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

351–360 of 754 posts

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

#351

Post by cj »

Imashshoryuken wrote: post #301

I have spent 6 months building a gig econ app that now is around 5 million valuation. I can assure you it is not easy. If the government doesn't want 1099 workers because technology has made them viable at scale then we need to throw gig econ apps some help with W2 workers. Even changing I9 documentation would be a massive improvement.

> Even changing I9 documentation would be a massive improvement.

Is there something difficult about completing Form I-9? In my experience, it's one of the easiest steps of the hiring process to complete. Even if the employee is remote, you could have them send you a picture of their driver's license + passport which isn't too hard to do. What would you want changed about it?

Direct link to Form I-9: https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-9-pape...

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

#352

Post by CodeCube »

einarvollset wrote: post #303
nickjj wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Also not an accountant or lawyer, but I think that if you're paying someone by the hour, and directing them as to how they should do they job, they need to be classified as an employee, not a contractor. > This means a W2 instead of a 1099 [...] I'm a freelance developer in NY and this isn't the case. When someone requests me to do work for them they tell me what they want done, we scope out the project and then I…

It will probably come as a surprise to you (it did me several years ago), that it’s not simply up to you and the company hiring you if you are considered a freelancer. This is not a matter of billable vs guaranteed hours. It’s a classification based on employee control over the person in question. In fact, if you were micro directing the people you paid 1099, you may have had what the state of NY would consider an em…

It's not really that complicated. If it's a short term engagement (3 hours literally once), then 1099. If you need them for 3 hours every week, then consider hiring them as a part time employee ... it's a long term relationship at that point. If you need 3 hours every week and engage a temp agency, then chances are you'll get a different person (even if they send the same person a few times in a row). If you engage a "temp agency" that's literally just a front for one person ... that's an employee and should be treated as such.

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

#353

Post by gamblor956 »

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…

No, because eBay's business model is charging sellers for services. They don't mandate what you sell, how you deliver, or what payment company to use (now that they no longer own PayPal)

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

#354

Post by docker_up »

Dumblydorr wrote: post #287
docker_up wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Until about 30 years ago, California voted Republican and Texas voted Democrat.

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

#355

Post by gamblor956 »

bluedino wrote: post #179
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…

What about FedEx? Aren't most of their drivers contractors?

FedEx would also be affected.

This is one of the reasons UPS supported the bill. It creates parity between the two.

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

#357

Post by PorterDuff »

pcwalton wrote: post #40
xbeta wrote: post #27

Workers have no choice but to get W2 status to get health care insurance, retirement compensation, etc. And they fix it by simply moving them as FT employees, because to the State of California that's the easiest thing they can do. Single-payer free healthcare for all - which is the right thing to do is too much for the State. This is just how bad the State of California is being run.

California already has among the most generous state-level medical benefits in the country. Here, it's hard to be in a situation in which one simultaneously can't afford insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medi-Cal (California Medicaid). Singling out California for not taking the unprecedented step of rolling out single-payer alone--which is a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarant…

Honestly, I can't see why California is unable to roll out a single-payer plan. It's certainly larger than many of the countries that have one. In a single-party state, it should be a relatively straightforward thing to do.

My guess is that no one is serious about healthcare and that it's simply a get-out-the-vote scheme like abortion and gun rights.

"a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarantees freedom of movement"

Levels of benefits already differ considerably, no? If freedom of movement is a deal killer, than it seems to me that strict, highly enforced immigration laws would also be a precondition.

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

#358

Post by miracle2k »

moate wrote: post #284
clinta wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 oppor…

> A company can hire 10 people at 10 dollars an hour or 20 people at 5 dollars an hour.

No, it will probably exclude people who just want to work 2 hours some evenings whenever they have time to make some extra money, who'd make the full 10 dollars an hour like other drivers do in the time that they do work.

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

#359

Post by gorbachev »

johnrob wrote: post #293

The Uber layoffs announced yesterday now seem to be strategically timed. If we assume the standard 3 month severance offered by big companies, the layoffs would free up cash at the end of 2019 - right when they’d need it for the increase in CA drivers benefits.

They were already announced some time ago and are related to the catastrophic quarterly earnings for the last quarter.

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

#360

Post by aphextim »

miracle2k wrote: post #327
Quanttek wrote: post #298

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Of course they don't have to schedule them. But if Uber has to take them on as employees, then Uber might reasonably want to take advantage of their right as an employer to force them to work certain shifts.

They may take a path of having employees be scheduled who opt in to have their hours/time be scheduled and get guaranteed hours/rides.

If you don't opt in to be scheduled you may be lower on the priority list and not have as many rides, but your flexibility still is in your own hands.

It would give incentive on the individual to want to opt in for the hours at the loss of personal freedom if that is what they want to choose.

Post reply on HN