California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by nickpp » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:53 PM UTC

dmitriid wrote: post #229

nickpp wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That "myth" is what America was built on and what made it great. Yes, it's called FREEDOM, comes with no guarantees and includes your freedom to disagree with it. If you desire safety above freedom, you deserve neither - (loosely) said somebody much smarter than me. I've lived without that freedom and it was horrifying. I would never go back. I understand not everybody prefers it so that's why I am happy you have the…

> That "myth" is what America was built on and what made it great. Ah yes. How can one forget about the great freedom of slavery, exploitation of the Chinese, back breaking labor of miners etc. etc. > If you desire safety above freedom, you deserve neither - (loosely) said somebody much smarter than me. That quote was in no shape, way or form about healthcare or maternity leave > I've lived without that freedom and i…

Are you really comparing America of 1800s to the Western European states of today?!

I lived without ANY freedoms. Taken away by the (communist) government in exchange for the promise of safety, wages and lots and lots of benefits. Of course, we got neither.

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

#282

Post by asdfasgasdgasdg » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

cody3222 wrote: post #70

gwd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison? There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working. But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In t…

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…

Coercion is definitely a continuum. In some sense, my biology "coerces" me to continue breathing. To say that coercion is bad but then to fail to specify the degree of coercion that would be bad is equivocation. To a capitalist, the type of coercion that comes from needing to eat and therefore needing to either gather food or gather resources to trade for food is on the OK side of that line. To a hardcore progressive, it might not be. But all that labeling a practice like this coercion does is reveal where you stand on that matter of degrees. It doesn't create a qualitative distinction here, because none actually exists.

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

#283

Post by ac29 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:54 PM UTC

nickpp wrote: post #254

pmoriarty wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

Factory fires are not terribly uncommon in developing nations, much more recently than 100 years ago: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/2012_Dhaka_garment_factory_fir...

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

#284

Post by nxc18 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

deeeeplearning wrote: post #240

whoisjuan wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber. Lyft, etc are already operating on shitty business models with bad margins and totally exposed to economic shifts. I can't imagine that type business model being sustainable with anything different that contract (gig) work. I'm not defending the gig economy, but I'm sure that if these companies were forced to employ all their workers as FT employees, they would be inviable.

>I'm not defending the gig economy, but I'm sure that if these companies were forced to employ all their workers as FT employees, they would be inviable. Then they should be inviable. Why would you allow a few dozen people to make billions off the backs of gig workers?

Those gig workers want to do it and the customers want to pay.

If the state wants to provide a social safety net, it should provide one.

It shouldn’t pass a law that fucks Lyft’s business model into unviability, say “if you don’t want to comply with California’s laws you can stop operating in California” and then go surprised pikachu face when Lyft stops operating in California, as almost happened a few months ago.

I will never drive in a taxi again, given that I have been deliberately screwed or defrauded every single time. I think you might be forgetting just how bad life was before Lyft. Lyft has saved me from the atrocious business model of taxis, which is based on screwing customers who have few or no choices.

Again, we should just have a social safety net, like every other first world country. Don’t pretend rejecting stupid band aid fixes that the supposed beneficiaries don’t want is an attack on drivers.

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

#285

Post by colinmhayes » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:56 PM UTC

maedla wrote: post #249

apta wrote: post #213

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So fix the underlying issue instead of going after private companies.

the underlying issue is the private companies

The underlying issue is society relying on private companies to pay for opaque benefits that make it difficult to figure out if one job pays better than another.

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

#286

Post by gonehome » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

dahdum wrote: post #273

drewda wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, sup…

Your article states Prop 22 gives the legislature more power than normal. > By default, a law enacted by ballot measure can only be changed by another law enacted by ballot measure. The exception to that rule: If crafters of the initiative explicitly say otherwise. No surprise, many ballot measures do not say otherwise. Compared to that default, Prop. 22’s high bar for amendments actually gives the Legislature more i…

Yeah the 7/8s is a good thing - allows fix-ups when there's near unanimous agreement a change should be made.

Obviously had to be more than simple majority since its purpose is to directly override AB5 and the state legislature.

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

#287

Post by hodgesrm » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #118

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…

Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…

I vote NO on a lot of propositions for this reason. Passing legal hacks does not make the overall situation better and in fact makes things harder to unwind later.

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

#288

Post by pianoben » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

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.

I'll be the first to admit that it's not great. There's a pretty wide area between "great" and "unacceptable", and I think that prop 22 is in there.

Regarding 7/8 specifically, it's true that it's "not great" and it's also true that it is "better than the default".

Consider the authors' perspectives for a moment, if only to understand it. One party has a supermajority in the CA legislature, and they are openly hostile to prop 22. They didn't necessarily want an immutable proposition, but they also didn't want it to be immediately nullified. 7/8 seems like a way to guarantee that changes can be made if and only if there's broad bipartisan support for those changes.

You don't have to agree with that perspective but I think it should be said that there's a non-nefarious way to see it.

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

#289

Post by Ericson2314 » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

smt88 wrote: post #112

whiddershins wrote: post #37

This ... is insane. I thought everyone agreed AB5 was written to basically target these companies. Now it’s just disruptively regulating the labor market in random ways while also having a list of exceptions so long no one can keep track of it? Why not just repeal this law?

Repealing laws is much harder than passing new ones (both politically and procedurally). Depending on the law and location, you often need more votes to repeal than to pass.

What? Bills are patches. A patch and its inverse are both patches.

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

#290

Post by jldugger » Wed, Nov 04, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #263

on_and_off wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I assumed the idea was to allow popular but divisive issues to be decided upon without attaching the name of specific legislators to the issue.