California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers • Hacker News Board

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

#101

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:43 PM UTC

Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this.

You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently.

I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing them into the existing regulatory framework is the right equilibrium to shoot for.

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

#102

Post by Causality1 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:51 PM UTC

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #101

Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…

Uber and Lyft are examples of the best way independent contracting works. The problem is the way its eating industries that were not built for it. Drivers get the benefits of being independent. Other contractors, for example estheticians, get almost none of them. They don't get to set their own hours and rates.

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

#103

Post by zaroth » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:54 PM UTC

mola wrote: post #98

anonuser123456 wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state Companies withdraw operations when they are unprofitable. That's how business works. Capital get allocated based in margins. The AB5 restrictions make profitability unlikely. That means uber/lyft jobs simply won't exist. Is that a better outcome?

Since when is uber profitable?

Uber has been profitable in the USA for years now.

https://fortune.com/2016/02/18/uber-profitable-us/

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

#104

Post by mola » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:55 PM UTC

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…

Because most workers in these jobs switch employers regularly, that's why they are contractors. The drivers have about 3 choices to get gigs from. They have zero leverage, there is no market.

I don't live and california and if you guys want to kill the tiny amount of labor laws you havez do whatever. But for some reason people in my country still think the US is not totally bonkers and these changes influence other countries.

People died for these workers rights, worker abuse was a fact, repealing labor laws is just ignorance.

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

#105

Post by [deleted] » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:56 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #71

vmception wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you think it passes the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the US constitution? Treating some companies' employees differently than others? Because I hope it does. I also unfortunately have to hope that the ride-share companies give the benefits they suggest, but I also want the US to unbundle this from companies to begin with, across the whole republic.

We already have discriminated for a century on pay: tipped vs non-tipped wages. Also, they’re not modifying it to single out Uber and Lyft, but “gig economy workers”. Requiring someone who fulfills certain requirements to be classified as an employee isn’t unconstitutional.

[deleted]

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

#106

Post by throwaway0a5e » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:57 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #52

refurb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have data on slavery? My understanding was the North was pretty anti-slavery and had 3x the population of the south. I'd be interested if there is actual polling data to suggest if a popular vote was held it would have failed.

I thought part of the point of the strange election process we have was to "ensure" that southern states would have a vote even in the face of a more populous north…

They did. Which was why they were able to hold out until 1860 when the writing was on the wall. Since slavery didn't die on it's own and was the underpinning of the economy of many states violence was somewhat bound to happen.

You can't just expect to make any sizeable minority of your nation's economy non-viable and not have all the people's lives you just ruined start shooting. You might be able to get away with it if the people losing out are an evenly distributed minority but if there's a huge block where they are the overwhelming local majority it's gonna get ugly.

The alternative path out of slavery would have been to boil the frog but with the uneven geographic distribution of slavery that wouldn't have been reasonably possible to do socially (e.g. convince people to spend more any more money treating slaves better until wage labor is competitive and slavery can be legislated away without a war). You might be able to boil the frog legislatively but the weak government structures of the 19th century were not well equipped for that kind of thing and that requires a lot of support anyway. In order to get the nation bootstrapped the founders intentionally put off any action for several decades. Something calamitous was kind of bound to happen. Frankly I think we were kind of lucky we got off with a "one and done" war over it (yes I know there was a bunch of background violence after the fact) rather than a perpetual slow boil conflict that turns into a low intensity shooting war every few decades like you see in other parts of the world.

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

#107

Post by refurb » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

saagarjha wrote: post #52

refurb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have data on slavery? My understanding was the North was pretty anti-slavery and had 3x the population of the south. I'd be interested if there is actual polling data to suggest if a popular vote was held it would have failed.

I thought part of the point of the strange election process we have was to "ensure" that southern states would have a vote even in the face of a more populous north…

The electoral college was created during America's founding.

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

#108

Post by cletus » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 1:58 PM UTC

Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time.

This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco.

Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who then logically could only work for one (at a time) how would a competitor enter the marketplace if driving for the new guy prohibited you from also working for Uber? If the new player has insufficient ride volume it’s a huge barrier to entry.

The fact that drivers themselves seemed to reject this just shows what a bad idea this is.

I mean what’s next? Overtime? Making it hard to “fire” drivers?

And as for a notion of a minimum wage for drivers, if they for 3 different companies in an hour who pays that?

Don’t follow NYC’s example of steadily recreating the taxi medallions system (eg driver quotas and tax measures to drive the cost up; Uber is essentially twice the cost it was 5 years ago).

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

#109

Post by refurb » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:04 PM UTC

nullc wrote: post #65

refurb wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Did you know that CA has been busy passing special exemptions to AB 5 for a ton of professions ever since it first passed? Here is an example of professions as of September, but I know they passed additional exemptions in October as well. https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wag...

I'm aware-- and if Prop22 just grafted the ride-share businesses into those lists or overturned AB5 I'd have less to complain about it. Instead, Prop22 acts as a generalized shield against any act of the legislature which limits or imposes specific restrictions on rideshare app businesses by requiring a 7/8th's vote and requiring that they be "consistent with the purpose" of the prop22 amended law.

According to this link [1] the legislature can't change what the voter's passed through an initiative unless they send it back to the voter's again. So as per earlier comments, I'd interpret that as the 7/8th's vote requirement actually reducing the burden on the legislature. As long as they can get 7/8ths of the votes, they don't need to bring it back to the voter's again.

"The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally."

[1]https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...

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

#110

Post by dmitriid » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:09 PM UTC

Causality1 wrote: post #102

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #101

Good. The users and the drivers both wanted this. You may dislike hearing this, but it takes a lot to inject yourself into that arrangement and massively increase the cost because you want it done differently. I recognise that it appears to create "rules for thee but not for me" for these companies, but when they are so thoroughly satisfying both their customers and their workers, you should ask yourself if forcing t…

Uber and Lyft are examples of the best way independent contracting works. The problem is the way its eating industries that were not built for it. Drivers get the benefits of being independent. Other contractors, for example estheticians, get almost none of them. They don't get to set their own hours and rates.

> Uber and Lyft are examples of the best way independent contracting works.

"Best way" as in: Uber and Lyft are engaged in price dumping subsidized by endless investor money while at the same time passing most costs onto "independent contractors" who are just people looking for a job in an ever contracting pool of available jobs?