Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

foxbusiness.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 120 posts

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#51

Post by thephyber »

Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?

TFA states:

> The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex.

implements a legal ruling sounds suspiciously like "the court says that the previous state of law was ambiguous/incongruent and the legislature must pass a law to address it".

Can anyone shed light on whether I am on base or not?

[1] https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#52

Post by dangrossman »

graeme wrote: post #17
dangrossman wrote: post #6

Earlier 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.

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…

You can subcontract work to another firm, which has employees. Your contract is with the firm.

California believes that if you "subcontract" an individual to do the work your company is in the business of doing, you're not "subcontracting" with them at all, you're employing them.

That's not a ban on subcontracting. It's a ban on calling an employee a contractor.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#53

Post by thephyber »

sedeki wrote: post #48

I am curious about what federal law they are referring to and what it says? I am not an expert nor a US citizen.

If I am correct, I think it's the Interstate Commerce Clause[1] of the US Constitution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (note that the wiki article is the "Commerce Clause", but it mentions the "Interstate Commerce Clause")

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#54

Post by manigandham »

katmannthree wrote: post #32
manigandham wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's a strange political narrative (in California and elsewhere) that people can't possibly make their own living without being ripped off. All it's doing is taking freedom and choice away by squashing freelancers, not creating any new opportunities.

I think the point is more to set the floor for work conditions (such as with minimum wage laws) so that the very desperate and those who have difficulty assessing long-term costs (such as with MLMs or Uber) don't set the minimum conditions for everyone.

So set the floor and increase education. This regulation doesn't do any of that, instead it just removes that way of working as if these people can't make the choice for themselves.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#55

Post by bcheung »

dangrossman wrote: post #6
graeme wrote: post #4

This 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.

It also says if you actually want to be an independent contractor... because maybe you just dropped $150K on a vehicle, then you can't write it off anymore, and you're screwed.

It bans people from having a choice.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#56

Post by jogjayr »

wil421 wrote: post #49
a3n wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're working on it. As a trucker, I have no problem with automation. No one has the right to any specific job or career.

So no companies with viable products. Drone trucks that follow a real driver are more realistic than fully automated trucks. Everything I’ve seen from Tesla to GM’s cruise to the German luxury brands is just driver assist tech not self driving. Im asking about any company since 2000 or mid 1990s that has put people out of jobs. Netflix nope, Alphabet nope, Facebook never. Salesforce maybe some jobs. Here’s the SV 150…

> Netflix

Blockbuster employees' jobs?

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#57

Post by joshklein »

This article is about a suit from The California Trucking Association, a trade group and industry lobbyist representing corporate management, not truckers. You can learn about them on their website if you're curious. The only source providing a statement in the body of this article is the association's head lobbyist. Background sources seem to include a politician and an academic institute. No truckers.

I don't have any comment about the suit or the law, but I do think this is fine opportunity to discuss the nature of propaganda.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#58

Post by wil421 »

jogjayr wrote: post #56
wil421 wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So no companies with viable products. Drone trucks that follow a real driver are more realistic than fully automated trucks. Everything I’ve seen from Tesla to GM’s cruise to the German luxury brands is just driver assist tech not self driving. Im asking about any company since 2000 or mid 1990s that has put people out of jobs. Netflix nope, Alphabet nope, Facebook never. Salesforce maybe some jobs. Here’s the SV 150…

> Netflix Blockbuster employees' jobs?

Ha! I just said to my wife, don’t forget Netflix started as mail order DVDs and successfully pivoted to streaming.

At Blockbuster’s height they employed 85k. The majority were high schoolers in my area.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#59

Post by wahern »

MaulingMonkey wrote: post #30
trianglem wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everything you said makes sense except for the part where prices go up. Why would prices go up?

Less supply of able and willing truck drivers at their current level of compensation means companies will have to increase said compensation to try and keep or attract truck drivers to avoid decreasing capacity. Increased driver compensation means increased costs for the company employing said drivers, which in turn means passing on the costs to whomever wants things shipped. Econ 101 supply and demand curves.

Why would there be less supply? Because the drivers won't have the burden of payroll taxes or workers compensation?

Costs may go up, but they could very well go down--economies of scale in accounting, payroll, etc. Even if they go up, the real question is by how much, and the portion that would be passed on to customers; depending on elasticities of the supply and demand curves, some of it might be borne by the trucking companies themselves.

And then there's the elephant in the room: the presumption that the ABC test would necessarily rope in all independent truckers and completely destroy the business model. There's an outside chance that some segment of "independent" truckers--the kind driving the narrative--with multiple, varied customers and schedules of their choosing will remain as independent contractors, especially if they travel interstate.

More likely they'll have significant latitude in being able to incorporate themselves, so long as their business entity rigorously handles payroll taxes, insurance, etc. Because those things are trivial to automate--and I'd bet there's at least one startup founder on HN providing and bundling these services--the impact might prove minimal in the long haul. Independent contractors are supposed to be managing these things by themselves, anyhow; otherwise we're simply defending scofflaws.

The new test for independent contractors may turn out to be a bad idea, but it's not so obviously bad on its surface that we can make sweeping claims irrespective of context. Remember, UPS has more revenue and better profits than FedEx, even though UPS relies on unionized, employee truckers while FedEx flounders with their independent contractor model.

And the new test originated in court in response to legitimate concerns with the ride-sharing model. If it makes sense there, maybe it's worthwhile to keep an open mind about its salience in the trucking industry. Is independent trucking dead in Massachusetts; did trucking costs rise? Massachusetts has had a similar test since the 1990s and an identical test since 2004. I can't find hard data, just a few court cases (suggesting litigation might be minimal) and hyperbolic reporting by industry, bereft of revenue numbers.

Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

#60

Post by nemo44x »

You’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll spend if they can’t cut a deal.

Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single party state.

Post reply on HN