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

361–370 of 387 posts

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

#361

Post by austhrow743 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #280
nxc18 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. Having a functional social safety net basically moots the issue of classifying employees.

> I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support. It would seem to make more sense…

Treating slaves decently law doesn't hinder you in post slave world.

Employment classifications are a hindrance whether the state is footing the safety net bill or not.

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

#362

Post by austhrow743 »

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.

If you buy someone something because you want them to have that thing, that's in no way a subsidy of a different entity you tried and failed to force to buy it.

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

#363

Post by esc_colon_q »

ashtonkem wrote: post #176
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…

It not only creates “rules for me but not for thee”, but it sure as hell looks like big tech companies can just buy laws in CA when they don’t like what the legislature does.

Yes, that is what happens when direct democracy is allowed, anyone who can influence public opinion (rightly or wrongly) can make whatever laws they want, and it's a big reason that many people are opposed to ballot initiatives as a matter of principle.

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

#364

Post by aidenn0 »

apta wrote: post #356
aidenn0 wrote: post #171

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many people I talked to were completely misinformed on what this measure entailed. All 5 people I talked to about this proposition thought a yes on 22 would guarantee minimum-wage and health-care for gig workers. Tiny sample size, and perhaps lots of other people were similarly corrected by other friends before voting, but I found that rather odd.

It does guarantee minimum wage.

Not in any meaningful way.

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

#365

Post by daveFNbuck »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #316
daveFNbuck wrote: post #238

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

I thought your goal was to have AB5 without the exemptions. How does killing AB5 by increasing the exemptions get you closer to that goal?

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

#367

Post by Rebelgecko »

daveFNbuck wrote: post #365
Rebelgecko wrote: post #316

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If everyone is exempt, then AB5 is dead

I thought your goal was to have AB5 without the exemptions. How does killing AB5 by increasing the exemptions get you closer to that goal?

Nope, my goal is to get rid of it because I think it was passed without considering the consequences. All of the loopholes and exceptions are just bandaids

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

#368

Post by Jommi »

mdorazio wrote: post #178
zaroth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has been profitable in the USA for years now. https://fortune.com/2016/02/18/uber-profitable-us/

No it hasn't. Please stop saying this. If you read their actual financial filings instead of press releases, it is very clear that they are not profitable on a GAAP basis without accounting games in any region, especially this year. They hide their unprofitability with non-GAAP figures and loss allocation to departments where they don't really belong (ex. technology development).

I've read the filings many times. Ubers NA ridehailing business is vastly profitable.

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

#369

Post by dllthomas »

dragonwriter wrote: post #342
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…

> Now, it merely requires a legislative ultra-majority - improbable but more realistic than another public vote. Public initiatives are far more easy to pass than legislative ultra majorities, which is why they are often used to bypass requirements for mere supermajorities in the legislature in CA. It's true that the 7/8 out doesn't make it harder to pass change since it can still be overturned by vote of the people,…

I don't think it's easier, exactly - if you can get 7/8 you could presumably pass a referendum. But it can certainly be faster (and cheaper), if you do have agreement.

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

#370

Post by daveFNbuck »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #367
daveFNbuck wrote: post #365

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I thought your goal was to have AB5 without the exemptions. How does killing AB5 by increasing the exemptions get you closer to that goal?

Nope, my goal is to get rid of it because I think it was passed without considering the consequences. All of the loopholes and exceptions are just bandaids

So your objection is that it's poorly written, not that it has too many exceptions?
Post reply on HN