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

311–320 of 387 posts

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

#311

Post by dmitriid »

nickpp wrote: post #281
dmitriid wrote: post #229

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

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

I am really replying to the statement that you made: "That "myth" is what America was built on and what made it great. "

> I lived without ANY freedoms. Taken away by the (communist) government

Ah yes, because there are exactly two possible modes of living in this world: communism and corporate cronyism called FREEDOM in the US.

Meanwhile there are charity orgnizations that used to go to the poorest regions in Africa to provide free healthcare. And then they stopped doing that and started doing that in the US. Because FREEDOM.

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

#312

Post by dmitriid »

apta wrote: post #211
dmitriid wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ah, the myth of American freedom: with no health insurance, no maternity leave to speak of, no safety nets, no guarantees in the form of liveable minimum wages...

Fix the underlying problem then instead of going after private companies.

How do you imagine fixing, for example, minimum wage without "going after private companies"?

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

#313

Post by nojvek »

I am in major disagreement that Employers should pay for health insurance. An employee works for an employer, employer pays them for their work. That should be the only contract. The health insurance market should be the same no matter who you work for. In fact living in Australia, the user experience I want is to pay a bit extra in tax and receive the same level of affordable healthcare.

I just find it so hard that many Americans don't see the logic in this. This is NOT a new idea. It's being done for over a 100 years in many modern nations. Employee healthcare is only an American thing AFAIK. It's a shitty deal for both employers and employees.

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

#314

Post by jrowley »

CountSessine wrote: post #304
jrowley wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot “make my own Uber”. I don’t have a bottomless pit of Saudi Oil money to throw into this unprofitable space. The only people that have the money to compete have no desire to put workers first. They are just trying to establish a monopoly and drive existing, successful, more efficient and sustainable forms of transit out of business.

The barrier to entry for a taxi service, in a sensible jurisdiction, is very low - put a sign on your car and start driving people around. Uber and Lyft became so popular precisely because there are so many insensibly-regulated jurisdictions that made even this start-your-own-taxi-service illegal in order to create artificial scarcity. Highly-regulated medallion taxi services suck - both independent taxis as well as…

And I’d argue the barrier to entry for taxi businesses should be higher. More cars on the road doesn’t help the environment, or speed up anyone’s commute. Allowing Uber to circumvent this is moving our state in the wrong direction. And uber’s experience while better in some ways, is only better at the cost of the environment, and workers rights.

If we don’t allow artificial scarcity/restrictions on number of cars on the road, maybe we should stop subsidizing fossil fuels too.

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

#315

Post by Rebelgecko »

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.

The 7/8th requirement only applies to the state legislature, not to the people. prop 22 can still be overturned by a simple majority in a new referendum.

AB5 passed with 80% of the vote, so requiring a lower threshold would be self-defeating.

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

#316

Post by Rebelgecko »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #238
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…

If your problem with AB5 is that it has too many exemptions, why did you think that voting for more exemptions would express your concern? I think most people see this as Californians rejecting this type of legislation, not asking for it to be more broadly applied.

If everyone is exempt, then AB5 is dead

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

#317

Post by zests »

xg15 wrote: post #236
zests wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Healthcare costs per capita are generally higher in the US than they are in Europe. I am curious whether or not you think we should focus on increasing spending to increase medicare coverage or if we should focus on decreasing healthcare costs for the country as a whole. The right answer is probably "both" but you can't exactly vote for "both" political parties. Its a boring answer anyway :)

So, what proposals have republicans for decreasing healthcare costs? Remind people to get sick less?

> Trump Administration Announces Historic Price Transparency Requirements to Increase Competition and Lower Healthcare Costs for All Americans

> President Trump Signs “Most Favored Nation Price” Executive Order on Drug Pricing

Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information.

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

#318

Post by jrowley »

cbozeman wrote: post #246
jrowley wrote: post #212

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I cannot “make my own Uber”. I don’t have a bottomless pit of Saudi Oil money to throw into this unprofitable space. The only people that have the money to compete have no desire to put workers first. They are just trying to establish a monopoly and drive existing, successful, more efficient and sustainable forms of transit out of business.

Yes you can. You don't want to. That's not the same thing. Its been my experience over the decades that when people say, "I can't do "x"", they really mean, "Doing "x" is going to be really, really hard and I don't want to work hard."

First, I highly doubt any investors would be interested in yet another Uber/Lyft competitor with nothing to differentiate. They operate at billion dollar losses and just laid off a bunch of employees. It's just a race to who can drive prices lowest and establish a monopoly.

Second, you're right in part, I don't want to build another uber, but not because its hard work (I like hard work). It's just that ethically Uber is pushing our country in the wrong direction, furthering our dependence on private individual transit, while further burdening the worker and the environment.

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

#319

Post by bergstromm466 »

zests wrote: post #317
xg15 wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So, what proposals have republicans for decreasing healthcare costs? Remind people to get sick less?

> Trump Administration Announces Historic Price Transparency Requirements to Increase Competition and Lower Healthcare Costs for All Americans > President Trump Signs “Most Favored Nation Price” Executive Order on Drug Pricing Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information.

> Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information.

Headlines are not arguments...

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

#320

Post by apta »

dmitriid wrote: post #312
apta wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Fix the underlying problem then instead of going after private companies.

How do you imagine fixing, for example, minimum wage without "going after private companies"?

They will be providing more than minimum wage as per prop22. The real issue is that the state should provide health insurance.
Post reply on HN