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

541–550 of 754 posts

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

#541

Post by nickjj »

oftenwrong wrote: post #376
jeffasinger wrote: post #268

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, plus you need to pay them on a fixed schedule, pay social security and medicare taxes (and likely other taxes depending on jurisdiction) on their wages, deduct income taxes, do an I…

See: https://www.irs.gov/publications/p15a#en_US_2019_publink1000... >To determine whether an individual is an employee or an independent contractor under the common-law, the relationship of the worker and the business must be examined. In any employee-independent contractor determination, all information that provides evidence of the degree of control and the degree of independence must be considered. >Facts that pr…

That is one heck of a link, thanks.

But it's too bad that so many of those points are ambiguous due to lack of information.

For example, the "Computer Industry" example (CTRL + F for it). It's pretty clear cut that a huge amount of software freelance work falls under this example.

But then this sentence ruins everything: "Steve works at home and isn't expected or allowed to attend meetings of the software development group".

What if you have to goto 1 or more meetings to get a clarification on the specifications because part of what you're developing is related to 3 other people who are employees of that company.

It seems ridiculous to me that if you sit in on a 30 minute remote meeting, suddenly you're a W2 employee instead of a contract worker. Likewise it's ridiculous if you happen to go on site once or twice for whatever reasons. The examples are also left up in the air. If a single condition fails, is it an automatic W2 employee, or are you still able to be a 1099 employee and it just so happens the example didn't go into enough detail.

Then it's like, well, if you try to follow the rules but the rules aren't clear then how are you supposed to follow them. Surely you can't get in trouble (read: pay fines) due to the rules being incomplete?

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

#542

Post by EpicEng »

stefan_ wrote: post #539
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…

Because Uber has been arguing that people work for them because of the flexibility? So when they don't offer it, people won't work for them, employed or not? This is such a weird response. Like Uber would institute some schedule out of spite, and why even.

It's not 'weird' at all; if Uber is employing you you will need to maintain a certain number of hours / week. They will likely reduce the number of drivers that they have, but now they also need to ensure that the schedule is covered. Seems like common sense really, has nothing to do with spite, not sure where you came up with that.

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

#543

Post by ethanwillis »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #503
unksdfnaajhfjk wrote: post #470

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Sometimes Compared to what? is the most important question. I've been driving for a few years. Before this I was making minimum wage with no benefits. Before that I had a difficult stretch of unemployment. One of my least favorite questions passengers ask me is What did you do before this? because I don't really like to talk about it. It is a rough job - you…

So, you'd rather drive without a guaranteed minimum wage, possibility for unemployment benefits, or health care benefits? I fail to see how that leaves the driver in a better position.

The gig jobs are already not profitable without those things in place. With those in place the gig jobs will be destroyed. People already complain about high prices and those prices don't even cover the costs of trips unless you live in a dense city.

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

#544

Post by ilaksh »

DeonPenny wrote: post #481
ilaksh wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I wasn't trying to say that jobs were necessarily important. Just pointing out that most could be affected, not just "easy" ones.

I think it is possible that we will need a new paradigm for society, since jobs are a core aspect of the current one.

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

#546

Post by nickjj »

TimPC wrote: post #534
athenot wrote: post #398

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not legal advice but... Usually in your situation you will have your own computer, your own workspace (except for meetings with the client), and deliver things based on a predefined scope (or predefined set of expectations). That's good enough to make you a freelancer. On the other hand, if the company told you to use their laptop, show up in their office, work using their methods—effectively manage how you work... t…

Using company equipment gets complicated pretty fast. Some 'contractors' have to use company equipment because the company won't allow proprietary or regulated data on machines they don't own. Is that enough to make someone an employee?

Yeah and it gets even more grey because what if you're using your own computer but you have to connect to hardware that the company owns such as a server, or even servers on the cloud that the company is renting and paying for.

Technically you're using something that belongs to them. Then there's the case of connecting through their VPN too.

Then it's like, why would using a company laptop to SSH into a company owned server be any different than using your own laptop to connect to a company SSH server.

And of course, what if you did great work for that company as a contract worker and they decided to give you a laptop as a bonus / gift. Or more realistically the thing you're developing requires a lot more hardware than your current machine so as part of the contract you signed, they will provide you an extra $1,500 up front to purchase a computer upgrade. Technically you bought the computer so it's not the company's. The greyness never ends haha.

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

#547

Post by mrnobody_67 »

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…

20 people at $5 per hour is better.

People wouldn't take $5 per jobs if someone else was offering them $6 or $7... so better to have 15 people learning skills that hopefully let them move up in their profession & career to higher earning occupations.

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

#548

Post by jack_jennings »

bllguo wrote: post #525
dragonwriter wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

But it seems like an apathetic kind of want. There are degrees imo; if the people truly wanted something they would exert more effort than this showing. As it stands people may say they want it in polls but won't even vote for politicians that will make it a reality.

Don’t confuse the apathy of the politicians that can run for office (and have the financial backing to do so), with the apathy of voters.

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

#549

Post by munk-a »

irrational wrote: post #490
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 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.

I think the US public doesn't want to lose more of their money to healthcare than it currently is - and this is the attack that's most commonly leveraged against universal healthcare... "Your taxes will go up!" well yes, they will, but my out of pocket will go down as I'll no longer be shoveling so much money from my salary (either pre- or post- collection) to health insurance.

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

#550

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

aianus wrote: post #540
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #508

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the additional cost of having an insurance rider to cover when you're rideshare driving? I haven't pulled a quote, but I imagine that could be expensive due to increased liability.

I can only answer for Toronto, Canada but the answer was nothing. Uber has a deal with one of the insurance companies up here so you’re covered at no extra charge. (Intact / Belair Direct). Uber pays them directly for a big commercial contract to cover you when you’re driving for Uber. Edit: added "for Uber" on the last sentence

My prior comment may be dated, or regionally-contextual. I assume then you have a personal policy, that covers when you are driving just you, and Uber's takes over when you have rideshare passengers. When I was looking for personal auto policies recently, I recall being asked (in the US) if you plan to do any rideshare driving.
Post reply on HN