Live data from Hacker News

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

theguardian.com

261–270 of 401 posts

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

#261

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It wasn’t really profit - it was the money to pay your own wage. Now, if you took say $10 an hour out, it might be fair to say the rest is profit.

Profit is revenue minus expenses. Employees don't do this calculation, as the employer normally pays for all work expenses. Their paycheck is pure profit -- no expenses to account for. As such, people don't really think of paychecks in these terms, so it sounds strange. It makes sense in the comment above, as the cab driver actually has work expenses that they pay for out of pocket and are not reimbursed for.

It starts as a gross value and after taxes, ei/old age is taken out it becomes a much smaller net value.

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

#262

Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees (ergo, to do what Uber didn't want to do so badly they got a ballot initiative). I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...

> Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees

They wouldn't have had to treat them all as full-time employees, only as employees.

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

#263

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…

The furniture company takes on all the risk when they buy inventory. Uber drivers provide a service

So they took the risk building an infrastructure. What's the difference?

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

#264
post #11
post #5

Ellipsis is accomplished with an ellipsis, not a dash. Use ... next time.

This is the worst kind of pedantic because it is both pedantic and wrong[1]. You could argue against the dramatic period after the word "law," but why would you? We all understand her meaning and the dashes emphasize her point without bold or italic letters. 1. https://writingessentialsbyellen.com/when-to-use-the-ellipsi...

We don't all understand the meaning.

And yes, here, the purpose was ellipsis: the original text was "Uber bought itself a law. Here's why that's dangerous for struggling drivers like me" and the submission was eliding portions of that.

Your link and criticism are entirely inapt. The title was not using the dash for emphasis, and even if it were, it would have been inappropriate. The examples in the article you link are of a dash making a break in the chain of thought more emphatic. Dashes are not used to emphasize enclosed text itself.

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

#265
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.

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

This isn't a fair characterization of how people cast their ballots. They see the ad and it has some non-zero effect. If running ads was ineffective in swaying public opinion, there wouldn't have been a $200m persuasion campaign.

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

#266
post #259
post #242

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver. The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.

Your relationship cannot be determined by this example. You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.

> In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.

No. Look at https://arcade.city. Their drivers are independent business operators, because they own the relationship with the riders. Uber drivers not only don't own the relationship with riders, but they're forbidden from owning it, which is what makes them employees. It's literally against the terms of service for Uber drivers to act as independent business owners, despite the expensive PR campaigns they run for regulators and the general public.

The CEO of Uber was literally fired for getting caught on camera berating an employee who was complaining that Travis had lowered the amount of money he was earning after the employee had taken out a huge car loan. If this driver wasn't an employee, he would have been allowed to set his own prices, so that conversation never could have even happened.

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

#267

Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees (ergo, to do what Uber didn't want to do so badly they got a ballot initiative). I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...

> Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees They wouldn't have had to treat them all as full-time employees, only as employees.

Hahaha, good correction. All that does is reduce my already low amounts of sympathy for Uber

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

#268
post #109
post #69

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's anecdotal but I always chat with my Uber drivers and nearly 100% of them are driving full time. I assume it's a "most rides are driven by a full-timer, most drivers are part timers" situation. I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers s…

I have the complete opposite anecdotal experience. Your 2nd paragraph is exactly what prop22 added. Now full-time drivers enjoy some benefits.

Full time drivers already enjoyed benefits under California law. While Prop 22 talked about giving benefits, that’s not what the law does in practice at all. In fact, it actually removes protections. The key to this surprising revelation is that Uber et al wrote proposition so that only when you’re actively driving do the minutes count towards the amount you need to gain the benefit. In other words, to get the 25 hours of engaged time, you need to be available for 40+ hours. That’s a full time job.

To make this a concrete example, consider a DoorDash driver. They get an order to drive to a restaurant. Clock starts, they get 15 minutes. The order isn’t ready, so they’re waiting for another 15 minutes, but the clock is stopped. Then they drive to your house, which takes another 15. A 45 minute task, but only 30 minutes counts. “But they’re not working when they’re waiting!” DoorDash cries. But they’re not free to leave, because then they’d lose the entire payout and get blackballed. It’s just a process inefficiency. If the driver worked for the restaurant, they’d still get paid while waiting.

The original law that Prop 22 replaced, addressed this down time, and because of this, Prop 22 was written.

While there maybe reasonable arguments to be made about how gig work is different from full time and traditional contractor work, the most damning part of Prop 22 for me was the 7/8s majority needed to amend the new law. That’s just bullshit.

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

#269
post #198

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.

The American social contract delegated the role of filling those 'cracks' to the employment relationship. It might not be ideal, but it's not obvious to me why its any less legitimate than other arrangements.

Gig work is new, and doesn't fit cleanly into the existing framework. Uber et al.'s patch for reconciling gig-work appears to many to be essentially a wholesale rejection of the spirit of the agreement, thus opening up new existential risks for those of small means.

While those arguments may land short of the complete truth, they do appear to hold some merit; Maybe it's simply ignorance, but I'm not aware of Uber advocating for a comprehensive review of how California provides life-support benefits to residents in a way that ensures their service providers are not unduly at risk relative to the general population. Instead, proposition 22 appears to be as close to 'I've transacted profitably; fuck your life, it's not my problem.' as they could hope to achieve.

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

#270

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…

This comment is wrong on so many levels.

Most importantly, you don't want others get the protection they deserve because it works fine for your husband.

Post reply on HN