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

291–300 of 401 posts

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

#291

Post by piokoch »

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 think the question if the law make sense or not is somehow distracting us from a bigger problem.

The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money.

Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives were supposed to make law based on justice and ethics and common interest. Right now law is made because someone was able to pull out enough money to buy particular regulation.

There is some democratic ceremony around all this, but this is just a ceremony. The ancient Rome citizens also thought that they have democracy in the times of triumvirate, but this was also a show.

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

#293

Post by themacguffinman »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #265
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.

> 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.

And this isn't a fair characterization of how ads work. They don't magically change people's minds and stop people from forming their own conclusions. It doesn't mean the vote was "tricked" or "bought. Try spending $200MM on a nonsense bill and see how much support you can actually buy.

Like any endeavor, ads & marketing can be dishonest. If you actually thought any part of Uber's campaign was dishonest, I encourage you to say what you mean rather than cast vague aspersions.

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

#294

Post by Rebelgecko »

Der_Einzige wrote: post #260

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...

The number I saw thrown around online was that it'd cost $500m/year, so if you consider their campaigning to be an investment it'll definitely pay off and reduce their unprofitability.

TBH I think it's a moot point. How many human drivers will there be in 5 years? Or 10?

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

#295

Post by yohannparis »

Jommi wrote: post #124
yohannparis wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The issue is not the gig economy but businesses that force rules and behaviours (when to work, which client, you cannot refuse jobs, etc.) without labour protection. Either you are a platform that connects you to a potential client (like a powerful yellow page), or you are an employer.

And where does the line go?

Can you please elaborate, because, in the case of Uber/Lyft, it's simple, if you force when drivers go, they can't refuse clients, etc. Then you are not "just" a platform to connect driver and people looking for a ride. If you are imposing rules, other than local regulations, to the drivers, you are an employer, and you should follow labour law.

If you use Stripe API for examples, if you follow the law, and their T&C of services, they can't force you to sell to some clients, etc.

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

#296

Post by IshKebab »

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.

According to you. It's clearly a full time job for most drivers. The fact that you think it shouldn't be doesn't change that.

What do you expect full time taxi drivers to do exactly? Go back to working for local taxi companies and get zero customers?

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

#297

Post by proc0 »

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.

We should let the market evolve on its own as long as no one is forcing someone else to do the job. How the hell is a lawmaker in charge of the definition of a job? Uber just wanted to define it for themselves. Someone else that hates that model can try and do something different, or run marketing ads against people becoming drivers if it's that dangerous.

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

#298

Post by boomboomsubban »

rkho wrote: post #284
boomboomsubban wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has signed deals allowing their drivers to sell other products during trips, I still bet its banned and poorly enforced at least. https://www.uber.com/newsroom/uber-cargo-teaming-raise-prote...

> I still bet Full stop, this is when you cross the line into baseless speculation. Unless you have solid objective facts, it's disingenuous to continue propping up an argument with meritless speculation.

Objective fact, someone was willing to pay Uber for the right to sell to their customers. Uber seems to have some amount of control.

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

#299

Post by sokoloff »

piokoch wrote: post #291
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 think the question if the law make sense or not is somehow distracting us from a bigger problem. The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money. Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives…

Money can't buy you everything in politics. MA had ballot question #2, where the proponents raised an estimated $10M and the opponents raised an estimated $3500. (opponents were out-raised 3000:1)

The ballot initiative failed around 55%-45%, despite a massive difference in fundraising (and presumably associated spending).

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

#300

Post by wonder_er »

slg wrote: post #255
Dylan16807 wrote: post #248

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.

I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who vol…

> we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.

By "protect" you seem to suggest "outlaw the thing they want to do".

Can you imagine how outraged you'd feel, to be treated the way you're suggesting treating others?

How would you like for the state to say:

"Hey, /u/slg, for your own protection, you're not allowed to eat sugar anymore. It is now illegal to buy and sell sugar. You'll be fined if you try to purchase sugar, and if you're found with sugar in your house, you'll be taken to jail. These threats are, of course, for your protection, as the harmful effects of sugar are well-established."

Post reply on HN