Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

41–50 of 401 posts

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#41

Post by wavepruner »

mfDjB wrote: post #36

Anecdotally when I talk to Uber drivers about how they feel about laws like this, they are staunchly against it, in fact I haven't found one that is for it (sample size of maybe 20 or so). Does anyone have any data on whether these drivers actually want AB5 in effect? All I see from the pro side are cherry-picked examples.

As an Uber driver, I can tell you, the majority of drivers are against AB5, but that doesn't fit into the mainstream media or Democrat's agenda, so you'll rarely hear that fact.

The driver's that are for AB5 tend to be newer one's who have yet to figure out their market and how to be profitable.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#42

Post by refurb »

kilotaras wrote: post #29
uptown wrote: post #17

One element of Prop 22 which seems extreme to me are the voting requirements to one-day overturn the law: "A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature." I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.

AFAIK proposals (e.g infamous prop 13) cannot be overturned by legislature at all, even with 100%. So 7/8th is actually easier than default.

Correct.

"The California State Legislature may not amend or repeal an approved measure without submitting the change to voters. However, a ballot measure may include a clause waiving this protection either entirely or conditionally."

https://ballotpedia.org/Laws_governing_the_initiative_proces...

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#43

Post by googthrowaway42 »

maxehmookau wrote: post #39
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. Yes you have correctly detected that.

So because of your bias against a particular... job title? That discounts her entire argument?

The argument discounts itself. Her bio explains why she would make such an argument.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#44

Post by sokoloff »

pixelbash wrote: post #31
sokoloff wrote: post #9

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's a fair point, but if your education is not in demand, I don't see a reason to think that driving a car, something that 80+% of American adults are capable of doing, should provide a full household income on 40 hours per week of effort. That initial condition (your education is not in demand) definitely represents a tough position, but it's not clear that it's ride-sharing's "fault" in any way. Instead, it seem…

Sorry, are you saying that working a 40 hour week shouldn't earn a living wage if it's a non-specialised skill?

I'm saying that if there is not enough demand for that work to support a wage that will provide a living wage on 40 hours/week, that you can't legislate up enough excess demand to make the equation solve the way you might like it to.

In most (maybe all) markets, there is not enough consumer demand at the prices that would be required to support a living wage for everyone for whom flexible ride-share driving is the most lucrative work readily available. Now, iff that's true, what should the legislature do? Prevent that work from being done at all? Ration the supply (medallions or companies refusing to let drivers choose when/if to work)? The people said no, including a lot of current ride-share drivers.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#45

Post by refurb »

satya71 wrote: post #7
jimmar wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.

Have you tried finding work when your education is not in demand? Please don’t minimize other’s lived experience.

Sure. But can anyone honestly argue that driving for Uber/Lyft is the only employment option they have? I mean, what would they have done before those companies existed?

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#46

Post by maxehmookau »

maxehmookau wrote: post #39
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. Yes you have correctly detected that.

So because of your bias against a particular... job title? That discounts her entire argument?

> The argument discounts itself.

It quite simply doesn't, and if you truly believe it does I'd genuinely love to understand why you think that.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#47

Post by rectang »

treeman79 wrote: post #18

Got injured awhile back. Disability decided to play hardball. Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered. Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference. Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.

I drove for Lyft for a while while taking a break from software. Then I got t-boned by a red-light runner.

Fortunately no one was injured. I was on my way to pick up a passenger, but it was only me in the vehicle.

When I went to make my insurance claim to fix several thousand dollars worth of damage to my car, I discovered that despite having done a lot of research when trying to buy the right insurance with a rideshare rider and which was compatible with Lyft's own insurance, I wasn't covered. I had to eat the bill.

Fortunately, I was a software engineer moonlighting and I had savings to take care of it, rather than a typical Lyft driver living with far less cushion.

This sort of thing doesn't happen when you're an employee. The essence of the gig economy is doing away with hard-won labor protections and increasing profitability by offloading risk onto workers, creating the statistical certainty that a fraction of your workforce will experience circumstances far more tragic than mine.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#49

Post by eplanit »

maxehmookau wrote: post #30
googthrowaway42 wrote: post #4

"In California, one of the world’s wealthiest economies, I should be able to afford rent and pay my bills as a driver. I shouldn’t be forced to scour for public bathrooms or work 70-hour weeks to do this job. But that’s what these companies have forced upon us." "Uber may have bought itself a law, but it has not bought itself reprieve. All labor has dignity, and driving for Uber or Lyft should be no different." Cherr…

I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. You've attacked the person rather than the argument. Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

I'm detecting a bit of judgement in your reply, too.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#50

Post by x3ro »

jimmar wrote: post #2

Maybe I'm too libertarian-leaning, but doesn't the author of the article have the option of NOT driving for Uber? If California is truly one of the wealthiest economies, the author should be able to find a different line of work.

Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work?

It's great that the HN crowd is primarily privileged from an income point of view, but I find it hard to fathom that people lose sight of the fact that not everyone is this fortunate, and those less fortunate also deserve to live a life without fear of getting sick.

Post reply on HN