractor and an employee; and have some frank discussions with your "customer." It's important to point out that your "customer" bears the risk of you being redefined as an employee, so it's in their best interest to make sure that your contractor relationship follows the law as best as possible.

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

#254

Post by seanmcdirmid »

pnongrata wrote: post #191
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber ride share is actually profitable in California (and most of the USA), they are burning lots of cash on UberEats however. If this law is applied fairly, it affects taxi and limo operators as well, so everyone will be in the same boat at least, fares will surge but they will still be in business.

I'm curious, do you have a source for the claim that uber is profitable in most of the USA? That goes against their disclosed info of huge annual losses.

It’s in their earnings report: https://www.businessinsider.com/where-uber-spends-its-money-....

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

#255

Post by mises »

droidno9 wrote: post #110
pieix wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thank you for posting the exact wording of the bill. Which of these three clauses are not satisfied by drivers for a ridesharing company?

The burden of proof would be on Uber and Lyft to show: (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. This would be a hard sell because Uber and Lyft are in the business of providing transportation to people. They may argue that they're only providing the platform that enables drivers to provide rides, but considering the amount of evidence that says otherwise, I'd like…

Then this won't cover them as people seem to think it does, because the actual driving is not uber's business. They run a market-place in which others operate; the actual driving is indeed outside of the hiring entity's usual business. Regardless, there seems to be an obvious loop-hole for uber lawyers to chase.

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

#256

Post by MiroF »

jamiequint wrote: post #9
irjustin wrote: post #4

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by…

> While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. So basically all the "gig economy" companies.

Airbnb?

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

#257

Post by nickjj »

whiddershins wrote: post #246

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…

> 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.

To my understanding (not a lawyer / accountant) if you hire someone part time like that you're not obligated to pay for their insurance or anything like that.

You just write off what you paid them as a business expense and send them a 1099 at the end of the year (this is the official document stating how much money you gave them during the year -- your accountant will generate the form for you).

Then it's up to them to file their taxes for that income, but this is out of scope for you. As long as you've sent them their 1099 you've done your job.

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

#258

Post by seanmcdirmid »

dodobirdlord wrote: post #105
flukus wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they have to be paid minimum wage I think uber will be playing a much more direct role in setting their work hours, not just whenever the app is turned on. They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job but they can prevent them from doing their second job when they're on the clock of the first. This actually solves a common complaint lately of drivers cancelling one ride while they pick up someone on a…

> They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job They absolutely can and they probably will. You can put almost anything you want in an employment contract, and agreeing not to work for a competitor is an extremely common clause.

Not in California can they do that (non compete clauses are not enforceable in California).

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

#259

Post by dustinmoris »

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...

Uber has no USP except the network effect. They are just a taxi company with an app essentially (givent that their self driving efforts havn't fruited at all yet). If they outsource the competency of drivers to an external provider then they are just a taxi company with an app and not even their own driver network, making them even more vulnerable to someone else coming with a better app and using the same driver provider. Customers are the fastest to migrate when price is the main factor and the barrier to switch to a different app is literally just a few clicks in the app store.

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

#260

Post by dnautics »

robotdongs wrote: post #210
bencollier49 wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess that'd be decided in the courts. But Airbnb and Uber have to develop software in order to carry on their business, so I would come down on the other side of the argument.

I disagree, the apps facilitate their business but Uber and Airbnb aren't in the software development business, as they don't develop software for sale as their primary means of income.

technically Uber is a software company according to its incorporation and Rasier is the transportation services company.
Post reply on HN