Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs • Hacker News Board

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

#111

Post by tstrimple » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:02 PM UTC

graeme wrote: post #107

tstrimple wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Each means all three of the conditions. So they have to satisfy B as well: > (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and This pretty clearly seems to render the arrangement illegal. Does this change your view at all?

Yeah, good catch. Satisfying any of them seems reasonable. Satisfying all of them is definitely problematic.

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

#112

Post by manigandham » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 6:37 PM UTC

katmannthree wrote: post #67

manigandham wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How do you set that floor if not with this (or similar) regulation? I'm 100% with you on increasing education, but that has a delayed effect of many years. And even with the delay, there will likely always be some people who need to make rent or feed their kids who'll accept the equivalent of a $5/hr job because it's all they can get. I was once that person, filling out quizzes on amazon's mechanical turk for what wa…

Many freelancers are specifically choosing not to take a job, especially when it comes to professional driving which has always existed as a full-time job if you wanted to work that way.

I don't see any reason to limit people's freedom if they choose to go independent and create their own conditions. The better option would be, as you say, provide the social safety net with healthcare and tax support that isn't tied to employment so they aren't greatly disadvantaged when it comes to benefits.

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

#113

Post by foogazi » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 7:44 PM UTC

katmannthree wrote: post #109

foogazi wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I appreciate having had the work, but it still feels like a loophole around having a minimum wage. Do you think there is a place for sub-minimum wage jobs?

Not in this country[0], no. If you allow a company to set the floor for their market with sub-living wages, then all other companies need to either match the low wages to stay competitive or they'll eventually fail or be taken over. On a slightly broader scale, I don't see any mechanism by which markets self-regulate to police unethical behavior. All I see is the opposite, companies rebranding when their image gets t…

> If you allow a company to set the floor for their market with sub-living wages, then all other companies need to either match the low wages to stay competitive or they'll eventually fail or be taken over.

If that is the case why aren’t we all making minimum wage?

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

#114

Post by BowBun » Thu, Nov 14, 2019, 9:06 PM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #108

denkmoon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus avoiding a race to the bottom where truckers drive all day just to feed themselves and our insatiable desire for free shipping.

What if someone is perfectly happy to drive for $1 less than the union negotiated? Why would you use the force of government, police with guns, to keep them from selling their labor a dollar cheaper. Especially when they’re perfectly happy to do so?

Welcome to America, where we neither practice true Capitalism nor true Democracy contrary to widespread opinion.

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

#115

Post by merpnderp » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 3:33 AM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #108

denkmoon wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Thus avoiding a race to the bottom where truckers drive all day just to feed themselves and our insatiable desire for free shipping.

What if someone is perfectly happy to drive for $1 less than the union negotiated? Why would you use the force of government, police with guns, to keep them from selling their labor a dollar cheaper. Especially when they’re perfectly happy to do so?

Always darkly humorous when people openly support using force to control how people sell their labor in a very strict sense, which is certainly kissing cousins with slavery.

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

#116

Post by denkmoon » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 5:03 AM UTC

merpnderp wrote: post #115

merpnderp wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if someone is perfectly happy to drive for $1 less than the union negotiated? Why would you use the force of government, police with guns, to keep them from selling their labor a dollar cheaper. Especially when they’re perfectly happy to do so?

Always darkly humorous when people openly support using force to control how people sell their labor in a very strict sense, which is certainly kissing cousins with slavery.

Yeah, governments setting a market bottom is definitely similar to unpaid, forced labour.

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

#117

Post by katmannthree » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 3:56 PM UTC

foogazi wrote: post #113

katmannthree wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not in this country[0], no. If you allow a company to set the floor for their market with sub-living wages, then all other companies need to either match the low wages to stay competitive or they'll eventually fail or be taken over. On a slightly broader scale, I don't see any mechanism by which markets self-regulate to police unethical behavior. All I see is the opposite, companies rebranding when their image gets t…

> If you allow a company to set the floor for their market with sub-living wages, then all other companies need to either match the low wages to stay competitive or they'll eventually fail or be taken over. If that is the case why aren’t we all making minimum wage?

Because we're talking about the floor of employment, unskilled / seasonal / temp labor. Different dynamics apply when you have valuable skills that make you harder (read: more costly) to replace.

The people on the floor, whether they're there because they're just starting out or because they've experienced hardships or just because they don't want to go further, those people, shouldn't have to be living on the streets or go bankrupt from medical expenses. That's the entire point behind a minimum wage.

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

#118

Post by katmannthree » Fri, Nov 15, 2019, 5:20 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #112

katmannthree wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you set that floor if not with this (or similar) regulation? I'm 100% with you on increasing education, but that has a delayed effect of many years. And even with the delay, there will likely always be some people who need to make rent or feed their kids who'll accept the equivalent of a $5/hr job because it's all they can get. I was once that person, filling out quizzes on amazon's mechanical turk for what wa…

Many freelancers are specifically choosing not to take a job, especially when it comes to professional driving which has always existed as a full-time job if you wanted to work that way. I don't see any reason to limit people's freedom if they choose to go independent and create their own conditions. The better option would be, as you say, provide the social safety net with healthcare and tax support that isn't tied…

This particular legislation is intended to address the case where a company hires people as contractors while treating them as employees.

Specifically, companies are allowed to treat people as contractors only when the work performed " a) is under the worker’s control and not that of the business, b) is not part of the company’s core business, and c) is part of the worker’s independent profession."

Many freelancers will be entirely unaffected by that.

>I don't see any reason to limit people's freedom if they choose to go independent and create their own conditions.

Because the people the law was written for don't have a choice. The companies they work for didn't offer them a choice between employee and contractor, if they wanted the job they had to accept being a contractor. A lot of low end work these days is contract work, finding a position as an actual employee can be difficult (depending on the field of course). Very few of the people I talk to who are contractors are classified as such by choice. At some point, shouldn't helping the people at the bottom be a good thing even if a few better off freelancers have to make some changes (i.e. seeking employment with the companies they work for rather than contract status)?

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

#119

Post by omgwtfbyobbq » Wed, Nov 20, 2019, 11:06 PM UTC

baggy_trough wrote: post #14

omgwtfbyobbq wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Some people may lose their jobs, but with the unemployment rate at the lowest it's been in 40 years, they should be able to find other jobs, hopefully with benefits.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/california...

https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur...

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

#120

Post by manigandham » Fri, Nov 22, 2019, 10:00 AM UTC

katmannthree wrote: post #118

manigandham wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many freelancers are specifically choosing not to take a job, especially when it comes to professional driving which has always existed as a full-time job if you wanted to work that way. I don't see any reason to limit people's freedom if they choose to go independent and create their own conditions. The better option would be, as you say, provide the social safety net with healthcare and tax support that isn't tied…

This particular legislation is intended to address the case where a company hires people as contractors while treating them as employees. Specifically, companies are allowed to treat people as contractors only when the work performed " a) is under the worker’s control and not that of the business, b) is not part of the company’s core business, and c) is part of the worker’s independent profession." Many freelancers w…

> "if they wanted the job they had to accept being a contractor"

Then it's not a job, it's a contractor/freelance position.

The choice if you don't want to be a freelancer driver for Uber is to not take that position. There are still millions of professional full-time drivers for trucks/shuttles/buses/taxis/medical/etc and those jobs have existed for decades.

Ride-sharing only added more choices to the market. If you want to help people at the bottom, taking away choice is the opposite of what you should do. Create more jobs instead.