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

251–260 of 387 posts

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

#251

Post by on_and_off »

pianoben wrote: post #231
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.

Bear in mind that, without the 7/8 clause, it would be impossible to legislatively overturn or modify prop 22. It would have required a public referendum to do so. Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Also, please bear in mind that CA legislature has already exempted wide and arbitrary swathes of industry from AB5, seemingly based on each indus…

wow, it went from almost impossible to just improbable, everything is great then.

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

#252

Post by notsureaboutpg »

arrosenberg wrote: post #237
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.

> People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. The genesis of the whole issue is that Uber and Lyft are claiming people can work "under any terms they want" as ICs, but they aren't actually able to do things that ICs can do, like set their own rates and pick their own customers.

Well, ICs can set their own rates but clients can also set a rate they are willing to pay. If Lyft pays more than Uber, Uber doesn't stop IC from accepting Lyft rate instead of Uber.

If I as an IC want to charge $100/hr for taxi rides, it doesn't mean any client has to take me up on that. And a client can have a policy of paying all IC taxi drivers X rate. What's wrong with that?

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

#253

Post by notsureaboutpg »

Frost1x wrote: post #100
beeper-beeps wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?” The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote. This i…

Representative or indirect democracy allows much of the same with politicians who largely aren't held accountable by voters and don't seem to care about their actions on others. All we seem to do is shift the blame to someone with more moral flexibility while also losing power in the process. And our representatives are now selling our power to the highest bidder. At the same time, representative democracies at least…

I think it's easier for voters to hold reps accountable for votes they don't agree with than it is for voters to remain educated yearly on the complexities of bond issues, property tax assessments, independent contractor laws, etc.

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

#254

Post by nickpp »

pmoriarty wrote: post #247
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.

The Triangle Shirtwaist Factory fire [1] was a real-life example. People in that factory worked there of their own free will. Children working in mines[2] also did so of their own free will. It is the fondest dream of many a libertarian to take us back to those days, where people could work freely, without government interference. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Triangle_Shirtwaist_Factory_fi... [2] - https://rar…

The fact that you have to go 100 years in the past for your examples speaks volumes.

Today's companies pay employees hundreds of thousands while enticing them with onsite massages and ping pong tables.

People have choices and it’s thanks to a healthy, diverse job market, not due to government intervention.

You want to help workers? Go ahead and build companies that offer well paid, decent jobs. Don’t rob people of their best asset: choice.

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

#255

Post by kube-system »

bzbarsky wrote: post #206
onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your claim about gay marriage is just empirically wrong. Popular "support" for gay marriage passed 50% in 2013 according to https://www.pewforum.org/fact-sheet/changing-attitudes-on-ga... and passed the "oppose" level in 2011 (it looks like ~10% of survey respondents consistently pick neither option, so the lines crossed at the 45% mark). Obergefell v. Hodges was decided in 2015. Support for gay marriage was at the 2…

If we are entertaining what would happen regarding gay marriage ...

> if we left that up to popular opinion

... then national polls are not relevant, because marriage laws are set at the state level. In fact, until Obergefell v. Hodges, it essentially was left up to popular opinion, and many people lived in states where it was unpopular enough to pass legislative, or even constitutional bans.

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

#256

Post by zachware »

I think you can have a favorable opinion about the intent of AB5 but also realize that it was a sloppy law that had caused lot of collateral damage when it was passed. Its sponsor even had a dispute on Twitter with a journalist affected where she said, basically, hey, we had to get it done and we didn't have time to get the details right.

I suspect this is not the end of this fight but hopefully if it comes up again, the legislature will be more thoughtful about crafting a bill.

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

#257

Post by menage »

bcrosby95 wrote: post #200
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.

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 cou…

> most propositions give the legislature no ability to modify it.

All the other statute initiative propositions on the CA ballot this year included a lower threshold than Prop 22 (ranging from 51% to 75%).

However, none of them (including Prop 22) allow the legislature to overturn it even if they achieve the threshold - only to modify "in furtherance of the original purposes" of the proposition.

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

#258

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

makomk wrote: post #77
refurb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

It was particularly interesting watching journalists cheerlead for AB5 right up until the point where they realized that it affected them too and not just Uber and Lyft drivers.

It’s been a depressing display of hypocrisy or short sightedness or something to see the amount of “That is exploitation and this needs to be the test of what constitutes an employee! For justice! (Except in the case of my job/industry, where it would be awful and destroy how I want to work)”

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

#259

Post by aeternum »

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.

The legislature already took a stance that was counter to the will of the people rather than do their job.

Now we have a worse law on the books that can't be removed. Maybe next time legislatures will take the time to listen to what people want and write a decent law initially.

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

#260

Post by Aunche »

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.

Technology and globalization has displaced a lot of low-middle income jobs. Regardless of whether Uber has to provide "fair" wages and benefits, the taxpayer has to foot the bill of these underemployed or unemployed people. Right now, the money is flowing from the investors' pockets to Uber drivers, which is a good thing.
Post reply on HN