21–30 of 120 posts
Pretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.
You don't sincerely believe that stuff will stop being delivered if this law passes, do you?
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. > 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…
All it's doing is taking freedom and choice away by squashing freelancers, not creating any new opportunities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>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 risk…
The analogy is not 100% equivalent, as truckers in question are independent owners and operators.
Closer restaurant analogy would be someone opening a taco truck, and getting hired to cater a small event. California now says that whoever hires that taco truck is responsible for benefits and other labor regulations, so pay up or hire caterers from a well-established corporate entity like Wendy's. For analogy's sake let's also consider that the taco truck owner has already invested a six-digit amount into their [now useless] food truck.
This benefits large established corporations in favor of small independent businesses.
It helps no one, as truckers always had a choice to go work for one of those large corporate entities (the churn in corporate trucking is consistently high, which is why you tend to see those "We're hiring" signs on the back of the trucks) if they wanted a full array of benefits and schedule/routes set by someone in corporate. For whatever personal reasons (larger take-home income, benefits provided by spouse, ability to choose preferred routes, schedule preferences, etc.) they chose not to.
For what it's worth, labor law specifically carves out restaurant owners and their family members (including things like minimum wage). Truckers want the same carveout.
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. > 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…
Pretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.
I mean, if I had to lay bets, I'd give astronomically better odds of California passing a dumb, counterproductive law than a difficult technological innovation.
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. > 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Everything you said makes sense except for the part where prices go up. Why would prices go up?
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. > 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…
So why won't the logistics companies simply swing this to: "A load is a starting point X. The destination is ending point Y at time Z. Bid for it."
The problem is that everybody wants to control the hours, control the price, etc. rather than letting people actually bid for things and control the variables themselves.
And, to be fair, if you want to impose control on the employee variables, well, that's not really a contractor now is it?
To be fair, I would much rather see a law along the lines of "for every 40 hours of contract work--you have to supply the equivalent benefits (healthcare/retirement/vacation) as one full time employee or get fined the equivalent amount of money." That way, the whole "We'll subcontract it because it's cheaper" actually gets whacked for being cheaper for fobbing off the externalities but not if cheaper is simply that subcontractors are more efficient."
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. > 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…
Well, not by magic, by well understood economic principles. It would be very unusual for the demand for shipping to be inelastic to price. So as prices rise due to labor cost increases, demand will fall.
I'm not advocating one way or another. I'm simply saying the impact can be reasonably anticipated.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Everything you said makes sense except for the part where prices go up. Why would prices go up?