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

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

381–390 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#381

Post by Ericson2314 »

kbenson wrote: post #202
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…

>I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. Not the GP, but I think the point is fairly simple to express. If you took office tomorrow, and had a term of one day, and there was a vote on a legislative item, how much could you possibly learn about the issue in the time prior to that vote? Short term limits mean that it's harder for legislators to really underst…

> how much could you possibly learn about the issue in the time prior to that vote?

Again, the votes might be new, but the issues are not. There's plenty to learn about them before getting the job

> Additionally, they probably won't be effective at getting any legislation passed until they understand how to work with the system.

Again, "the system" hinges on authority of the other lawmakers. Lobbies and other non-democratic operators obviously exert a lot of power, but that takes the form of playing sides against each other. Term limits makes all of the legislator factinos played against each other weaker.

> Another way to look at it, is how long would it take you to become effective if you switched careers tomorrow?

I don't think being a politician is unskilled labor! But the skill lies in campaigning and bargaining, not voting. Unlike politician on politician vote struggles, politician on public campaigning doesn't out. Maybe this results in voter apathy and therefore blander/weaker bills but this is a complex second order effect.

I'm not even trying to defend term limits to you all here, just arguing that these arguments against them are as simplistic as the older arguments for them.

> If we assume legislators only need a few weeks or months to get up to speed, then term limits of 6-8 years don't matter. If we assume it takes a few years to become effective, then we're hobbling our legislators for close to half the maximum time they can be on office.

I'm perfectly willing to say they get more powerful and more skilled over the years. So the big first order effect of term limits is not on the absolute power of the legislature, but the relative power of new vs old politicians.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#382

Post by Ericson2314 »

m12k wrote: post #193
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…

Not the person you are replying to, but I think the point they are trying to make is that the less experience a politician has, the more likely they are to believe what they are told by someone with an agenda who is trying to influence them, e.g. special interests. So the lack of experience doesn't cancel out for yea and nay when it comes to any given vote, because special interests will be lobbying mostly for one of…

HN is full of dilettantes that are skeptical of every article they read here. Why would freshman politicians commit the faux pas of being gullible --- we can even ignore the actual veracity of wait they are told --- when they can be cynical skeptics too?

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#383

Post by Ericson2314 »

Normal_gaussian wrote: post #221
Ericson2314 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…

> Again you seem to be imagining legislators are dead at the end of the term and born at the beginning or something. Term limits have the effect of putting the experienced legislators in the employ of special interests - because that is the only way 'up'. The time in office becomes a portfolio for said special interest jobs, turning legislators "against the [poor] people".

Yes! Finally someone in this thread has a coherent argument against term limits. Thank you.

(I do wait for the Empire-Strike-Back-Style sequel to Mr. Smith Goes to Washington to dramatize what everyone else is saying...)

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#384

Post by Ericson2314 »

dmitriid wrote: post #99
karlp wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason...

It's not academic literature, it's an op-ed piece. And every one of the 5 reasons can be challenged. Especially the "less choice" one.

I actually think the argument about committee chairing is a bit more credible than what's been said in this thread. Stability definitely can help nurture depth more than a parade of different positions.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#385

Post by Ericson2314 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #216
Ericson2314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. :| Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

> Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. That's a little bit true but mostly misleading. As with any office with professional staff, most of the work of a legislative office is done by the staff, not the head of the office, true. OTOH, that doesn't me…

That's a better argument, but also note that's it's a preventable mistake of legislatures not to rehire and therefore force the conflict of interest revolving door issue.

Also note that this sort of negligence is happening today despite a lack of fedral congressional term limits: https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2017/05/24/vital-stats... . I can't find a source but I believe there is a similar issue with the per-congressperson researcher appropriations.

