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

281–290 of 754 posts

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

#281

Post by cj »

jcranberry wrote: post #269
cj wrote: post #241

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

Do minimum wage workers typically get the option to get health care?

It depends if they’re part-time or full-time.

Companies are not required to offer health insurance to part-time employees. Employers with more than 50 employees are required to offer health insurance to full time employees.

(IANAL)

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

#282

Post by jayparth »

dustinmoris wrote: post #259
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 pro…

He's just talking about a legal reorganization. "Uber Drivers LLC" contracts the employees which is wholly owned by Uber. I don't see how this would actually help them though. Under the new law, Amazon Flex drivers are also categorized as full time employees and the child company would still bear the costs of that

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

#284

Post by moate »

clinta wrote: post #192
AndyMcConachie wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that means people driving for Uber/Lyft can now have a decent standard of living I'm all for it.

Even if it means that fewer people get the opportunity to to do it at all? I know people who drive for a little extra money while they work other jobs. This kind of flexibility is what might be at risk, excluding many people who need that extra income from ever getting the opportunity.

So the trade off is always "more jobs" vs "better jobs". A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour.

Which situation is you believe is "better" depends on your end goal: Are you trying to make more small jobs, or are you trying to make jobs meaningful in their earning ability?

Framed another way, the people you know driving for "a little extra cash" are chipping away at opportunities for someone to be consolidating those jobs into a single, better job.

Not going to debate which is actually "better", because that's just personal opinions/economic model preferences.

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

#285

Post by nroets »

quaquaqua1 wrote: post #209
Aeolun wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It does matter. Here's why: Uber agrees to pay X rate currently to drivers. A law is passed that makes X rate even more unprofitable. Uber then engages the services of an external company which provides labor at a lower rate, fires all of the current Uber drivers, and encourages them to work for the new external company. The external company, if sued, does not have the resources that Uber has, and simply goes bankrup…

There is also another reason: If Uber employs the driver and he/she acts unprofessionally, then it's a lot of work to fire him/her before they can hire someone else. (Uber does not want to drag passengers into any type of litigation)

If Uber deals with many companies, they can just reduce demand at the company with the bad driver and increase demand at another one. The company with the bad driver can then retrench him, saying they need to cut someone.

(Disclaimer, I know very little about Uber and the US and it may not work for them specifically. But the idea certainly applies to other companies)

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

#286

Post by PopeDotNinja »

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…

One option is a temp agency.

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

#287

Post by Dumblydorr »

docker_up wrote: post #44
toomuchtodo wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

California voted against gay marriage AND legalization of marijuana. So it's not nearly as progressive as you think. It took a court case to bring gay marriage to California and a second attempt for pot.

California was once the stronghold of conservativism, recall GOP God-head Reagan had his political epicenter of Orange County. Now, California is majority minority and much more liberal. Could the same happen to Texas, Georgia, Arizona?

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

#288

Post by a9a »

This seems like terrible legislation. Yes, part time gig workers are exposed to harms that employees don’t face (i.e. lack of health insurance). But the ability to work flexibly and between lots of companies has huge upside for them and for firms. Why not tax companies who use these workers and put the tax revenue toward a special health insurance / social safety net specifically for gig workers? Mitigates many of the downsides and preserves flexibility.

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

#289

Post by apta »

asteli wrote: post #249
kryogen1c wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The poster seems to be talking about illegal immigrants.
Post reply on HN