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

311–320 of 401 posts

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

#311

Post by jakelazaroff »

wonder_er wrote: post #300
slg wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fin…

You can make that exact same argument against labor laws, consumer protection laws, building codes, etc. "How would you like for the state to tell you that you can't buy a house with lead paint?"

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

#312

Post by arrosenberg »

xeromal wrote: post #308
arrosenberg wrote: post #302

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Being a contractor means setting your own contracts . Choosing hours is part of that, but you can offer flexible hours to part-time employees to the extent your business permits, nothing saying you can't.

Isn't every time you confirm a ride a contract?

Yes, but not the way you are constructing it. The driver doesn't get to set the price, and there are downsides to declining the fare. Additionally there is no relationship established between the driver and the rider. The carriage contract is between Uber/Lyft and the rider. The platform is then hiring the driver to fulfill their end of the contract. The driver and rider have no ability to form future contracts, unless they break the terms of service and exchange information during the ride. The business models could be tweaked to accommodate proper contractor relationships, but then Uber wouldn't be able to achieve their goal, which is monopoly control over public transit.

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

#313

Post by sokoloff »

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, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.

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

#314

Post by slg »

wonder_er wrote: post #300
slg wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 fin…

Yes, I can imagine being outraged in that situation. However I would also understand this is how life in a society works. Sometimes my personal needs come second to the needs of the society.

I don't personally agree with the US's war on drugs for example. There is probably an argument that on total sugar is more damaging to American society than marijuana. If society decided to ban sugar, I wouldn't be thrilled, but I would understand it.

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

#315

Post by slg »

sokoloff wrote: post #313
slg wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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, but my default position is that we do not want the government to interfere with someone's pursuit of happiness in the general case.

I wouldn't be nearly as outraged at Prop 22 if it simply repealed AB5. However it goes much beyond that. It is a proactive law that prevents new and better laws from being created. It creates a new protection for these companies.

This isn't a win for small government.

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

#316

Post by s1artibartfast »

rectang wrote: post #47
treeman79 wrote: post #18

Got injured awhile back. Disability decided to play hardball. Gig jobs are all that kept family off the street while I recovered. Starting and stopping anytime as my body could tolerate. Or renting out rooms on Airbnb. Sometimes it took me 4 hours to change sheets and tidy up, but it made the difference. Not saying their good companies. But gigs was crazy valuable to me.

I drove for Lyft for a while while taking a break from software. Then I got t-boned by a red-light runner. Fortunately no one was injured. I was on my way to pick up a passenger, but it was only me in the vehicle. When I went to make my insurance claim to fix several thousand dollars worth of damage to my car, I discovered that despite having done a lot of research when trying to buy the right insurance with a ridesh…

However, This type of liability situation does happen when to sole proprietors running a business.

Making drivers employees isn’t the only solution. There are any number of profession that are required to have appropriate insurances

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

#317

Post by xeromal »

arrosenberg wrote: post #312
xeromal wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Isn't every time you confirm a ride a contract?

Yes, but not the way you are constructing it. The driver doesn't get to set the price, and there are downsides to declining the fare. Additionally there is no relationship established between the driver and the rider. The carriage contract is between Uber/Lyft and the rider. The platform is then hiring the driver to fulfill their end of the contract. The driver and rider have no ability to form future contracts, unle…

Actually the driver does set the price. They get to set whatever multiplier they desire and can effectively set the price to whatever they believe is fair.

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

#318

Post by download13 »

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…

Good thing they added that clause about how it needs a 7/8ths majority to repeal, ensuring this special law will be with us forever

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

#319

Post by xtian »

CryptoPunk wrote: post #234
xtian wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Labor market fluidity isn't pro-worker, it's an essential component of the commodification of labor. It simply means the shape of a person's life is more fully suborned to the demands of the market. It means competing on a national and often international market for wages. A workforce full of transplants is much less likely to organize and resist the agenda of capital than one with deep community roots and support st…

You're once again framing a nuanced phenomenon in terms of a simplistic oppressor/oppressed narrative. The fluidity of labor does not imply the commodification of labor. It implies a wider market for it, which has benefits like increasing the liquidity accessible to those with labor to sell. This marketization of labor was partially responsible for wages increasing over 20 fold, in inflation adjusted terms, since 182…

I was implying that it doesn't really matter what the nature of the impact is if common people aren't the ones controlling the levers of power. I'm not romanticizing anything. I'm simply trying to draw attention to the nature of the power dynamics at play.

And I didn't say the fluidity of labor implied the commodification of labor. It's the complete opposite. The motive force of the capitalist system is the growth of capital. The commodification of labor is absolutely essential to that process.

If you want to talk about oversimplification let's talk about summing up the effects of globalization as "wages increasing 20 fold […] since 1820".

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

#320

Post by vicpara »

What a typical American law and counter response.

As an European is fascinating and mind numbing how much you guys are squezeeing the ones in need through crazy lobbying and sophisticated mechanisms. You keep inventing new ways of paying people less than the legal hourly rate just because you got them by the .....

Then you have a principled, transparent, democratic approach in your congress trying to fix social injustice.

This article was on the first page of HN today with this article: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=25083315

The same step by step, slow moving ratched applied not to systematic genocide but to corporate benefits and squeezing whomever you can for one extra penny. Well done you. Surely you have already forgotten how you ended up with Prop 22 in the first place.

Post reply on HN