California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#661

Post by JMTQp8lwXL » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:14 PM UTC

notyourday wrote: post #615

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…

> 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. It must be nice to sit in air conditioned office on $800 chair, sipping kombucha, looking at 2x 28" 4k monitors pontificating "Why would anyone want to be driving for uber?" Because for an Uber driver this job could be the best available. One needs to eat and put a roof over one's h…

I'm actually sitting on a wooden chair at a wobbly table in a space with no air conditioning, but that's beside the point. My original comment does have an air of privilege to it, and for that I apologize. It's my own frustration that we can't do better to people who's best option is something requiring the skill set of a job like rideshare driver. Stated in other (hopefully more fruitful) words, if you can work rideshare you can probably work at In N Out. They start at $13/hour and have none of the external costs of contract ridesharing. That could be more profitable to the worker, but I have not done the math.

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

#662

Post by ProfessorLayton » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:28 PM UTC

mjevans wrote: post #637

criddell wrote: post #602

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

I think the segment on late night TV that I watched used to be called "street walking with jay lenno", or something along those lines. The premise was pretty much: take a question that might sensibly appear on a GED test (highschool graduation equivalency, without the class credits), that probably at least 50% of the viewers (so adults that could afford a TV and stay awake until midnight / had just finished watching…

While I understand your sentiment, these voter requirements would completely disenfranchise those who literally don't have access to quality education, especially POC who have been subject to systemic oppression (See redlining).

The solution should be to level the playing field (Access to education), not to change the rules of the game from under them.

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

#663

Post by 0xffff2 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:37 PM UTC

throwawaynihil wrote: post #72

username90 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California loves making bandaid state fixes to federal problems, I think this is the wrong way to go. Problem: You need a full-time job at a company to get benefits such as healthcare. Californian solution: Reclassify as many as possible as full-time workers. Problem: USA immigration laws are horribly inflexible. Californian solution: Make it illegal to go after illegal immigrants. I don't think that these passive-ag…

> California loves making bandaid state fixes to federal problems, I think this is the wrong way to go. You just hit the nail on the head. The real problem is that California is grossly under-represented in government, thanks to the founding fathers and gerrymandering. We have to slap together these hacks because otherwise we would wait centuries to get any real change out of the Fed. As for "USA's democracy", screw…

"the Fed" almost always refers to the US Federal Reserve. I think you meant we would wait centuries to get any real change out of the US Federal government, AKA "the Feds".

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

#664

Post by 0xffff2 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

dmode wrote: post #74

username90 wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California loves making bandaid state fixes to federal problems, I think this is the wrong way to go. Problem: You need a full-time job at a company to get benefits such as healthcare. Californian solution: Reclassify as many as possible as full-time workers. Problem: USA immigration laws are horribly inflexible. Californian solution: Make it illegal to go after illegal immigrants. I don't think that these passive-ag…

I disagree with your assertions as healthcare is not the sole motivation, since massive Medicaid expansion has already taken care of that problem. The bigger issue really is that companies are not paying into unemployment, medicare, SSN and skirting around minimum wage by claiming everyone is a contractor. As for immigration, the main issue that is that many California families are a mix of American citizens and ille…

The government gets the exact same amount of payrolls taxes regardless of classification. The only difference is that employees split the cost 50/50 with their employer while contractors pay the whole amount out of their own pocket.

Contractors don't pay into unemployment, but they're also not eligible to receive unemployment benefits.

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

#665

Post by FireBeyond » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:39 PM UTC

m-p-3 wrote: post #562

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…

It makes me sick that so many Americans are willing to keep their taxes lower and pay their own healthcare insurance (which are absurdly high, and you still have premiums to pay, etc) instead of having the peace of mind that if they become seriously sick, that it won't ruin them and their close relatives. Sure, you might be healthy now but do you really want to take a gamble like this and keep more money in your wall…

It blows my mind that deathbed divorces are a thing here, for fear of burdening families with medical bills. And that that is socially, in any way, acceptable, or even tolerable.

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

#666

Post by 0xffff2 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:41 PM UTC

PorterDuff wrote: post #357

pcwalton wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California already has among the most generous state-level medical benefits in the country. Here, it's hard to be in a situation in which one simultaneously can't afford insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medi-Cal (California Medicaid). Singling out California for not taking the unprecedented step of rolling out single-payer alone--which is a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarant…

Honestly, I can't see why California is unable to roll out a single-payer plan. It's certainly larger than many of the countries that have one. In a single-party state, it should be a relatively straightforward thing to do. My guess is that no one is serious about healthcare and that it's simply a get-out-the-vote scheme like abortion and gun rights. "a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarant…

I believe the freedom of movement being mentioned here is between US states, not countries, so immigration laws aren't relevant.

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

#667

Post by RonanTheGrey » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:42 PM UTC

codingdave wrote: post #245

mikekchar wrote: post #150

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

You might be reading it wrong... everything in law is in a grey area until further defined in court, but legal documents should typically be read with full boolean logic applied to all the words: "control and direction" - sure, they give you direction. But do they control what tools you use, when and how you do it? "connection with the performance of the work" - Are they controlling the final deliverable, or the perf…

> I suspect that software consultants have a reasonable argument that they control their own work, while their clients have control over the acceptance of the final deliverable, so the above points are not fulfilled.

What if the consultant is forced to attend every single meeting the client (via PM/other manager) decides to schedule? That seems to violate the spirit of "control over performance" part of it.

Curious because it is recently relevant to me..

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

#668

Post by mirimir » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:47 PM UTC

tylerl wrote: post #370

mirimir wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It is misleading to lump people billing at $100s/hr with drivers, shoppers, dog walkers, etc. But what's the median billing rate for the "gig economy"? Given my experience with consulting, it seems odd to use the "gig" label. But whatever, it did suck to pay ~$1K per month for health insurance.

I don't think so; my point was that regardless of your billing rate and even in the extreme, the absence of an employer is always a crippling factor. Telling people they can make their way to the top by working harder is a fantasy. There's no freedom at the top. Perhaps your state had a $1k/mo option for insurance, mine did not. Even at $5k/mo (if I had it) plans would not cover an emergency. None of the plans availa…

Sorry that I wasn't clear about that. And I should have noted that my experience dates from the 00s.

I do agree without reservation that linking healthcare to employment is crippling for independent contractors. As I understand it, the setup allows employers to deduct substantial costs from taxable income. So basically governments are subsidizing the obscene profitability of health insurers, the pharmaceutical industry, and some provider sectors.

Back in the late 90s, I was able to get ~affordable health insurance through AFL-CIO SBWA Local 125. But that service went down in flames, so I ended up paying ~$1K per person. As I recall, I could deduct 50% of medical expenses, but it was still the largest expense after mortgage and taxes.

And if it had been $5K per month, I couldn't have managed it.

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

#669

Post by defterGoose » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

subhobroto wrote: post #608

defterGoose wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

If the regs were put in place due to "good intentions", and a "healthy[sic] dose of lobbying", then functionally this "negotiating ability" does not exist, because the government is not acting in the best interest of consumers, nor does it currently have the capability: its hands are tied.

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

#670

Post by Digory » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 9:49 PM UTC

nickjj wrote: post #487

Digory wrote: post #440

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a common misconception, but terribly incorrect. Talk to a lawyer.

I guess it depends? Multiple accountants have told me that over the years (I'm a freelance developer btw).

Yes, it depends. I mean, there are independent contractors, and they get 1099s.

But I'd find it miraculous if the job you just described was upheld as an independent contractor.