In our small town in very Northern California along the coast, the local paper, which is struggling to survive, having just been bought out of receivership, has decided to start delivering the paper via USPS to avoid this law's ramifications with the paper delivery router people. So more jobs lost, thanks to legislation to protect a certain group of people. Hazlitt would have recommended examining the law's merits pr…
Jobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?
Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
91–100 of 120 posts
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents.
> Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents. Not to overstate the obvious, but that's pretty much the entire point of unions: by working collectively, individuals aren't directly competing against each other, forcing management to pay higher wages, with the goal being that the wages paid are higher than any individual could make if the union didn't exist.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#93Earlier quoted context omitted.
What Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say 2000? Some of the old companies have like HP and Intel certainly made certain office work redundant and to an extent Oracle. What does HN think?
Farmers? Farms have become very automated, you need less people to do the same work.
Push it back to the mid 1990s and answer the same question.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?
Increasing mail volume by one newspaper per household will not result in a comparable increase in mail carriers -- they're making the trips anyways.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
Ok, that's more concrete. So, to give a specific example: a friend of mine runs a photography business. He's independently established in the trade. Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other photographers. They are also independently established. 1. This is banned by the California law? 2. You approve of this restri…
https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision...
> The Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining “employee” status for purposes of the wage order, which presumptively considers all workers to be employees, and permits workers to be classified as independent contractors only if the hiring business demonstrates that the worker in question satisfies each of three conditions:
> (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and
> (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and
> (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed for the hiring entity.
Your friend's subcontracting would be covered by case C. The problem becomes if that subcontractor that your friend sometimes works with only ever does photography work for your friend, and isn't "engaged in an independently established trade" they might run into problems. At some point that starts to resemble a part time employee.
> C Factor: Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for the hiring entity? The Court interpreted this factor as intending to identify an individual who independently has made the decision to go into business for himself or herself, for example, through incorporation, licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers, and the like. The fact that a company has not prohibited or prevented a worker from engaging in such a business is not sufficient to satisfy this factor; rather, a hiring entity will need to prove that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
Jobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?
Increasing mail volume by one newspaper per household will not result in a comparable increase in mail carriers -- they're making the trips anyways.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#97This 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…
The story seems to be created based on a PR release (https://millerpublicaffairsgroup.cmail19.com/t/ViewEmail/i/5...) that CTA issued after amending their complaint (https://01a3edcb-713b-4446-a7f4-8c833b6d990e.filesusr.com/ug...).
The Fox article is just an AP release: https://apnews.com/7f23a934b6514560a2c9f3bb5ee326c0. I guess the author emailed the press release to the politician and went from there, threw in Berkeley because it was in his inbox too.
There are other articles, e.g. https://thetrucker.com/california-trucking-association-two-o... has a Teamster's union source (but no politician).
https://www.routefifty.com/management/2019/09/california-gig... from September has some of your prized trucker sources, they basically say the same thing as the association except they sound more scared and anti-union.
There's not much to see here besides the continued death of journalism in mainstream news.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#98Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ok, that's more concrete. So, to give a specific example: a friend of mine runs a photography business. He's independently established in the trade. Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other photographers. They are also independently established. 1. This is banned by the California law? 2. You approve of this restri…
This is easy enough to answer by looking at the provisions in the bill. https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision... > The Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining “employee” status for purposes of the wage order, which presumptively considers all workers to be employees, and permits workers to be classified as independent contractors only if the hiring business demonstrates that the worker in q…
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#99Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents. Not to overstate the obvious, but that's pretty much the entire point of unions: by working collectively, individuals aren't directly competing against each other, forcing management to pay higher wages, with the goal being that the wages paid are higher than any individual could make if the union didn't exist.
Thus avoiding a race to the bottom where truckers drive all day just to feed themselves and our insatiable desire for free shipping.
Joining unions is impossible for many. I once lost a job because the union insisted that I be let go rather than let me join. It was not a performance issue.
Re: Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
#100This 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…