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

361–370 of 754 posts

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

#361

Post by phil248 »

streb-lo wrote: post #335
donatj wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This, 100% this. It makes the move from a single person company to a 2 person company terrifyingly complex, particularly for those of us without a background in business. It’s a literal chilling action on small business.

Terrifyingly complex? We're talking about a Google search and a few forms...

...and completing all of those forms flawlessly, as a layperson, lest you open yourself to any number of lawsuits. Just the thought of it makes me nervous. It's why large companies have dedicated staff to dealing with such issues.

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

#362

Post by blisterpeanuts »

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #277
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…

You could 1099 them but considering the likelihood of someone who's taking an entry level music job claiming the income on their taxes seems like a recipe for an audit for both parties. Realistically you should probably do what everyone else does in this situations and pay under the table. Think of the lost taxes as billing the government for making stupid laws that can't reasonably be followed even when you want to…

The fact is, there's a lot of people paying under the table, for these very reasons. One estimate from 2012 of the underground economy in the U.S., i.e. transactions of goods and services other than illegal drug trade, was around $2 trillion[1]. That was during a severe recession; it's not clear whether the subsequent recovery has exacerbated the situation or encouraged more people to work "above ground".

One thing is certain: as long as there is friction & obstacles to hiring part time help, there will be people trying to work/hire under the table.

1. https://www.investopedia.com/articles/markets/032916/how-big...

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

#363

Post by tylerl »

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…

Aye. I said by the end I was charging that much. I started out at $65/hr billing maybe 20hrs per wk. 10 years is a long time.

Before Obamacare and without the ability to bargain as a large scale employer, my insurance options were limited to "defined benefit" plans where the maximum they'd pay out in an emergency was limited to about what you paid in in about a year or so. Effectively no emergency coverage, just incidental stuff.

Another fun feature: preexisting conditions. For which insurers will pay $0. It's pretty horrible, and one state where I lived passed a law so the pregnancy could not be considered a preexisting condition for insurance purposes. Which meant that if you were pregnant you were denied coverage at all. By everyone. Without exception.

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

#365

Post by djrogers »

mises wrote: post #255
droidno9 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> They run a market-place in which others operate;

A marketplace generally allows those who operate in it to set their own pricing. The fact that Uber exclusively determines both cost and pay for the drivers would run counter to your 'marketplace' argument.

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

#366

Post by gamblor956 »

strictnein wrote: post #340
Donald wrote: post #165

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can still form an LLC and hire yourself as a w-2 employee.

IANAL, but don't you need an s-corp for that? This seems to be saying the same thing: https://smallbusiness.chron.com/true-owner-llc-cannot-w2-inc...

Yes. But an LLC can be an s-corp.

The article is referring to true LLCs, i.e., those which have elected pass through treatment.

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

#367

Post by gamblor956 »

bencollier49 wrote: post #223
robotdongs wrote: post #210

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

To paraphrase, they're both software companies who happen to do rentals and cars. There's also nothing in that law which talks about core business. It's to do with work in the normal line of business, in other words - work which is regularly performed by the company, rather than specialist work for which a contractor is required.

No, they're both taxi services that happen to use software.

Core business is understood to mean primary revenue generating activity, which is getting paid for facilitating rides. They don't charge any money for the use of the software.

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

#368

Post by wjmao88 »

EpicEng wrote: post #344
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…

>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…

because then those drivers would go work for lyft or some other company that doesn't do it? I mean this is why we want competition.

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

#369

Post by bwb »

phil248 wrote: post #361
streb-lo wrote: post #335

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Terrifyingly complex? We're talking about a Google search and a few forms...

...and completing all of those forms flawlessly, as a layperson, lest you open yourself to any number of lawsuits. Just the thought of it makes me nervous. It's why large companies have dedicated staff to dealing with such issues.

This is the weirdest thread I've seen on HN, just pay a little money to Gusto or similar to do this. You are talking about barely any cost to have someone else do it who does it all the time.

If you don't have the money to pay $50 bucks then do it yourself and just worry less. The chance you mess up is so low it isn't even a thing.

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

#370

Post by tylerl »

mirimir wrote: post #122
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…

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.

I don't think so; my point was that regardless of your billing rate and even in the extreme, the absence of an employer is always a crippling factor. Telling people they can make their way to the top by working harder is a fantasy. There's no freedom at the top.

Perhaps your state had a $1k/mo option for insurance, mine did not. Even at $5k/mo (if I had it) plans would not cover an emergency. None of the plans available to the self-employed would.

Post reply on HN