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

121–130 of 387 posts

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

#121

Post by sida »

ilaksh wrote: post #8

I have always felt that more direct democracy such as propositions is a more advanced way to operate. But this decision has made me complete reconsider it. I almost want there to be some kind of test to see how informed people are that somehow weights their votes. It could just be a short multiple quiz with questions submitted by each side or made by a third party and approved by each side. Just to verify that people…

>> I almost want there to be some kind of test to see how informed people are that somehow weights their votes

Given the history of the US in voter suppression, you not seeing the irony, is just fascinating.

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

#122

Post by jellicle »

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…

Slavery was very satisfying to users and slaves, as shown by how long it persisted. Q.E.D.

On the contrary, the average Uber driver lasts what, six months or so? Before they quit? Seems like they are profoundly dissatisfied, and only doing this work as a way to ward off starvation and eviction.

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

#123

Post by deelowe »

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 don't buy that drivers would prefer to not have benefits, vacation time, over time pay, or any of the other things that come with being employees.

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

#124

Post by snorrah »

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…

Apparently some drivers did not want this.

“Drivers and labor groups opposed Prop 22, saying it would allow companies to sidestep their obligations to provide benefits and standard minimum wages to their workers even as they make billions.” From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/04/california-e...

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

#125

Post by unishark »

gwd wrote: post #73
cody3222 wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" Uber has literally been a way out for many of them (earn that extra income on their own schedule). PS: I also think UBI is a fantastic idea and a great way to…

> I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line? Do you mean for Uber and Lyft, or for 19th-century factory workers? I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. Exactly where we draw the line for "coercion" matters less to me than the recognition that such a lifestyle still…

> I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves.

The step below "19th century factory work" is subsistence farming. Slavery is still categorically different.

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

#126

Post by bhupy »

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.

Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.

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

#127

Post by zests »

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…

Healthcare costs per capita are generally higher in the US than they are in Europe. I am curious whether or not you think we should focus on increasing spending to increase medicare coverage or if we should focus on decreasing healthcare costs for the country as a whole.

The right answer is probably "both" but you can't exactly vote for "both" political parties. Its a boring answer anyway :)

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

#128

Post by okareaman »

deelowe wrote: post #123
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 don't buy that drivers would prefer to not have benefits, vacation time, over time pay, or any of the other things that come with being employees.

Yep, some drivers and labor groups wanted to unionize drivers. That was the end goal.

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

#129

Post by okareaman »

paxys wrote: post #38

As someone who regularly uses Uber & Lyft in California and made it a point to talk to every single one my my drivers this past year about it, I happily (and confidently) voted for prop 22 and am happy to see it pass.

Thank you!

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

#130

Post by eplanit »

snorrah wrote: post #124
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…

Apparently some drivers did not want this. “Drivers and labor groups opposed Prop 22, saying it would allow companies to sidestep their obligations to provide benefits and standard minimum wages to their workers even as they make billions.” From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/04/california-e...

"Drivers and labor groups" = Drivers who were hoping to unionize, so not very surprising. I think the whole goal of 22 was to expand the ranks of unions. Very glad it failed.
Post reply on HN