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

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

#491

Post by stale2002 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:22 PM UTC

CodeCube wrote: post #336

buildzr wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

And that attitude is the reason we have so much overhead and useless garbage being produced instead of valuable labor. Just because I don't want to learn the intricacies of labor and tax law doesn't mean I won't pay my employees well and do right by them.

Just because you say you will pay your employees and do right by them, doesn't mean someone else will do the same ... for every one of you, there's someone who will happily exploit someone else, and whether it can be attributed to malice, or ignorance is irrelevant.

And now the people who were hired previously aren't going to have a job.

I hope that's what you wanted.

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

#492

Post by prostoalex » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:23 PM UTC

dustinmoris wrote: post #259

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...

Uber has no USP except the network effect. They are just a taxi company with an app essentially (givent that their self driving efforts havn't fruited at all yet). If they outsource the competency of drivers to an external provider then they are just a taxi company with an app and not even their own driver network, making them even more vulnerable to someone else coming with a better app and using the same driver pro…

Somebody like WorkforceLogic, ManPower or other temp agency would just handle employment, background verification, compliance and 1099s, they're unlikely to start building apps around their own networks.

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

#493

Post by ska » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:24 PM UTC

PorterDuff wrote: post #319

alistairSH wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The difference is that the company that contracted you isn't managing your day-to-day work. Company hires you and says "we need a website that does X" and leaves you to do it. You might be a contractor/free-lancer. Company hires you and says "we need a website that does X, you need to work in the office and/or use our hardware, and we want it written in React, and you'll be working closely with JimBob the Manager." Y…

"Yes, there's some grey area in there." From my experience, I've never seen a software contractor that could avoid being considered an employee if the eyes of the state government fell upon them closely.

  I've never seen a software contractor that could avoid being considered an employee...

There are lots of them. Consider a company that doesn't produce software at all hiring you to build an app for them. or a company that has no expertise in your area, etc.

If you are embedded in a team and could swap roles with any of them, you probably aren't a really a contractor though.

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

#494

Post by manfredo » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

xpe wrote: post #443

manfredo wrote: post #407

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Absent that flexibility many people wouldn't be working at all. Both because their life situations don't allow them to take another job as employees, and because the companies' labor needs do not justify the cost of adding additional employees. > Uber and Lyft have repeatedly warned that they will have to start scheduling drivers in advance if they are employees, reducing drivers’ ability to work when and where they…

If you want to encourage drivers to drive enough to offset overhead costs, there are other ways besides traditional advance time-slot based scheduling. For example: (these are not mutually exclusive) - Setup incentives (e.g. bonuses) so that drivers get paid better after they have offset the overhead costs for a month. Perhaps this could be setup as a sliding scale or threshold system. - Reward (but do not mandate) d…

> Setup incentives (e.g. bonuses) so that drivers get paid better after they have offset the overhead costs for a month.

A bonus increases cost, meaning the drivers need to work even more hours.

> Reward (but do not mandate) drivers for scheduling certain times/dates in advance (e.g. to optimize driver supply)

Again, offering rewards to drivers for driving in certain scheduled times means that drivers need to bring in even more revenue to break even to offset the price of these rewards. Either that, or the overall average pay is reduced during non-peak hours to offset the cost of rewards.

I think it's more likely is that this takes the form of Uber and Lyft giving drivers blocks of time during which they need to drive, and quotas to meet. Paying drivers during non-peak hours, and giving benefits to drivers that are not bringing in much money are things that ride share companies are going to have to take steps to avoid. If drivers start getting employee benefits, then it's a largely inevitable consequence that they'll lose the flexibility provided by contract work.

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

#495

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:25 PM UTC

dsfyu404ed wrote: post #330

gamblor956 wrote: post #321

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Or instead, if you're really not willing to learn something you'll do with every future hire, you could just use a small business payroll service provider that specializes in this sort of stuff to do it for you so that you don't risk prison time. Payroll might be complicated to learn the first time. But it's like riding a bike, once you learn it's trivial to do.

It's not about the complexity, it's the cost and risk exposure. Employees come with costs (workers comp being the big one) and risk exposure that 1099 workers do not have (and what the employer gets in the trade-off is more direct control). For someone doing menial work and getting industry experience on the side (most trades have entry level jobs like this) that additional cost/risk could be the difference between t…

[deleted]

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

#496

Post by privateSFacct » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

I'm generally a fan of this bill I think - but I don't like bills with so many carve-outs and special exceptions - usually a sign of bad drafting or special interest influence. And can make things hard to admin. Now you have to parse whether someone is or is not part of a carevout (ie, did they exercise sufficient creativity to be in group A or not).

That's just litigation heaven. Make some rules - any rules really - that can be reasonably followed by non-attorney's. This bills has pages of if's, and's and but's.

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

#497

Post by joshypants » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:26 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #461

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…

> The US public does not want this That's far from clear. Polling fairly consistently shows that the US public favors at least some degree of it (particularly shifting the healthcare burden from employers to government, other benefits have less political salience), though any particular plan for the detailed mechanism may have trouble gaining majority support.

Yeah, more illustrative to say the US insurance industry does not want this.

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

#498

Post by Spivak » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:28 PM UTC

woah wrote: post #473

Spivak wrote: post #469

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're not carving out high-skill professions. You'll notice that doctors aren't on that list. They're carving out professions that are already under special regulatory regimes that affect how they're able to sell their work. In part because people/businesses are required by law to contract with people who hold these licenses. Like you cannot build a building without a licensed architect and civil engineer. There wo…

Doctors are exempted in a section immediately above the one I quoted.

I stand corrected except that your quote doesn't seem to be from the law as it was passed.

Looks like the final changes to the code exempt doctors, insurance brokers, securities brokers, and sales people under certain conditions. Far less of a carve-out than I was expecting.

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

#499

Post by bogomipz » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:28 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"

Could you share some data that supports this? Polls I have seen show that a majority of Americans support expanded health care coverage.[1][2][3] There is some division howwever on whether that is best done via Medicare For All or a regular single payer system.

[1] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2018/10/03/most-contin...

[2] https://www.kff.org/slideshow/public-opinion-on-single-payer...

[3] https://www.pewresearch.org/fact-tank/2017/01/13/more-americ...

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

#500

Post by rtkwe » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 5:29 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #426

djsumdog wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America, you have to work until you die. The major thing the gig economy takes from people is health care. It's insanely expensive, and the Affordable Care Act is a terrible shamble of broken policy. I spent time outside of the US and came back to find health care worse than when I left it: https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-... I have a friend who has been fighting brain cancer for over a…

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…

I mean those are all costs you should factor in but don't have to pay or are somewhat opaque (eg: depreciation). Drivers can go without health care and gamble on the insurance rider. Then the only paid costs are vehicle maintenance.