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

341–350 of 401 posts

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

#341

Post by kfarr »

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…

Motor vehicle driving with passengers is an extremely high liability occupation compared to most other jobs.

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

#342

Post by titanomachy »

Jommi wrote: post #303
jonathankoren wrote: post #268

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 hou…

Did you even read the wording of the prop? What you are describing is completely wrong. It's incredible how short sighted people get when they want to go all out and lash at the "evil" gig economy companies. Like really, the wording is publicly available for you to read. Engaged time is time from accepting the gig, to the time the gig ends. Waiting is included. That's it.

This is correct. Although it's also true that drivers may have to spend quite a bit of time waiting for a job to become available, which doesn't count as engaged time.

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

#343

Post by austhrow743 »

tschwimmer wrote: post #330
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…

If there are some months that he only makes a few hundred dollars, it's possible that you're actually losing money on depreciation (even if you're net positive on current costs like gas and maintenance). This is something that I see very few drivers talk about but influences your earnings significantly. Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you…

I find it incredibly hard to believe depreciation would be that significant of a factor if someone driving part time is pulling in hundreds or occasionally a thousand a month. They’d have to be reducing a new car down to a total loss every couple of years, just through ubering. Doesn’t make sense.

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

#344

Post by fennecfoxen »

gentaro wrote: post #279
fennecfoxen wrote: post #217

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed . Chopping off the bottom of the labor market benefits a few people, yes, it just throws others who are less valuable to your political party into the abyss. > You'd also find that the same politicians pushing a for a minimum wage are the ones trying to address broken housing policies.…

> No, that point that you're ignoring in pointing that out is that if they don't depend on these jobs then they're entirely unemployed. Those jobs don't disappear just because you mandate a living wage.

No, all jobs don't disappear. Some, however, do. Some are no longer profitable, more are replaced by capital investments. Economics denialism is quite strong in your circles, as I noted.

It's even more of a pity because we should be investing capital in meaningful things, like biotech or space exploration or environmental progress or what-have-you, instead of on stupid things like robots and restaurant apps.

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

#345

Post by AnthonyMouse »

rtkwe wrote: post #326
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 work…

There are maybe some jobs that are that fungible (even then I'd love to see numbers on time between jobs on any industry) but for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage the threat of losing your job is real and the gap before getting a similarly paying job is real and threatening to a lot of people. Even in low paying 'fungible' jobs the threat of losing your job and the gap between one minimum wage job and the…

> but for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage the threat of losing your job is real and the gap before getting a similarly paying job is real and threatening to a lot of people.

But for better jobs that aren't paying minimum wage, the rules don't really change anything. Most of the better jobs pay salary instead of hourly anyway, and even for the ones that don't, if you're making non-trivially more than minimum wage then you can negotiate around the restriction anyway.

Averaging $25/hour because you worked 80 hours at $25/hour is the same result as having a base pay of $20 and working 40 hours of overtime at $30. So if you were getting paid $25/hour and want more hours, you can offer to work for $20/hour, get the extra hours and still average $25, i.e. in practice you can waive the overtime premium because doing so doesn't put you under the minimum wage.

> Companies are paying below minimum wage, refusing to pay over time, requiring off clock time, etc and employees feel like they can't come forward because they can't afford any interruption in their wages because of a number of things but chief among them is if you're living paycheck to paycheck even missing one week's wages can put you in a debt spiral.

These are really just unlawful methods of avoiding the negative effects of the prohibition on choice.

There exist employers who don't do those things, so why don't those people quit and work there instead? Because their existing job has some countervailing benefit. Maybe it's less of a commute, or has more flexible hours, or the alternative job is higher stress or more dangerous. It's not legal to have you work 50 hours and pay you for 40, but when the alternative is that you lose the job because it can't actually command that hourly wage, prohibiting that choice (or the equivalent one where you get paid for all your hours but at a lower hourly wage) isn't actually helping. Because then you get stuck with the alternative where you work for 40 hours and get paid for 40 hours but spend 12 extra hours a week commuting, which might be legal but does nothing for you than to cost you an extra two hours a week and $150/month in fuel.

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

#346

Post by AnthonyMouse »

arrosenberg wrote: post #309
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…

> Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. Most of those regulations were written in blood, toil, and tears - they deserve more respect than that. You are correct - regulations often limit an individual's ability to maximize their own gains in order to lift the overall floor. If you want to maximize your income, start a private car service and build your own clientele like an actual independent operator. Alt…

> You are correct - regulations often limit an individual's ability to maximize their own gains in order to lift the overall floor.

