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

#201

Post by rtkwe » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:51 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #179

rtkwe wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 pa…

> 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? Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, stil…

There's no voluntary out for overtime because companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours and employees then and now had very little protection against retaliation if they didn't want to.

A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.

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

#202

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:52 PM UTC

boomboomsubban wrote: post #170

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again

When I go to a new city, I make note of great Uber drivers. I then hire them directly. Often, they become a porter of sorts. I pay them to drive but also e.g. for taking out laundry and recommending places of interest.

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

#203

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:54 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #201

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, stil…

There's no voluntary out for overtime because companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours and employees then and now had very little protection against retaliation if they didn't want to. A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.

> companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours

When the 41st hour costs as much as the 39th, yes. When it cost more, one hires more people. Or a temp agency.

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

#204

Post by gentaro » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 3:56 PM UTC

fennecfoxen wrote: post #145

gentaro wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

He has to attack the person because opposing the idea of people making a living wage makes you look like a callous idiot.

This says more about the label than the opposition. The "living wage" bakes in a variety of assumptions. First of all is the assumption that people shouldn't work if they're not out to earn a full-time living from that work. This view is typical of posh Americans who went to nice universities, had snazzy internships, and are now happily working full time. It gleefully ignores those who need to start lower, and get en…

The point that you're ignoring is that most people working these "entry-level" jobs in fact DO depend on them to cover their living expenses.

What you're suggesting is to set those people in a race to the bottom along with the high school kid and retiree looking for "a little extra money". The point of setting a living wage is to set a bare minimum standard for employment.

You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies, but you'd have to do research instead of just complaining.

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

#205

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:02 PM UTC

CodeWriter23 wrote: post #162

colejohnson66 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 styli…

> 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)

The lawmakers who wrote and voted for AB5 all had strong union connections.

I support private-sector unions. But don’t forget: unions are high-margin and effective get-out-the-vote operations.

The exempted professions have one thing in common: they aren’t union. The covered professions are either already unionised or a target market for conglomerate unions like the AFL-CIO.

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

#206

Post by kemiller2002 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:04 PM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #198

kemiller2002 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 th…

This really seems to be a common trend on these Uber discussions. Americans bringing up cracks in the terribly terribly faulty infrastructure/systems (such as the legal system or the healthcare system) and try to find a way to blame it on Uber/gigwork. It's quite incredible really.

No it's not that incredible. Workers have rights. That's been true for over 100 years. The fact that Uber is trying to skirt it, and they've been getting away with it is incredible.

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

#207

Post by claudiawerner » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

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…

>But no one is entitled to anything.

This statement is derived from a particular understanding of the individual, society, and the state, and is by no means universally taken as true among all political philosophers. In fact, even many economists aren't sold on this idea. As it turns out, if I subscribe to a philosophy in which people are entitled to various things, as a matter of distributive justice, then you can be sure I'll vote for it.

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

#208

Post by Alex3917 » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:05 PM UTC

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #202

boomboomsubban wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

> you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again When I go to a new city, I make note of great Uber drivers. I then hire them directly. Often, they become a porter of sorts. I pay them to drive but also e.g. for taking out laundry and recommending places of interest.

> I then hire them directly.

Which can get them kicked off the app, and leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in car loans that they have no way of repaying. That's what makes them employees and not independent contractors, the fact that they aren't allowed to do this.

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

#209

Post by AnthonyMouse » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:09 PM UTC

rtkwe wrote: post #201

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #179

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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? Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, stil…

There's no voluntary out for overtime because companies usually demanded that employees worked those longer hours and employees then and now had very little protection against retaliation if they didn't want to. A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.

> A lot of the 'employee choice' arguments depend on an illusion of free association when the employer has almost all the power to set work conditions and can let the employee go at will with no compensation.

The "illusion" existed at a time when there were company towns and a Big Three automaker cartel and you really couldn't just go work for somebody else. It's a pretty outdated argument when if you don't like working for Walmart you can realistically just go across the street and take a job at Target.

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

#210

Post by JumpCrisscross » Fri, Nov 13, 2020, 4:10 PM UTC

Alex3917 wrote: post #208

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again When I go to a new city, I make note of great Uber drivers. I then hire them directly. Often, they become a porter of sorts. I pay them to drive but also e.g. for taking out laundry and recommending places of interest.

> I then hire them directly. Which can get them kicked off the app, and leave them with tens of thousands of dollars in car loans that they have no way of repaying. That's what makes them employees and not independent contractors, the fact that they aren't allowed to do this.

> Which can get them kicked off the app

Can you cite a single example of this?