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

481–490 of 754 posts

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

#481

Post by DeonPenny »

ilaksh wrote: post #60
DeonPenny wrote: post #57

Well, RIP to the Gig economy hopefully robots get here soon. Cause I can't see the market surviving this.

I am also enthusiastic about robots and doubtful about "the market surviving this". But what happens to people when the robots have all of the jobs? People think it's not going to affect them because their job is special. It's just a matter of a few years difference, everyone's job will be affected. Even computer programming. Why am I so sure about this? Because there is a very large research effort going on aimed at…

Whats with the obsession with jobs. Like healthcare you can easily figure out ways that more than basic necessity are taken care of. Is it really important that we give drivers arbitrary work?

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

#482

Post by [deleted] »

farisjarrah wrote: post #381
EpicEng wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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…

There are plenty of companies who have successfully figured out the whole part-time flexible employee thing. I quit my last company, but they didn't want to lose me, so they wanted to keep me on as a flexible-part-timer and I didn't even have a set amount of hours I needed to work every week. As long as I was working less then something like 30 hours a week then they didn't need to provide me additional benefits like…

[deleted]

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

#483

Post by ska »

Reedx wrote: post #471
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…

> All this despite the mountain of evidence from other countries, showing the greatly reduced total costs and improved life expectancy Does this account for confounding factors? Such as the US having the highest obesity rates, which has a massive impact on costs and life expectancy. I'm for universal healthcare, but "X has these results in Y, therefore it'll be the same in Z" is a poor argument and weakens the overal…

There are lots of confounding factors, so predicting outcomes is a dodgy business.

One thing that is easier to evaluate is the cost of delivering equivalent care - the US system turns out to be quite inefficient that way, which implies the potential for significant cost savings at least.

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

#484

Post by ska »

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…

This sounds very ideologically, rather than evidence based.

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

#485

Post by bluntfang »

perseusprime11 wrote: post #318
bluntfang wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you talk more about why someone wouldn't want it?

I want to be an independent contractor without getting tied to a company. At least, this was the best part for me in the gig economy where I can drive Uber and rent on Airbnb and make money doing multiple gigs. I don't want to be an employee of either Uber or AirBnb.

What specifically is the problem with being an employee? I want to understand your position more. I don't understand the drawbacks of "being tied to an employer".

>this was the best part for me in the gig economy where I can drive Uber and rent on Airbnb and make money doing multiple gigs.

What about being a contractor makes this possible? Many people work multiple jobs by being a direct employer of the company? Also how does rental properties come into this?

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

#486

Post by woah »

kerkeslager wrote: post #476
woah wrote: post #451

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…

Meh, as a freelance software engineer who sometimes works for California employers, I'll be happy to classify myself as an employee and decline health insurance in exchange for higher pay. While the law could have been written more simply, I think your concern for my well-being is misplaced.

Sure, maybe you can replicate an arrangement you had before, but due to the multiple new layers of bureaucracy you’re going to get paid less. Like I said, they knew this was an issue which is why 90% of the law is carve-outs. Unfortunately software engineers (and many other professions, I’m sure) have slipped through the cracks and now will be subject to the harms that they were trying to avoid for doctors, accountants, fishermen, etc etc etc

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

#487

Post by nickjj »

Digory wrote: post #440
nickjj wrote: post #257

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. To my understanding (not a lawyer / accountant) if you hire someone part time like that you're not obligated to pay for their insurance or anything like that. You just write off what you paid them as a business expense and send them a 1099 at the end of…

This is a common misconception, but terribly incorrect. Talk to a lawyer.

I guess it depends? Multiple accountants have told me that over the years (I'm a freelance developer btw).

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

#488

Post by ska »

donatj wrote: post #276
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…

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.

> company terrifyingly complex,

And yet, somehow hundreds of thousands of small businesses, most of them in non technical fields whose owners I would surmise don't have nearly the average educational and/or technical skills that HN readership does, somehow managed to navigate it.

This isn't terrifyingly complex. You can work it out yourself, or pay a reasonable fee to someone to set you up. It's a business expense that any actually viable small business should be able to easily justify.

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

#489

Post by ummonk »

wilg wrote: post #453
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #320

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That would probably not be sufficient, because of other clauses in the bill.

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

#490

Post by irrational »

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

I don't think this is true. I think what the US public doesn't want is the higher taxes to pay for it. We are already swimming in debt and wages haven't kept up with inflation. My daughter is making exactly the same wages now that I made when I was her age 25 years ago, in comparable jobs.

Post reply on HN