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

261–270 of 387 posts

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

#261

Post by paxys »

whimsicalism wrote: post #136
cletus wrote: post #108

Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time. This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco. Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who th…

Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care. Otherwise it's just a huge externality being leveraged on the rest of us.

> Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care.

You mean like prop 22?

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

#262

Post by cletus »

whimsicalism wrote: post #136
cletus wrote: post #108

Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time. This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco. Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who th…

Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care. Otherwise it's just a huge externality being leveraged on the rest of us.

Or maybe we should stop tying healthcare to employment.

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

#263

Post by SpicyLemonZest »

on_and_off wrote: post #251
pianoben wrote: post #231

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It's just a strange way to conceptualize the process. The whole concept of a ballot proposition is to give voters the final say on policy questions - if legislators could easily overturn propositions, what would be the point?

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

#265

Post by mbgerring »

No matter how you feel about AB5, allowing an industry to write laws and then coerce its workers into acting as campaign volunteers whether they agree with the law or not is a horrible precedent. This is not how our laws should be made, and we will come to regret this.

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

#266

Post by paxys »

whimsicalism wrote: post #216
vernie wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not being from San Francisco what conclusion am I meant to draw from this?

In the city, rich tech workers (predominant population in Marina and Fidi areas) voted for it and pretty much every other population voted against.

"Rich tech workers" live everywhere in the city, and all the most expensive neighborhoods (Pac Heights, Presidio, Russian Hill, Nob Hill, Ashbury) actually all voted no.

My takeaway is that neighborhoods without access to public transit and where people still need to commute to work voted yes.

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

#267

Post by wskinner »

mola wrote: post #104
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…

Because most workers in these jobs switch employers regularly, that's why they are contractors. The drivers have about 3 choices to get gigs from. They have zero leverage, there is no market. I don't live and california and if you guys want to kill the tiny amount of labor laws you havez do whatever. But for some reason people in my country still think the US is not totally bonkers and these changes influence other c…

Uber, Lyft, Postmates, DoorDash, Instacart. And as a driver, the switching cost is roughly zero. The companies absolutely do have to to compete for workers, which is why they spend so much on attracting them.

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

#268

Post by drewda »

zachware wrote: post #256

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,…

Prop 22 is written such that it can only be modified by 7/8 vote of the legislature in the future. Its funders made sure to protect their "investment" from the normal political process of push/pull/debate/change.

In the words of one political science professor:

> “I’ve looked at a lot of ballot measures over the years,” said Moylan, adding that a two-thirds majority is common.

> But a seven-eighths “super, super, super-duper majority,” she said, “is new as far as I’m aware.”

https://calmatters.org/politics/post-it/2020/10/california-a...

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

#269

Post by 6gvONxR4sf7o »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #156
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 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.

To add to what the other commenter said, it also could add stability, rather than instability. Imagine a popular opinion that’s right around 50%, fluctuating by epsilon every year. If every time it went from 50+epsilon to 50-epsilon, the law changed, it would be too hard to get anything done, so a little bit of friction isn’t a terrible thing (a little bit). A system where it takes a 7/8 vote has this anti-fickleness property, where 7/8+epsilon can pass, but 7/8-epsilon can’t undo (though 7/8 is way too much friction).

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

#270

Post by mFixman »

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.

If you are a worker, AB5 would lower the probability of you being classifier as an employee with benefits instead of a contractor.

Uber can now legally hire people without paying them benefits, there are lots of employers looking to do the same.

Post reply on HN