As predicted by Andrew Yang. Read "War on normal people"
Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
11–20 of 120 posts
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#12Earlier quoted context omitted.
It doesn't ban anything, it just says that certain types of people working in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.
Yes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.
It's better than no benefits created by predictably tight-fisted California business.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#13The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
>The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done.
>I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business.
Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleets will in steal be hauled by Swift, Schneider and the like. Those are the kinds of companies that have enough people to absorb these new laws with little cost other than shuffling drivers and trucks around to comply.
Owner/operator and small fleet is where truckers go after they've put in their time working for the bottom of the barrel driving sweatshops (the big dry van companies). Removing those small operators is basically removing the part of the industry that sucks the least to work in.
This is basically the trucking equivalent of replacing the independent sandwich shops with Subway and saying it's no big deal because meals are still getting served. Sure it may be an improvement for some people but the rigidity that comes with working for a big company (yes I know it's a franchise but the franchise tightly controls each location so bear with me here) be bad lot of the people formerly working for the small shops.
>I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws, wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the contracting company's fault.
This doesn't remove the federal electronic logs mandate and DOT working hours rules.
Edit: improved restaurant analogy.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#14Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.
It's better than no benefits created by predictably tight-fisted California business.
That's true for some, but not those that are going to be losing their job.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#15The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
>The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. >I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business. Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleet…
Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees.
Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. Ultimately this sounds like they wanted to get away with offloading the risks of trucking to the individual rather than deal with it at a business level.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#16The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
>The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. >I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business. Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleet…
Hit it right on the head.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#17This element of the law is an odd standard: > performing work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business That bans subcontracting, no? It's a common, long established practice in a lot of industries.
It doesn't ban anything, it just says that certain types of people working in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.
This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by definition it isn't subcontracting.
This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs within the same industry.
A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting as described in this wiki is morally bad.
But instead you made neither point and appear to think I'm merely confused.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#18Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#19The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else.
I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job that tends to attract people who want to be left alone. These are people who value freedom and hard work above everything else and many of them will change careers or retire if they are forced to work for big corporations. The average trucker is 55 years old, and many of them will just sell their and retire if AB5 is not overturned.
Supplying a $150,000 truck is not at all a barrier to entry. There is a major shortage of truckers and employers are offering free training, big sign on bonuses, and high starting pay to attract talent. Walmart, which is certainly not known for paying its employees well, pays truckers an average of almost $88,000 per year--and Walmart supplies the truck. The people spending $150,000 on a truck are doing it because they want to, not because they have to. This is not a medallion situation.
As for your "wink wink" comment, ELD's have been mandated since the end of 2017, and even companies that are small enough to not legally be compelled to use one are often forced to comply due to customer contracts. (Shippers want the data the ELD provides to offer better ETAs to their customers.)
In my opinion, the most likely outcome of this law is that some truckers retire and sell their rigs to big corporations, some decide to work for big corporations, and prices go up for everyone who ships goods or buys shipped goods. Unless you're in asset based trucking and looking to expand, the chances are that AB5 is going to hurt you, not help you.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#20The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
>The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. >I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business. Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleet…
But your Applebee's analogy makes no sense. Loads delivered are loads delivered, and nobody cares that Applebee's took over their local restaurant because the owner changed. Besides, if everyone has to work for these companies, the excuse of "it needs to be this way so you can get your foot in the door" for bad working conditions is removed. Trucking jobs with large companies suck because we let them.