The problem is they regularly fail to lift the overall floor. Prohibiting your existing best available source of employment will, as a rule, leave you with an alternative which is even less good. Something with more pay but a longer commute that eats that pay and then some. Something more dangerous, or less convenient, or less stable, or more stressful. And then you get paid a little more in exchange for losing something that was worth more to you than the money.

> Alternatively, we could offer public healthcare, social housing, and food guarantees, decoupling work from survival.

Or a UBI. Which is what we should do.

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

#347

Post by arrosenberg »

randompwd wrote: post #333
arrosenberg wrote: post #312

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I don't get to walk in to a shop and set the price I pay for goods. They have items with an implicit offer for sale. I can either take or reject the contract. It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers. Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side…

Interestingly, in your example it is often quite possible to negotiate or haggle on price when you are dealing with an independent agent. Employees who don’t have that agency in the business are unable to budge on price.

I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.

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

#348

Post by momokoko »

renewiltord wrote: post #243
momokoko wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount. There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.

Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs. Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.

Because other people specifically do have to pay into workers compensation because we collectively decided everyone should.

Her husband and Uber are gaming the system to avoid that responsibility.

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

#349

Post by randompwd »

arrosenberg wrote: post #347
randompwd wrote: post #333

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't get to walk in to a shop and set the price I pay for goods. They have items with an implicit offer for sale. I can either take or reject the contract. It's a 3 way relationship between driver, passenger with Uber facilitating that relationship. Uber owns the passengers and they offer drivers the ability to fulfill the potential-passengers. Maybe this would be clearer if Uber offered an API for the driver side…

Interestingly, in your example it is often quite possible to negotiate or haggle on price when you are dealing with an independent agent. Employees who don’t have that agency in the business are unable to budge on price. I can’t completely tell whether you are agreeing with me or not, but I think that example reinforces that Uber drivers are exploited employees with the benefit of a flexible schedule.

I 100% am not agreeing with your position.

I was coming at it from the point of view of the customer.

Negotiating a sale price is not exclusive to independent agents. Some stores and indeed some chains will allow their employees(supervisor/manager) to accept a lower price. That is not exclusive to or indicative of an independent contractor.

Someone who drives for Uber has the agency to turn down work that Uber puts in front of them with 0 reason needed to be given (either to customer or Uber).

Related, if a software contracting firm says: 'hey, there's a gig that pays $x an hour, no negotiations - do you want it?'

I don't suddenly become an employee of the firm I'm contracting for just because I didn't get a chance to negotiate the price. I had agency to accept or decline the contract.

If I'm going for a job as an employee and negotiate my salary, they don't suddenly mark me down as a contractor.

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

#350

Post by SllX »

jryle70 wrote: post #329
SllX wrote: post #55

If the 2020 elections proved anything, it’s that money doesn’t buy elections. Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State. Money gets you into the game, it doesn’t get you over the finish line. Back to Prop 22, Uber didn’t buy a law, Calif…

> Bloomberg tried in the Primary, and tried again in Texas on behalf of Biden and the Democrats and their portion of the Texan Congressional election actually shrank in a State the mainstream media was selling as a swing State This is incorrect. Bloomberg spent $100 million to help Biden in Florida, not Texas. They may hope to flip Florida, but the main goal was to force Trump to defend there, and therefore unable to…

Nope, we’re both wrong. I’m not planning to track down which of the last two dozen podcasts I listened to that I heard my figure for Texas on, particularly since it was off, but that $100M was split between Florida, Ohio and Texas, lion’s share to Florida[1]. Note that your article is from September.

Trump carried all three States, all three will walk into 2021 as Republican trifectas during redistricting season, and all three will be sending a majority Republican delegation to the House.

Texas walks out of the 116th Congress with 22 Republicans of 36 House seats and will walk into the 117th without losing a single seat. However my original claim of a shrunken Democratic delegation was incorrect, garbage in, garbage out. My apologies.

Kudos to you, you forced me to re-evaluate both my claims and my sources, however you haven’t come back at my main point in that paragraph: money doesn’t buy elections. Beyond this $100M spent in support of Democrats in three States they did abysmally in, Bloomberg spent $1B on his own Primary run which failed almost the moment voting started. $1B bought him 49 delegates and American Samoa in the very first batch of States and Territories he was on the ballot for in the Democratic Primary.

[1] https://www.cnbc.com/2020/11/04/bloomberg-sees-losses-after-...

Post reply on HN