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

#161

Post by smileysteve » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:20 PM UTC

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…

> He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned.

Especially in terms of congestion and efficiency, the "piggyback" model solves many problems and is complementary to clean air campaigns that governments spend millions on.

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

#162

Post by CodeWriter23 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:21 PM UTC

colejohnson66 wrote: post #126

tasuki wrote: post #111

> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to ch…

> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?

No. The point of AB5 was to make freelancing illegal and capture independent contractors and reduce their choices for employment to be union or non-union employees.

The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater.

AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars.

Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that.

AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe.

One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.

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

#163

Post by SkyBelow » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

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.

Couldn't government do it in two parts with 50%+1? First vote removes the requirement, second vote changes the law.

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

#164

Post by baq » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:22 PM UTC

qorrect wrote: post #105

jowsie wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a company can't both sustain itself and its employees financially, surely that's a failed business? If the only way you can survive is by exploiting the poor, maybe you should be rethinking your strategy.

| exploiting the poor I think a lot of those people wouldn't have jobs otherwise, is something better than nothing? Also it's not just the poor, I've had many friends use uber as a stop gap between jobs. One of my drivers had a masters in Finance - I don't see anything wrong with gig work as long as both sides know what they are signing up for.

Why would they be out of a job? Surely bleeding money in Uber’s case is a self-inflicted wound, because they provide a service below cost? Raise prices, problem solved.

Oh wait there are other companies that also follow the same model and Uber would lose all customers the moment it raised prices? Looks like something in the rules doesn’t add up unless VC money doesn’t stop flowing.

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

#165

Post by treeman79 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

wavepruner wrote: post #56

tor_anon_1 wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"thank God for these benevolent companies that lobby against universal healthcare and labor unions, so they can then be there for us when we don't have healthcare or union protection" Put another way: "Thank God purdue pharma is now manufacturing the cure[1] for the opioid epidemic that purdue pharma started" 1. https://apnews.com/article/6751b84767e8a1ebbaea6cb628ac2a11

As a disabled person who has also benefitted immensely from Uber, I hear this a lot, and it is really frustrating. No one will help me, especially progressive leaning people. You don't get political or social brownie points for helping disabled people the way you would for other minority groups who are struggling. We are constantly ignored and forgotten. I was in a situation where I needed money for healthcare that w…

Truth. Asked to work from home as a couldn’t handle commute. Ultra left managers did nothing but guilt trip me the entire time. Bunch of hypocrites.

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

#166

Post by rtkwe » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

awb wrote: post #155

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.

Sure if we could snap fingers and get to the UBI full social safety net overnight maybe it'd be fine, but right now what happens is businesses fight and lobby to reduce both taxes that would fund that net and against regulations to prevent abuses of workers who have to work or die.

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

#167

Post by ZoomerCretin » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:23 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #127

tasuki wrote: post #111

> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to ch…

All regulation and 'labor protection' does is accelerate the investment and transition into an AI anyway.

Exactly. This is why we need to repeal unnecessary government overreaches like the minimum wage and the 13th amendment.

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

#168

Post by xtian » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:25 PM UTC

dannyw wrote: post #114

Alex3917 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I d…

Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars.

The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is how our city streets went from shared spaces to the exclusive territory of drivers (much to the benefit of the auto industry).

Same thing is happening here. Perhaps a new class of labor does need to be created, but in a just world that would be happening on the terms of the workers, not the corporations.

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

#169

Post by SmokeyHamster » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:26 PM UTC

What a nonsense and biased article. Biden just raised and spent $1 billion on the 2020 campaign, but you won't see The Guardian claiming Biden "bought the election".

Yet if ridesharing companies spend money to advertise their position that, if the new ride-sharing rules were upheld, they would be forced to leave California, depriving thousands of people of work, that's somehow "buying a law"?

It was a referendum. People voted. The facts were on the side of Uber and Lyft, and they were able to persuade the public to see that.

The law was being pushed knowing full well that it would have killed Uber and Lyft. It was strongly supported by the unions who see Uber and Lyft as an existential threat. The unions can't compete with them, so they tried using the politicians they've bought to effectively outlaw them. Fortunately, it didn't work.

Uber and Lyft provide a service millions of people voluntarily use, with drivers who voluntarily chose to work. That's how our society should work. Government shouldn't be interfering with voluntary transactions.

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

#170

Post by boomboomsubban » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:27 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

Alex3917 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 the…

>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

No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again.

And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.