So while perhaps less turnover helps make for stabler staffing jobs, it's not a cure-all. Ultimately the balance between Expertise and Democracy is a difficult one that we need to do a better job at (usually having not enough of both!) with or without term limits.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#386

Post by Ericson2314 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #213
Ericson2314 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California didn't help itself when it implemented term limits which had the unpleasant side effect of never having any legislators with enough experience in the job to know how to really get things done. I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? The fear of rocking the boat effects anyone that, well, will live longer. Whether…

> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? Your analysis seems to think that legislation is just pushing "yay" or "nay" buttons, and that discussion of experience simply is about people having the skill to find the correct button. (Though inexperience there wouldn't cancel out, either, even with a 50/50 split in intended votes…

I do think they do plenty more than "yay" or "nay", but the lack of courage among our legislatures is evidenced in both the California legislature and Congress, so I'm less inclined to think term limits is the relevant issue

In California I think the huge dominance of the landowning class is more pertinent.

Really, I want a non-FPTP parliamentary system. Politics should officially be a "team sport" as it is in practice, and should be a battle of ideologies not personalities. Coincidentally, these means (to me at least) that not having term limits is way less of potential problem, and so I would be against having them.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#387

Post by Ericson2314 »

bregma wrote: post #263
Ericson2314 wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> California didn't help itself when it implemented term limits which had the unpleasant side effect of never having any legislators with enough experience in the job to know how to really get things done. I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? The fear of rocking the boat effects anyone that, well, will live longer. Whether…

> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? There are no term limits on C-level executives in deep-pocketed corporations and special interests. The term limits are on the legislators they buy. It's like a subscription model: you need to renew every few years to keep the gravy flowing.

This is the argument for term limits, BTW: Incumbuants are terrified of their next campaign (which is a every 2 years threat for representatives in the House, btw.) whereas more term limits means more brazen lame ducks.

Then again, lame ducks need a job afterword so it's a bad augment too.

My conclusions is that term limits seam mostly for show, with muddle benefits and disadvantages. Perhaps the real policy move is term limits + enough UBI that the lame ducks are truly safe no matter what.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sortition is a neat idea which is like term limits but on steroids: you're as suddenly on the job as you are suddenly off it. I think this example, with the heightened stakes / wider Overton window, makes for the more interesting debate.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#388

Post by stjohnswarts »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #361
atomi wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding. Did op forget that it's actual people who are voting on these referendums? California allows any coalition to initiate referendums and bring the vote to the people, if that's not democratic, I don't know what is. Edit: And it's a bit insulting to say California voters don't have the wherewithal to digest political advertisements and make their own decisions.

There is an old sailor's joke about who do you believe when the sailor on the deck says, "there is no land in sight" and the one in the crow's nest says "land off the starboard bow." The wisdom in the joke is that both are correct from their own point of view but as a matter of trust, you want to go with the point of view with the person who has a better view of the bigger picture. Representative forms of government…

I think state wide referendums are bad because (and only because) people won't educate themselves and vote the way they "believe" as determined by their "gut feeling" as opposed to real research. I actually trust politicians more to make laws like these.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#389

Post by mepiethree »

okareaman wrote: post #128
greendude29 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally: 100% counter to what virtually every Lyft driver who drives full-time has told me. Data-wise: Where is your evidence? I thought that by now, the free market would have solved all of the above problems? Philosophically: No one's job should be dependent on tips. Tips ALWAYS are filtered via biases that tap into sexism, racism, xenophobia, and never a financially responsible way of building an economy. Vote…

Are you aware that the majority of drivers don't drive full time? If full time drivers don't like it or don't make enough they should apply for employment at a company that meets their needs. A lot of service workers depend on tips.

But service workers are also usually employees and have disability and unemployment insurance. They also often pick their shift times. You can have flexibility without being a contractor.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#390

Post by mepiethree »

koolba wrote: post #21
VRay wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'll bet you could set up an actual marketplace with automated matchmaking it probably wouldn't be as good as Uber/Lyft can make things by forcing "contractors" to take unprofitable rides, though

And then you’re back to the NYC pre-2009 model where you can get a cab anywhere in Manhattan but good luck getting home from Bushwick.

yeah, life is so much better now that we can exploit labor to get ubiquitous and cheap rides
Post reply on HN