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

171–180 of 387 posts

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

#171

Post by aidenn0 »

MattGaiser wrote: post #17

Unless you are an Uber driver (and even then, there is debate among drivers), AB5 would only cause you to face higher prices and reduced availability. Voting for this would be an altruistic act that would come out of people's wallets. No surprise that this passed easily.

Many people I talked to were completely misinformed on what this measure entailed. All 5 people I talked to about this proposition thought a yes on 22 would guarantee minimum-wage and health-care for gig workers. Tiny sample size, and perhaps lots of other people were similarly corrected by other friends before voting, but I found that rather odd.

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

#172

Post by indymike »

jrowley wrote: post #155
silexia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.

We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?

Employment and work are not always the same thing.

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

#173

Post by jimbob21 »

mdorazio wrote: post #163
chmod600 wrote: post #154

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.

> you better be sure that's what they want. This logic makes no sense at all. For example, everyone wants a bunch of free money - should the Assembly pass a ton of bills that write blank checks with no budget changes to back them up? Everyone loves artificially low property taxes for existing residents, and that's been an unmitigated disaster for the state. The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit…

>The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term.

While also ensuring that what they're passing is what members of their state want. If they're not sure, you should not pass that thing. If the state needs the benefits of that thing (and that need is backed by research), then they should go about finding another way to acquire the benefits that has public approval. That's the entire point of a democracy

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

#174

Post by virmundi »

jrowley wrote: post #155
silexia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.

We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?

Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

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

#175

Post by thekyle »

nickpp wrote: post #145
deelowe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.

Yeah, there are plenty of companies willing to hire people as employees for minimum wage. Can't see what's so bad about having another option for those who don't like traditional employment.

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

#176

Post by ashtonkem »

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…

It not only creates “rules for me but not for thee”, but it sure as hell looks like big tech companies can just buy laws in CA when they don’t like what the legislature does.

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

#177

Post by nullc »

remote_phone wrote: post #149
wpietri wrote: post #146

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does the 7/8th requirement for changing Prop 22 square with your thinking of it as a referendum? Everybody agrees that AB5 is flawed and needs more work. But Prop 22 let money-losing, worker-exploiting companies literally write the law they wanted and made sure nobody could change it. A referendum on AB5 would have forced discussion and improvement. This closes that off.

The 7/8th requirement is fantastic because we can all stop arguing about it now, unlike Prop 13. I’m glad that this issue has been decided basically once and for all, and I hope someone comes up with a future proposition with the same 7/8 requirement for Prop 13 so we stop arguing over that as well.

I'm trying to figure out if you're being sarcastic. I'll assume not.

Prop 13 is the landmark example of a ballot initiative that set super-majority thresholds for legislature. In it's case, the ability to create new taxes-- a property which has been specifically (and unsuccessfully) litigated against: https://www.latimes.com/opinion/la-xpm-2011-dec-26-la-oe-new...

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

#178

Post by mdorazio »

zaroth wrote: post #103
mola wrote: post #98

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Since when is uber profitable?

Uber has been profitable in the USA for years now. https://fortune.com/2016/02/18/uber-profitable-us/

No it hasn't. Please stop saying this. If you read their actual financial filings instead of press releases, it is very clear that they are not profitable on a GAAP basis without accounting games in any region, especially this year. They hide their unprofitability with non-GAAP figures and loss allocation to departments where they don't really belong (ex. technology development).

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

#179

Post by whimsicalism »

virmundi wrote: post #174
jrowley wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?

Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

> Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

It is not a priori true that a minimum wage is not utility maximizing, depending on the regime of the supply/demand curve we're on. This is supercharged when you consider the diminishing marginal returns to wealth.

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

#180

Post by jrowley »

virmundi wrote: post #174
jrowley wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?

Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

Yeah, they can have no minimum wage because they have organized labor. But if you’re a 1099 for Uber and you attempt to organize a union, you’ll just get fired.

Without the ability to form a union, or wage protection, workers are going to be racing to the bottom.

Post reply on HN