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

651–660 of 754 posts

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

#651

Post by EpicEng »

jonfw wrote: post #620
EpicEng wrote: post #588

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 infrastructur…

> payroll taxes don't fund those It's kind of silly to make the distinction between which taxes fund which programs. It's completely arbitrary. Dollar bills are dollar bills

But for the fact that those dollars literally do not pay for roads and, when roads need to be built, those dollars will not be appropriated to do so. Other than that you're right of course, totally silly, what was I thinking.

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

#652

Post by DuskStar »

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.

It depends on how you phrase the question. "Do you want the US government to pay your health care bills" is a yes for most people. "Do you want to only have the choice of Veterans Affairs medical care" isn't quite as popular, and IMO that's what we'd end up with. (And considering the number of people who commit suicide by self-immolation to protest the VA's care... I really don't want that)

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

#653

Post by DuskStar »

gamblor956 wrote: post #337
swalsh wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In 2019, it's probably not too out of scope for nearly any business to argue software is a core part of their daily activities. The digital transformation is basically done, if in the last 10 years you didn't turn your company into a quasi-tech company your competitors did and you died. I'd make the guess that one could go into finer detail on what specific type of software development falls in-line with the daily ac…

When they say "usual course of business" they mean the revenue generating activity, not essential support functions. I.e., Uber could not outsource driving if it calls itself a transportation company, but it could outsource accounting functions.

> Uber could not outsource driving if it calls itself a transportation company

And that's why they're not a transportation company - they're a company that matches two sides of a marketplace connecting drivers with passengers.

Or at least that's one of the directions I'd expect their lawyers to look into.

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

#654

Post by buboard »

0xffff2 wrote: post #649
buboard wrote: post #200

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Driver robots? See you in 20 years Its more likely you ll see drivers forming shell contractor companies so they can still work for both uber and lyft etc

20 years is optimistic. Real fully autonomous self-driving cars will arrive 10 years after fusion power becomes commercially viable.

haha. well i m hopeful that if we change the roads we can at least have autonomous train-cars or at least kiva robots with seats

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

#655

Post by _fq4v »

mrlala wrote: post #578
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]

> Maybe- but your trying to argue that progressive policies are pushing the jobs out of workers is basically Trump level psycho.

The policies increase the incentive to automate. Automation is unavoidable, but by raising the cost of human power, these policies speed up time to adoption (the time at which the cost to hire humans -- now higher -- meets the cost of automation -- still the same as before). Moreover, the policy requires governmental enforcement and thus money that could be better spent helping the workers themselves.

For example, a better use of money would be to take the money spent on enforcing this law and instead investing it into programs to train gig economy workers for the new careers that will be opened up via automation.

I'm not sure what 'Trump level psycho' means, but given the current administration's record on employment (very good), I'll take it as a compliment.

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

#656

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

DuskStar wrote: post #650
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #503

Earlier 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.

What if the choice isn't between "driving with a guaranteed minimum wage + benefits" and "driving with no protections" but between "driving with no protections" and "doing nothing"? That's the fear here.

Some benefits, like retirement and health care, can be provided by the government. We already pay FICA taxes -- they could be expanded to include Medicare (for all) and perhaps a more generous retirement package.

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

#657

Post by RocketBilly »

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…

Single data point checking in, ride share imo was a massive boon to people like me in the self employed lower middle class. Many of us already own cars and pay for our own health insurance. For people like me who make too much to qualify for state benefits but too little to 'climb the ladder' these sorts of jobs have been great because they fit easily into our schedules and the pace of the work is enjoyable to many of us.

From my perspective, and I do realize this is relative, people wonder why the middle class is shrinking while failing to realize that a lot of these pro-worker laws are only good for certain types of workers. I'm not saying people poorer than me don't deserve help because I haven't been helped yet, but the issue is precisely that it seems (again, relative to my experience) that no one except the lowest income bracket actually attract political attention right now.

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

#658

Post by 0xffff2 »

ben_jones wrote: post #606

1) 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…

>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)

Many are not able to choose those "vastly superior work and educational opportunities".

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

#659

Post by DuskStar »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #656
DuskStar wrote: post #650

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if the choice isn't between "driving with a guaranteed minimum wage + benefits" and "driving with no protections" but between "driving with no protections" and "doing nothing"? That's the fear here.

Some benefits, like retirement and health care, can be provided by the government. We already pay FICA taxes -- they could be expanded to include Medicare (for all) and perhaps a more generous retirement package.

But that's not what's going on here, is it? Instead the government is stepping in and trying to force the companies involved to take over that responsibility.

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

#660

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

jimmaswell wrote: post #624
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…

They are supposed to be side jobs to the main job you get benefits from.

"Supposed to be" but the data shows most rideshare drivers drive full time.
Post reply on HN