Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22 • Hacker News Board

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

#151

Post by thehappypm » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

truculent wrote: post #108

ericabiz wrote: post #51

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…

Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.

There is a STRONG selection bias at play here.

Just to illustrate the point with fake numbers..

If 90% of drivers are doing the gig thing, maybe they’ll be driving Uber an hour a day on average. Then if 10% of drivers are doing 12 hours a day, most rides will be from the small minority of full time drivers.

It’s exactly the same as the experience most people have that flights tend to be overflowing with people, when the airlines claim many flights are totally empty.

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

#152

Post by mrfredward » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:13 PM UTC

momokoko wrote: post #75

ericabiz wrote: post #51

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…

Did he collect unemployment, which he does not pay into, during Covid? What is the max payout for his insurance as we’ll need to cover the rest since he is not covered by workers compensation? I could go on, but the point isn’t to protect him, the point is to protect us from picking up the bill for things he and Uber are not paying into.

The fact that Congress provided some relief to self-employed people during a once in a century disaster is absolutely not a good reason to reclassify people as employees.

Businesses got billions in forgivable loans to simply not fire the people they'd hired, it seems reasonable that self-employed people get some help.

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

#153

Post by rtkwe » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:14 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #147

gowld wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How would the AB5 law without 22 hurt him? What's wrong with part-time employment? Why is someone's beer money more important than someone else's full time subsistence?

I've done lots of things that deprive full time subsistences. For example, I used to repair people's phones and gadgets as a beer money gig; which deprive full-time repair shop employees. Should it be illegal for me to offer that service?

That's not what anyone is arguing for. The whole argument is that a company who treats people like employees (full control over interactions with and access to customers) should have to provide the benefits and pay the costs of an employer.

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

#154

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #143

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.

Weren't Uber drivers bombarded with Pro-Prop 22 messaging every time they opened the app or picked up a passenger? It would make sense that they would support it if >95% of the messaging they got about Prop 22 was from their employer who stood to gain hundreds of millions from its passage.

They were also threatened that Uber would shut down and California entirely if it failed.

If you had an upcoming vote on abolishing penal slavery, and prisoners were threatened with being gunned down if it passed, they might well oppose it.

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

#155

Post by awb » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:15 PM UTC

Saying a voting block was "tricked" or "bought" ignores millions of CA residents who read the law and formed their own conclusions.

There's a very progressive and pro-business case to be made for decoupling benefits from the employer-employee or contract-gig relationship and making those benefits universal instead.

Progressives get the social safety net they want and businesses gets the fewer regulations they want.

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

#156

Post by baq » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:17 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #137

x3ro wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I fully agree with you. In a society where people would not have any existential fears, employed or not, Uber would not get away with what they're doing anyway. But I think the argument is orthogonal to what I meant. In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk abo…

What do you make of the fact that most Uber drivers advocate for prop 22? https://www.reddit.com/r/uberdrivers/comments/i9awkm/my_fell... Sure, reddit comments are anecdotes, but have you asked Uber drivers what they want? Do you think it's fair to deprive someone the right to work? (I drive for Uber part time and I am happy being an IC. I do not want to be an employee. I drive for Uber because of the flexibility).

I’m a salaried worker and I don’t want the Uber model to spread further. I like that I can’t be forced to work more than 8h a day, 40h a week. The gig economy sidesteps these laws in a way that could impact what I like in the future should my employer decide it’s fair and make business sense, and if enough people also decide that, they all lose collective bargaining power and instead of people they become resources.

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

#157

Post by simias » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

stevesearer wrote: post #120

truculent wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.

I’m in Santa Barbara and I’ve had a number of drivers who are not full-time. Students, retired people, and my favorite was a guy who would take 1-2 trips on the way home from his job to put into a travel savings so he and his family upgrade their vacations.

Here in Portugal the vast majority of the drivers seem to be doing it full time (having 3 phones at the same time to use several apps and all that). Many (most?) of them are Brasilian immigrants. Uber is dirt-cheap too here, and gas is expensive, so I don't understand how they even manage to turn a reasonable profit. Taxis are significantly more expensive (easily twice as much in my experience).

Every market is different though, I can definitely believe that the situation could be very different in California.

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

#158

Post by rtkwe » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:18 PM UTC

intricatedetail wrote: post #142

IfOnlyYouKnew wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just declaring "oh this is a transitory job" doesn't make it so. Yes, according to Boomer legend, fast food joints used to be exclusively staffed by high school students for whom $8.25 is more than enough for an adequate weed supply. But that's just not true anymore, is it? And yet, its used as argument to deny full protection (for Uber) or not raise minimum wage (my fast food example). At the very least, it should b…

So why people who don't want protections should be limited to 15 hours?

It's the same distinction between part time and full time work, a lot of things kick in when you work more than 35-40 hours for a company. It's not about limiting people's time it's about making sure companies don't take advantage of people. You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime?

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

#159

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #102

ericabiz wrote: post #51

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.

If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer?

Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop them? This doesn't happen not because Uber is preventing it but because the passenger is. The next time they need a ride they don't want to have to call five drivers to find one who is in the area and available, they want to open the app and have it find one for them.

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

#160

Post by kemiller2002 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:19 PM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #121

kemiller2002 wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think this is the key statement to all of this. No one thinks about the risk. Running a business, which in a sense you are doing by being a contractor, is all about managing risk. When I ran a food business, that was 90% of my tasks, and I had to make sure that things continued to run no matter what happened. When you start realizing how exposed you are to bad things happening, it starts to wear on you. What happen…

This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would never make any new decisions.

No, a small thing is blowing a tire, or fixing an engine. Being sued for pain and suffering because an accident occurred that wasn't your fault, that's not small. Things like that literally ruin your life.

You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that there are attorneys that spend their entire career focusing on things like this. When dealing with insurance there is no, "Well it's ok, I'm insured." It's, "I'm insured if I can prove I didn't break any of the insurance contract rules," and the people on the other side, they're all better at this than you are. Most people who drive for Uber, etc. have no idea this is how it really is. The driving companies have pushed all this off to individuals, because they know the consequences of them getting involved, and this is why there needs to be laws surrounding things like this.