California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#451

Post by woah » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

This is an extremely heavy handed law which would be destructive to large parts of the economy by making many people’s livelihoods illegal.

The drafters of the law knew this, which is why 90% of the text of the law is carve-outs for various professions. But forcing people to live their lives through loopholes never works well.

For example, they have this carve out for high skilled professions:

> (3) An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

Sorry, software engineers. An accountant or an architect might be allowed to take on lucrative contracts, but since the state of California doesn’t have a special piece of paper for your job, they’re not going to allow you to work in the way you choose.

Edit: I myself am a software developer who has enjoyed working contracts in the past and would like the option to do so again.

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

#452

Post by jshowa3 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:51 PM UTC

poilcn wrote: post #423

chongli wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…

When an individual creates an enterprise it's expected to fail in 2 years. It does not mean death of the individual, but often it makes 'em go broke. Only one company in a hundred is successful. Other are doomed. Government-run projects do not live in alternative dimension. It is affected by the same things any private organization is affected. It is expected that a country would exist longer than an individual compa…

The idea of universal health care hasn't been tested by time yet (and in principal it will fail due to things I described above), so it's very reasonable that the US public rejects it.

Uhhh... nearly every other country other than the US has had some form of national health service for decades and they spend less on healthcare per capita for comparable quality.

What you're spouting is nonsense.

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

#453

Post by wilg » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #320

stickfigure wrote: post #14

If this actually gets enforced, I predict we'll all be talking about the law of unintended consequences in a year's time.

One thing that I find disappointing in this legislation is that I wish it did essentially the reverse: instead of forcing the drivers to be employees, I wish it loosened the control Uber/Lyft had to bring it down to the level of what should be expected for independent contractors. The biggest issue for me is pricing - the fact that drivers have 0 input to rates always made the IC designation fiction. But if the apps…

Wouldn't that still be allowed by this bill? If Uber reduced their control such that they could be considered contractors again?

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

#454

Post by stuaxo » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

poilcn wrote: post #423

chongli wrote: post #400

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…

When an individual creates an enterprise it's expected to fail in 2 years. It does not mean death of the individual, but often it makes 'em go broke. Only one company in a hundred is successful. Other are doomed. Government-run projects do not live in alternative dimension. It is affected by the same things any private organization is affected. It is expected that a country would exist longer than an individual compa…

Government departments are turned over like businesses, with new administrations.

If anything there is more changing, and stricter controls on (if you don't include departments like defense)

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

#455

Post by ylhert » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:52 PM UTC

From the bill:

  (c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality.

It really irks me that they can posit this in legislation without supporting data. It seems like a dubious claim, at best.

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

#456

Post by maximente » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:53 PM UTC

chongli wrote: post #400

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…

The way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes. Then there is no risk to hiring a new employee beyond the wages you pay them. The US public does not want this, though, and the war of words over universal health care has led to incredibly deep entrenchment on the side of those opposed. All this despite the mountain of evidence from oth…

> The US public does not want this, though

evidence? from 2017 shows more support than not.

https://www.pbs.org/newshour/health/62-percent-u-s-want-fede...

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

#457

Post by kerkeslager » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:56 PM UTC

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…

Your sob story has a number of holes:

1. An employee working, in your words, "a few hours a week" has literally nothing to do with an Uber driver working full time.

2. As a society, do we need more cable-coiling jobs? I don't think we do. With respect to your experience, there are a lot of people in the music industry (and most industries) willing to mentor people without also expecting them to do menial labor for minimum wage. You're not being benevolent or providing some integral service to the community.

3. There are a large variety of services which make it easy to hire an employee, which cost a small fraction of what the employee is going to cost. If you actually wanted to do what you say you want to do, I'm sure you could figure out how to do it.

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

#458

Post by jshowa3 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #433

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Think of the opportunity costs. First off, Uber drivers don't make that much. Then you have vehicle depreciation and maintenance costs. You need to carry an insurance rider that covers rideshare driving. You also need to pay for your own health care. When you add up all these expenses, plus the desire for a living wage, there is no way drivers can be making eno…

Everyone who I've personally known do these jobs only do it temporarily just to make ends meet between real jobs. It doesn't matter how shitty the benefits are if you're going to get kicked out on the street because you missed the rent/mortgage payment. Maybe some people do it "for a living" but I bet most are between real opportunities or making some money for Christmas/vacation/etc

The reason they don't have a choice is because the system is designed to provide the lowest quality of living possible because we haven't done basic things like raised minimum wage with inflation or institute universal health care.

Instead we've subsidized all these gig corporations so frequently that one of the biggest ones pays 0 in federal taxes. Something I don't even get the choice to do.

It's about time we stop capitulating to desperation.

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

#459

Post by saisundar » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

aabajian wrote: post #442

How does this affect AirBnb hosts?

Would Airbnb even be under scrutiny with regards to this bill? Airbnb is a marketplace, where the hosts can set their own rates, with minimal intervention from the platform. This is not the case with Uber/Lyft though.

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

#460

Post by cptaj » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 4:57 PM UTC

stjohnswarts wrote: post #435

jchallis wrote: post #420

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Based on the very large revenue from foreign patients who come to America to get cancer treatment on their own dime, those patients and their families care about getting the best treatment.

You can't use the 0.1% cases to justify the 90% who will get wrecked financially because of major surgery, cancer treatment, etc because it's so expensive. Medical treatment shouldn't be a for profit business, there has to be a better way, and other countries have a better system (in the sense of doing the greatest good for the most people, and not just the 0.1%) than we do and we can copy the best of them as we will…

I think it can be for profit but it needs regulation on how much you can bleed patients for. Selling pills for thousands of dollars when they cost you a dime to make is simply exploitative.