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

191–200 of 387 posts

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

#191

Post by virmundi »

jrowley wrote: post #180
virmundi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If they don’t derive benefit, they wouldn’t work for Uber. There are other jobs available. Also we’ve stopped expecting people to move to find a better life.

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

#192

Post by linuxftw »

zests wrote: post #120
dkural wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

What's the tax burden of enforcing a minimum wage vs not having one?

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

#193

Post by bergstromm466 »

bhupy wrote: post #119
bergstromm466 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 h…

Yes. I appreciate the nuance you bring. I would reword where I wrote 'medicare' as: 'affordable healthcare', which in it's current form is (as you described) often a mix between private and public mechanisms/institutions.

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

#194

Post by mdorazio »

wil421 wrote: post #148
derwiki wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo has a ride hailing service in Chandler: https://www.forbes.com/sites/alanohnsman/2020/10/08/waymo-re... Pretty sure they chose the area because of sunny skies and lack of rain, so if that’s what you consider a gimmicky route that’s fair.

They specifically choose states close to the West Coast because the climates do not have serious weather or rain. Nevada, California, Arizona etc. SF is a weird city compared to other places with hills and odd obstructions so a lot of them moved to Phoenix for testing. From an outsider, the regulatory environment in Arizona appears to be easier for companies that want to do this type of testing as opposed to highly r…

You're moving the goal posts. The Chandler Waymo service is entirely driverless and not on a fixed route, with expanded service coming next year and additional cities opening up in 2022-2023. I encourage you to read up on Waymo's progress - it's quite a bit farther along than most people think.

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

#196

Post by mdorazio »

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…

It already had too many exceptions so you thought the best path forward was to add more exceptions?

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

#197

Post by CogitoCogito »

makomk wrote: post #181
CogitoCogito wrote: post #156

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The whole concept of being able to pass laws and then being unable to repeal them by the same margins as before as always seemed totally insane to me. Basically the definition of an unstable system and totally undemocratic.

As I understand it, this can be repealed in the same way and with the same margins as it was passed by getting majority support for another ballot proposition repealing it. The 7/8ths provision only applies to attempts by the legislature to mess with it.

Okay that makes much more sense. Thanks a lot for clarifying that for me.

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

#198

Post by dkural »

bhupy wrote: post #126
dkural wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's mostly paid out by Uber actually - Uber would start paying for healthcare, payroll tax, unemployment insurance, social security etc. Just like, you know, your average Facebook job except without the 401K matching, stock benefits, bonuses & other perks.

Uber could either burn even more secondary-offering cash to pay for it, or charge to passengers what that ride costs. Only people who hire private drivers with Uber would pay those costs, not "everyone" in a flat way. People who ride Uber more would pay more.

(And maybe, once we realize the actual cost chauffeurs for rent & private transportation, one can start paying more attention to housing patterns, sprawl, public transportation etc.)

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

#199

Post by [deleted] »

shuckles wrote: post #182
mdorazio wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many Californians would willingly work in 1900s factory conditions with machines eating body parts and people passing out from exhaustion because that's the only work they can get. This kind of completely unregulated employment market that you seem to want is exactly the thing that people fought against for decades for damn good reasons.

There is plenty of unfilled demand for the trades, so I’m skeptical that there is a large pool of labor willing to work those kinds of jobs.

[deleted]

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

#200

Post by bcrosby95 »

wpietri wrote: post #146
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…

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.

By default propositions are unchangeable by legislature. 7/8ths is a very high bar but most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it. Further propositions could modify or remove it by a simple majority.

For better or worse, this is the system working as intended. The point of the proposition system is to let the people pass laws the legislature refuses to. It would be pointless if the legislature could overturn or gut propositions with a simple majority vote.

Post reply on HN