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

#111

Post by AnthonyMouse » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:13 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13

roenxi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

> All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

You're mistaking correlation for causation.

Things first pass when they have ~25% popular support because that's when they first get enough votes to pass in a two party system. You get 51% of the party that controls 51% of the legislature, your measure passes.

Then support for it increases because that's what it was doing to begin with, which was how it got to 51% of 51% from whatever smaller amount of support it had before it passed.

If you require a higher bar to change the law, it takes longer. But change inevitably still happens.

Slavery wasn't doomed by voting, it was doomed by economics. Before the industrial revolution, working on a plantation (essentially serfdom) compared favorably with your other alternatives, which typically consisted of starving to death in the wilderness. After the industrial revolution, you could run away to a city and get a job in a factory, which is what everybody started doing and the whole system started to disintegrate.

And it was the same thing for women's suffrage. It came about following economic and social changes that essentially made it inevitable in a modern society. It would have happened anyway. It did happen anyway, despite being passed by constitutional amendment in the US, which has a supermajority requirement for enactment.

By contrast, ill-conceived ideas that aren't inevitable would die when they go out of fashion without ever being implemented.

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

#112

Post by smt88 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:16 PM UTC

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?

Repealing laws is much harder than passing new ones (both politically and procedurally). Depending on the law and location, you often need more votes to repeal than to pass.

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

#113

Post by bergstromm466 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:19 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #93

NormenNomen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Err, is the "casual use of the gig economy" good? These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. This certainly isn't going to make getting bread on the table any easier except in the extremely short term—and that's assuming a collective, vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state.

> These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home. They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only…

> The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home.

> They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only requires them to get paid less or have less flexibility etc. as the trade off the company has to make to justify paying the additional cost of mandatory benefits.

Interesting to follow your thinking and your strategies, thanks for open sourcing it. From a European perspective all this sounds absurd though. Having medicare for all and a social safety net is standard in all European countries and other Global North countries.

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

#114

Post by joshribakoff » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:20 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…

According to the companies lobbying its what the drivers want. No one has established it actually is, and in fact some drivers have quit and spoken out about the apps constantly nagging with propaganda. Also as a rider who’s gotten drunk drivers, idiots going reverse on highway when the exit was missed, or pulling up in beater cars where the engine stalls out, I’ll just say there’s a reason taxis were more expensive and not all riders wanted this outcome. In fact, drivers will be paid below minimum wage since the laws are crafted to only apply minimum wages while they have a passenger in the car

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

#115

Post by dkural » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:21 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…

Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.

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

#116

Post by zenexer » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:25 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…

I’m not at all convinced this is what drivers want, and I haven’t seen any trustworthy sources indicating that it’s true. Furthermore, as a passenger, I’d rather pay a higher cost and know that the driver who I’m entrusting with my life hasn’t been working 24 hours straight just to feed their children—I’d rather not get friendly with a tree just to save five bucks.

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

#117

Post by SpicyLemonZest » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13

roenxi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

I certainly agree that some things are so important they need to get done regardless of popular opinion. But to say that independent contractor classification clears that bar seems like a pretty strong anti-democratic commitment. Are there any matters of public policy you feel should be left up to popular opinion?

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

#118

Post by SilasX » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

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…

Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption.

IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former, there can be a compromise later that rationalizes the whole system; but post-prop 22, everyone will also have to work around Uber's carveout.

[0] Though I don't live there anymore FWIW.

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

#119

Post by bhupy » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:27 PM UTC

bergstromm466 wrote: post #113

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #93

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home. They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only…

> The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home. > They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only requires them to get paid less or have less flexib…

> Having medicare for all and a social safety net is standard in all European countries and other Global North countries.

No disagreements that having a robust social safety net is a necessity, but just want to nit-pick a little here and point out that not all European/Global North countries have "Medicare for all" or single payer systems. Germany has a public-private mix, Netherlands has a purely private universal healthcare system, Switzerland has a purely private universal healthcare system, Australia has a public-private mix (44% choose private), Singapore has universal catastrophic coverage but everything else is driven by savings accounts and private insurance among the upper-middle class, etc etc — Belgium, South Korea (technically "single payer" but only covers 60% of costs, private insurance fills in the gaps), Japan, etc.

Even "Medicare" in the US, is a public-private mix: roughly 37% of Medicare beneficiaries are on a private health insurance plan (Medicare Advantage), and we expect that number to reach 50% by 2025.

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

#120

Post by zests » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 2:28 PM UTC

dkural wrote: post #115

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…

Another "user" is the taxpayer - who ultimately ends up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors. So in a way, by exempting Uber from these rules, but not others, society is handing out a subsidy for both the passengers and drivers.

What's the tax burden of the people unemployed by AB5 versus the tax burden of the people lacking benefits by working for the gig economy?