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

341–350 of 754 posts

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

#341

Post by ajross »

neltnerb wrote: post #272
dustinmoris wrote: post #252

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my c…

Well, yeah, because if we don't have these rules, part time employers won't pay taxes, their employees will have to pay tax penalties if they try, and they won't get insurance for workplace injuries. And these are bad things, so we make rules about them.

Now, maybe you'll argue that these are all steps that the government should be doing instead of the employer. And I agree, but they're done this way because there's a whole political aisle in this country dedicated to the proposition that the government shouldn't ever do anything. So someone has to do it, and in our scheme it's the employer.

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

#342

Post by CodeCube »

mercutio2 wrote: post #297
neltnerb wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my c…

These ( incredibly small ) requirements you list for having a small number of part time employees have been legal obligations for more than 50 years. So yes, you have to fill out 5 forms, and write 4 checks, every year for withheld taxes. But none of this qualifies for “it’s sad, it’s getting hard to be a small business”. They’re just things everyone in the US has been legally obligated to do for part time employees…

People with business degrees get a ton of crap in tech circles (god knows I've sent my share of snark their way over the years ;) ) ... but at the end of the day, there is value to someone learning those things, and people have been successfully thriving for decades as you mention under the exact same obligations. I think tech generally seeks to reduce friction as much as possible, even to its detriment ... like someone removing some log from a worksite while cleaning up, only to realize it was holding up something else. The original intent of the thing is lost over time

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

#343

Post by [deleted] »

dumbfounder wrote: post #234
Cthulhu_ wrote: post #175

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If what you do as a software consultant is outside of the usual activities of the company you work for I suspect you should be fine. Uber however is a taxi company and the brunt of their primary activities are done (atm) by contractors. Driving people around is their core business - even if they will probably give the defense that they're only a middle man with an app that links independent drivers up with people loo…

I think they would argue they are an app company that connects drivers to people that need driving. Or food to people that need food. Etc. What about power sellers on ebay? Since they generate all their income from selling stuff on ebay should they be classified as employees of ebay? Could uber work around this by having everyone form their own LLC to be an uber driver, and making that process painless for people? (o…

[deleted]

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

#344

Post by EpicEng »

Quanttek wrote: post #298
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…

That "flexibility" means precarity as the majority of gig employees do this full-time: >In California, the legislation will affect at least one million workers who have been on the receiving end of a decades-long trend of outsourcing and franchising work, making employer-worker relationships more arm’s-length. Many people have been pushed into contractor status with no access to basic protections like a minimum wage…

>Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions.

Well yeah, it doesn't force them to. Who are these "experts"? If Uber takes on 100,000 new employees and all of the costs that go along with them, why wouldn't they also manage them like... employees? You can't have it both ways.

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

#345

Post by aianus »

bryanlarsen wrote: post #140
astockwell wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As an American living in Ontario, Canada for a time, I literally COULD NOT BELIEVE the gig economy there. It is what the US aspires to: a guy owns a snow plow business, employs 30 other gig workers 6mos a year. A woman does city/house hunting tours. Contractors are consistently self-employed. On and on. These folks, earning enough to live, and (to another commentor’s point) without fear of medical bills/issues. That…

Those snowplow workers will likely be employees, not contractors. The Canadian government really frowns on avoidance of payroll taxes. But due to Medicare etc, it's not that big of a deal whether a worker is a contractor or employee.

The same payroll taxes are paid whether you’re self employed or employed. Including Uber drivers. You just pay both sides of the CPP and EI if you’re filing as self employed.

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

#346

Post by echelon »

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…

> I couldn't buy reasonable health insurance for any price. Any price at all.

What?

Can't you buy personal health insurance with decent coverage for on the order of $500/month? And that's for plans with low deductables. $6000/yr for personal health insurance for an individual seems perfectly reasonable.

I'm concerned because I'm planning on eventually pursuing my own startup. If I can't get health insurance, this becomes extremely risky and untenable. If your post is correct, how does self-employment even work?

My understanding is that individuals can buy affordable personal health insurance. Am I wrong?

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

#347

Post by quaquaqua1 »

scardine wrote: post #333
quaquaqua1 wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Interesting, in Brazil all the companies in the chain are liable in a labor-related law suit. Before the 2017 Labor Reform[1], frivolous law suits by former employees were a billionaire market because it used to be a risk-free gamble - after the reform the litigant is liable for exaggerated claims and there was a 46% drop in labor cases[2]. When I look at any market where the labor code is excessively protective, I s…

There is definitely a causation for high unemployment by such laws. But it actually goes even deeper.

In France for example, it is difficult for a company to fire an employee once they are legally hired.

Oracle, for example, has a policy of initiating an "intra-country transfer" where the employee is mandated to relocate from Paris to Montpellier. Not everyone wants to uproot their family like that. And then if they do accept the move, next year Oracle will relocate them to Bordeaux...

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

#348

Post by dehrmann »

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...

I've seen Uber or Lyft in-app receipts suggest the driver is actually an LLC.

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

#349

Post by swalsh »

gamblor956 wrote: post #337
swalsh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2019, it's probably not too out of scope for nearly any business to argue software is a core part of their daily activities. The digital transformation is basically done, if in the last 10 years you didn't turn your company into a quasi-tech company your competitors did and you died. I'd make the guess that one could go into finer detail on what specific type of software development falls in-line with the daily ac…

When they say "usual course of business" they mean the revenue generating activity, not essential support functions. I.e., Uber could not outsource driving if it calls itself a transportation company, but it could outsource accounting functions.

I'm just not convinced that's a straightforward question to answer. I once worked for a hardware company that outsourced new hardware development to a contractor. We had a guy in house for maintenance, and the occasional hardware bug that propped up, but we only designed a new box once every 5 years or so... it just didn't make sense to have the team in house. We did manufacturing in house, and we had a huge software team... but though our money came from selling the hardware, we didn't do that in house.

As the company grew much larger, we did eventually expand our product line, and did build a team. But for several years, we just had 1 dedicated hardware guy.

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

#350

Post by miracle2k »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #247
pishpash wrote: post #168

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. Ch…

> 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.

If you work, say, in a restaurant and decide you want to go pick up your laundry, expect the shift supervisor to tell you no.

Certainly some employees enjoy that flexibility, but that is entirely at the discretion of your employer.

Post reply on HN