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

California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 387 posts

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#41

Post by rmrfstar »

thatswrong0 wrote: post #40
Rebelgecko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

Same. The exception list is insane. I don't see how you can look at that list and _not_ think these drivers belong there as well. On top of this, most drivers I talked to were voting for it, and despite some cries about brainwashing by the companies via their apps, I'd imagine they do still have their own best interests in mind.

I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them.

Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#42

Post by supernova87a »

I supported Prop 22 because the law being countered already had a list of exceptions a mile long, I suppose put there by the labor interests that wrote the bill. I didn't see why some of these contractors aren't equally exploited and subject to the whim of big evil corporations. What does it matter then, to carve out one more exception for Lyft/Uber drivers to join this list?

A commercial fisherman is less worthy of being protected than a Lyft or Uber driver? You've got to be kidding me.

---------------

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

Exempted fields:

Professional services that include:

(A) Marketing,

(B) Administrator of human resources

(C) Travel agent services

(D) Graphic design.

(E) Grant writer.

(F) (i) Fine artist.

(G) Services provided by an enrolled agent

(H) Payment processing agent through an independent sales organization.

(i) Still photographer, photojournalist, videographer, or photo editor

(ii) Digital content aggregator

(J) Freelance writer, translator, editor, copy editor, illustrator, or newspaper cartoonist

(K) Content contributor, advisor, producer, narrator, or cartographer

(L) Licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber, or licensed cosmetologist

(N) Appraiser

(O) Registered professional foresters

(1) A real estate licensee

(2) A home inspector

(3) A repossession agency

(A) Recording artists

(B) Songwriters, lyricists, composers, and proofers.

(C) Managers of recording artists.

(D) Record producers and directors.

(E) Musical engineers and mixers engaged in the creation of sound recordings.

(F) Musicians engaged in the creation of sound recordings, subject to the below.

(G) Vocalists

(H) Photographers working on recording photo shoots, album covers, and other press and publicity purposes.

(I) Independent radio promoters.

(J) Any other individual engaged to render any creative, production, marketing, or independent music publicist services related primarily to the creation, marketing, promotion, or distribution of sound recordings or musical compositions.

(A) Film and television unit production crew

(B) Publicists who are not independent music publicists.

(a) A person or organization who is licensed by the Department of Insurance

(b) A physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian

(c) lawyer, architect, landscape architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant.

(d) A securities broker-dealer or investment adviser

(e) A direct sales salesperson

(f) A manufactured housing salesperson

(g) A commercial fisher working on an American vessel.

(h) A newspaper distributor

(i) An... international exchange visitor

(j) A competition judge

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#43

Post by rmrfstar »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #22
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

So... you're OK with having an exploited underclass of marginally attached gig workers? Or you're not?

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#45

Post by tdeck »

cody3222 wrote: post #34
perfunctory wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are a slave, abolishing slavery would only cause you to face higher prices ...

No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

Because our society depends on economic precarity to compel an underclass of people to work in whatever shitty jobs are offered in order to meet their basic needs.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#46

Post by rmrfstar »

supernova87a wrote: post #42

I supported Prop 22 because the law being countered already had a list of exceptions a mile long, I suppose put there by the labor interests that wrote the bill. I didn't see why some of these contractors aren't equally exploited and subject to the whim of big evil corporations. What does it matter then, to carve out one more exception for Lyft/Uber drivers to join this list? A commercial fisherman is less worthy of…

Scale.

Your argument is intellectually dishonest.

It's like saying that FAAMG aren't important to the S&P500 because they are only 1% of companies in the index, totally ignoring capitalization.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#47

Post by refurb »

rmrfstar wrote: post #43
Rebelgecko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

So... you're OK with having an exploited underclass of marginally attached gig workers? Or you're not?

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#48

Post by tick_tock_tick »

whiddershins wrote: post #37

This ... is insane. I thought everyone agreed AB5 was written to basically target these companies. Now it’s just disruptively regulating the labor market in random ways while also having a list of exceptions so long no one can keep track of it? Why not just repeal this law?

That would require the legislature to admit they fucked up.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#49

Post by saagarjha »

rmrfstar wrote: post #41
thatswrong0 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Same. The exception list is insane. I don't see how you can look at that list and _not_ think these drivers belong there as well. On top of this, most drivers I talked to were voting for it, and despite some cries about brainwashing by the companies via their apps, I'd imagine they do still have their own best interests in mind.

I'm assuming the drivers you talked to were working when you talked to them. Do you think that maybe, just maybe, they might be scared to be honest with you under those circumstances?

Hey, no need to be snide.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#50

Post by speedgoose »

cody3222 wrote: post #33

This is a huge win for all, including drivers. If a driver decides they don't like how they're paid or the benefits they get, they have complete control to not do the job and work elsewhere.

Everyone have complete control to change job and improve their quality of life whenever they want without taking any risk.
Post reply on HN