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

571–580 of 754 posts

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

#571

Post by aianus »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #550
aianus wrote: post #540

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Yes my personal auto policy explicitly covers Uber. I did need to inform them, but my premiums did not change.

"ridesharing drivers operating on the Uber platform in Ontario can now be covered, at no extra cost. All you have to do is call us in order to update your personal auto policy." -- https://www.belairdirect.com/en/partnerships/uber.html

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

#572

Post by jschwartzi »

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 pay $421/month for health insurance that has a 20% deductible, meaning that I could still be bankrupted by a major surgery or a couple of weeks in the hospital. I would much rather put that $421/month into taxes and have Medicaid or something similar A) keep costs down, and B) ensure an acceptable quality of treatment.

You're likely paying something similar whether you realize it or not. When I quit my job the COBRA cost of the insurance was like $600 or $700/month. It's just that your employer is hiding that cost from you and giving you "free" medical insurance. And when you quit your job, you lose your medical insurance after 6 months. That means you lose access to your doctor and you may have to change who you see. Sometimes the new doctor is way worse, and there is a very real cost to you in terms of their standard of care.

So it's pretty disingenuous to argue that this would be a new tax. And making it illegal for employers to offer health insurance while also expanding Medicaid to all Americans would actually remove a major barrier to quitting your job and EG starting a company or working for a small company.

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

#573

Post by PorterDuff »

labrador wrote: post #504
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…

I drive Lyft and Uber in the SF Bay Area. I'm a retired computer programmer and I need to supplement my income to have spending money. I'm on MediCal which is a great health insurance program and easy to get on if you are low income. I'm actually making really good money driving. When I am smart about knowing when and where to be I can make a too much money even working part time, by which I mean I will disqualify my…

Hah, that's an interesting trap to be in. It's not dissimilar to pushing wages down in order to qualify for high ACA subsidies. The way the system is set up, there's quite a tax cliff...especially for older people (the difference between $0/month and $1200ish for an individual).

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

#574

Post by tick_tock_tick »

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…

They are employees now they don't like the shift they get fired.

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

#575

Post by KingMachiavelli »

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…

How does the law prevent you from working under your own LLC?

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

#576

Post by blackflame7000 »

mfer wrote: post #238
dangerface wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Seems fair to me no one wants to deal with the bureaucracy of employing people or being employed why not out source that to a third party? The main problem Americans seem to face with gig economy is the lack of health care but thats americas problem you can't blame employers or employees for it.

Where I live the gig works make about or a little less than the minimum wage after expenses for vehicles. This doesn't include saving for retirement, healthcare, workmans comp, disability insurance, or a bunch of other things. Basically, even if healthcare were taken care of the amount they make would not be a living wage.

Where did people get this idea that every job must supply a living wage?

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

#577

Post by tgsovlerkhgsel »

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…

Many of the costs you list are invisible or avoidable if you don't care about consequences: Vehicle depreciation is invisible. Maintenance costs will hit later. If you haven't heard (or don't care) about the insurance thing, you just don't do it, so zero expense (until you're in an accident).

Once you ignore these costs, and only do "income - fuel", Uber pays "really well". And you can do it at any time, as you wish! Little effort! Own boss!

It's not surprising that Uber finds people to drive for them. Not everyone realizes the hidden costs.

Although there are apparently some who seem to understand them, know how to play the optimization game, and (think that they) make enough that it's worth it. I have no way of checking, of course.

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

#578

Post by mrlala »

tathougies wrote: post #567

As if Uber or Lyft even care. They almost certainly foresaw this (who couldn't), which is why they have taken the typical response to government over-regulation -- automation. The end goal is a self driving car, and the resulting concentration of wealth. Once again, we can blame so-called 'progressive' policies for furthering the enriching of the rich and the continued subjugation of the poor and middle classes who a…

[flagged]

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

#579

Post by tick_tock_tick »

mrguyorama wrote: post #394
bwb wrote: post #369

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's funny because all of these comments are ignoring the thousands of small businesses run by average people that have already solved this problem for over 30 years

Most of them never solved it they just did "good enough" and haven't had any issues. Most people are open to solving things without involving the government or just drop the issue and walk away. Everything will be fine for until they get someone who's not ok with it then they get raked over the coals for what they thought was "good enough".

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

#580

Post by jballer »

irjustin wrote: post #4

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by…

It's an auction - they used to make great money because there were fewer drivers. If drivers walked away when pay got too low, the pay would rise to equalize with rider demand.
Post reply on HN