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

581–590 of 754 posts

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

#581

Post by alkonaut »

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…

I wonder why they didn’t just put a minimum rate for contracting work? That would put all qualified workers above it.

Just say “you can hire someone to gig for an hour all you want but you need to pay $50/h”.

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

#582

Post by mrlala »

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

Yes, they do.

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

#583

Post by moate »

clinta wrote: post #528
moate wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Frame it another way: You have 120 hours of shifts that you need covered at your job in a given week. You can hire 12 people who each work 10 hours, or 3 full-time employees. The "better" choice again comes down to your goal: More jobs or "better", full time jobs.

There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better. Consumers should also be considered. If casual drivers are excluded, the smaller pool of drivers will cause prices to rise. Some consumers who previously used ride sharing will go back to driving their own cars. There's also the removal of a smooth transition driving as a career. If you can do it casually for a…

>>There are more considerations than just "number of jobs" vs "quality of jobs" in evaluating what is better.

And this is why I'm specifically and repeatedly not getting into the discussion of "which is better". Because that's a whole other discussion.

I'm just pointing out that when it comes to job creation, there's 2 axis. Both have pros, both have cons. You say X is better, I say Y is better, objectively there's data on either side, subjectively there's opinions on both sides, frankly I'm not interested in all that. Just pointing out that there's a rational opponent to your points. Not trying to be him.

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

#584

Post by Loudergood »

buboard wrote: post #388
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…

"employee protection" lawmaking is popular and makes lawmakers seem caring and thus reelectable. Did uber drivers in the past leave uber to flock to taxi companies who do hire them? AFAIK no, and they know that legislation like this will probably cause them to lose their chances at a job/gig. Different people different motives

Taxi companies don't hire you, you're just another contractor for them as well.

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

#585

Post by jedberg »

txsoftwaredev wrote: post #570

I read this as Uber/Lyft will no longer operate out of CA. And many other companies that would be required to take on this burden will leave CA as well. I'm don't see how this will benefit the citizens of CA.

CA is one of their few profit centers. It's also 10% of the population of the USA. No business would choose to exclude CA, and CA knows this. That is why they can get away with these heavy handed regulations.

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

#586

Post by defterGoose »

subhobroto wrote: post #554
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 way to protect workers is to shift the burden of health care and other costly benefits onto the government, supported by taxes Yes, it's clear that our prosperity hinges on how quickly we decouple health care from our employers. Employers don't want to be in the business of providing healthcare to their employees and its painfully obvious. I just don't understand why smart people think it's a good idea for anyo…

If the government has "extreme negotiating ability" that citizens lack, then why does it continue to allow price gouging on drugs?

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

#587

Post by blackflame7000 »

adwww wrote: post #230
edouard-harris wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The bill makes an exception for engineers, among other professions: > 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.

Is a software engineer really a recognised proffesion in CA? It's a proffesional level job, but reconisation usually means being a member of some sort of proffesional body - no idea what the software one of those would be?

I think they only have it in Texas as of now

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

#588

Post by EpicEng »

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…

>If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money?

Can you quantify (ballpark) the amount of money we're losing out on currently as far as roads and associated infrastructure goes? I imagine it's near zero as payroll taxes don't fund those, and the contractors are still paying taxes.

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

#589

Post by kevingadd »

mrlala wrote: post #582
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 Yes, they do.

If they want it why do they keep voting in representatives who actively fight it the whole way?

This is kind of a pointless question, because the answer is complex and includes things like 'gerrymandering' and 'vote suppression', but it's still a fact that many elected representatives from both parties actively fight public health care.

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

#590

Post by cortesoft »

curious_fella1 wrote: post #505
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…

You said it yourself: software engineer So we are allowed.

The law doesn't categorize based on job titles that have no legal meaning.

You really think Uber can get around this by just changing everyone's title to "Driving Engineers"?

Post reply on HN