[deleted]
California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
601–610 of 754 posts
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#602Earlier 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.
US public would yell an enthusiastic "hell yes!" if you ask them do they want free healthcare forever but then when you ask - ok, so how we pay for all that actually, that's where "hmmmm" comes in. "Government" means taxes, and US public is not super hot on paying more taxes, and not on US government (BTW, which one? there's federal government, state government, local governments... US has literally thousands of gove…
> to rebuild US healthcare system to look like Canadian or any of the European ones would not be as easy as just public agreeing on something
Why not? Canada didn't always have their healthcare system. Canadians just agreed on something and suddenly they had it.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#603Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
There's a lot of assumptions here, biggest among them being
>>People wouldn't take $5 per jobs if someone else was offering them $6 or $7
Sure they would. Because a job isn't only wages, there's always some other factors involved in employment decisions. Someone might have med-school and limited free time. There's a ton of reasons why "job with lower pay and factor X" seems more appealing to someone than "job with higher pay only".
Look at game developers. They work horrible hours and often get paid less than similarly skilled devs in other fields. Why? Because demand for these jobs are extremely high relative to supply which provides management with greater bargaining positioning to lower wages.
Some of these people aren't trying to move to a career with higher earning, and see this as their end goal or "a tangential job I'm doing today". This allows them to drive down market rates on the job for people who are in a different circumstance and have higher financial needs.
We can get into a whole discussion about labor vs management and labor rights and best practices and all that. TL;dr- That's an opinion, and it's a lot more nuanced than you're making it out to be.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#604Earlier 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…
> This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs.
That's because those are the available jobs. I'm struggling to understand your question - obviously people will take whatever jobs are available to them so that they can support themselves. I doubt it's the CFA's or AI researches that take these jobs for the fun of it it's likely people who need them to survive.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#605Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
This is the conclusion people come to naturally when one assumes all the other variables don't change in response to the wage. but they all change The number of rides change as the price of the ride goes up, which happens when you raise the underlying cost to the rider. (aka supply and demand) The number of drivers change with the overhead cost-per-driver. If each driver has a fixed healthcare overhead, it makes sens…
It doesn't have to imply a decline in service availability. For example, the spread between Uber Pool and X could grow (since wanting your own vehicle, without sharing it, places more stress on the overall system). So, the popularity of pool could grow.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#6061) Society has failed and there are no superior job opportunities, forcing people to work for objectively unlivable wages driving for Uber etc
2) There are vastly superior work and educational opportunities but many choose not to take them and instead prefer the advantages of driving for Uber (mainly flexible hours)
I believe both these statements on a case by case basis are true and both need to be respected by any legislation that is passed.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#607Can't Uber and Lyft get around this by requiring their contractors to register their own companies? E.g. a SMLLC might be sufficient.
Even if that would work from a legal perspective, I suspect that it would be enough of a practical hurdle to greatly decrease the number of people willing to drive for Uber/Lyft.
Especially in a state like California, where you have to pay an $800 franchise tax each year to keep an LLC registered, regardless of if it has any income.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#608Earlier 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 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?
> If the government has "extreme negotiating ability" that citizens lack, then why does it continue to allow price gouging on drugs?
Because regulations have been put in place to disallow the U.S. government from negotiating with pharma companies on drug pricing.
The regulations were put in with good intentions (and some healthy doses of lobbying) in ensuring pharma companies would have financial incentives to carry out R&D but hindsight is, as they say, 20/20.
Even in the face of these drug price regulations, though, the government still has a much higher negotiating ability than you or I do.
Check the drug prices one pays with Medicare Part D vs. the prices on "free market" Amazon or eBay.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#609Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed. You can demand people pay you more for a service but you can't force them to hire you in the first place.
>>No, the trade off is being employed vs being unemployed.
For some people, yes. But we're looking at the laborers as a whole, not the individuals (and my specific example was more from the perspective of the managers at a company with a limited budget for employees).
Some people will go from "contractor job" to no job. Other people will go from "contractor job" to "employee job".
Uber still needs drivers. They're not going to not have drivers because of this. Some people currently working for Uber will keep doing that. Some people currently working for Uber will not keep doing that. In the future, some people will apply to work for Uber and be both rejected and accepted as employees.
Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees
#610Could Uber make their new employees sign non-compete agreements after the law is passed? A lot of drivers drive for both companies now. Will this restrict drivers to drive for just one company?
Not in CA
An employer can limit you having another job while currently employeed, even in california.