Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

181–190 of 212 posts

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#181

Post by uoaei »

SllX wrote: post #16
uoaei wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getti…

> the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States

The "fuck 'ought', only 'is'" attitude is not quite the pragmatic rationalist take you think it is.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#182

Post by BurningFrog »

chrisbolt wrote: post #163
BurningFrog wrote: post #129

The reality is that gig workers fit in neither of the legacy regulatory categories ("employee" or "contractor"). I expect we'll spend a few destructive decades thrashing around before legal systems have adapted to this invention.

If they’re not an employee, how are they not a contractor? What third thing is missing?

Probably the biggest novelty is that they work whenever they want.

A gig worker can work 0 or 80 hours a week, and not ask for permission either way.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#183

Post by tadfisher »

jedberg wrote: post #159
BurningFrog wrote: post #129

The reality is that gig workers fit in neither of the legacy regulatory categories ("employee" or "contractor"). I expect we'll spend a few destructive decades thrashing around before legal systems have adapted to this invention.

This right here is the key that is missing. We need a new category of worker that's 1/2 way between, OR we need to have universal healthcare and a better social safety net. The main argument here is if the company has to provide benefits, sick leave, etc. If benefits were provided for everyone by default, it wouldn't matter.

Here's an idea: outlaw employer-provided health plans.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#184

Post by SllX »

oneplane wrote: post #180
SllX wrote: post #149

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You didn’t have a thought experiment, just a straw man. I thought I was clear on that point. Overwriting substantial portions of a law that took effect in 2020 with another law passed in 2020 isn’t “harmful” and doesn’t rank with your hypothetical anti-thumbs bill. > It sounds like you are reasoning that harm is fine when it morally shouldn't be That is exactly what I did not say, that is what you are attempting to r…

Nobody here is talking about nullifying votes (well except you), and your bad faith argumentation leaves no more room for actual conversation.

Context!

This was the question that was posed by the parent:

>>> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency?

I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of question you ask when you want to question the legitimacy of something, e.g. a vote. There was a lot of controversy around the amount of money spent by the “Yes on 22” campaign that the “No on 22” camp hasn’t stopped complaining about since the election, and behave as if money, not the votes cast by the literal millions of people who cast them with a nearly 3 million vote differential, was the only deciding factor, so it’s not an unreasonable read given context.

This was the question I counterposed:

>> so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome?

You’re not the parent, but you are the one that picked up the mantle, quoting the end of my argument. This is the question through which all of my comments have been framed. We don’t have to continue, but keep the context in mind if you do, because as I just said, I’m not looking to persuade anyone on Proposition 22 and haven’t been for over two years, nor do entirely hypothetical anti-thumb bills interest me. Prop 22 already passed and it wasn’t even close, nor was the issue anywhere near mass bodily mutilation; but if somebody would like to explain to me why my vote should be nullified other than because they disagree with the outcome, that’s what I’m here for and I said so from the start.

Cheers!

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#185

Post by hellojesus »

tadfisher wrote: post #183
jedberg wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This right here is the key that is missing. We need a new category of worker that's 1/2 way between, OR we need to have universal healthcare and a better social safety net. The main argument here is if the company has to provide benefits, sick leave, etc. If benefits were provided for everyone by default, it wouldn't matter.

Here's an idea: outlaw employer-provided health plans.

This would solve so much. Almost unreasonably so.

It pains me to have to disallow companies from making a private transaction, but it seems to be it would benefit everyone much more than universal Healthcare.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#186

Post by hellojesus »

kcatskcolbdi wrote: post #88
ChicagoDave wrote: post #78

Everyone seems to forget or disregard the fact that these lawsuits are paid for by the taxi industry. Even when they dig up a few Uber drivers, it’s all a sham. 70% of surveyed rideshare drivers prefer to be independent contractors. If there was a serious majority for employment, Uber and Lyft simply wouldn’t exist.

I can't vouch for the validity of the statistic you mention, as you didn't source it. However, I can provide with 100% certainty that I would prefer being paid 1 trillion dollars an hour instead of my current wage. In fact, I would prefer being paid every dollar amount between my current wage and 1 trillion dollars an hour. Labor preference does not dictate market conditions. Labor preference has an especially low im…

I think the GP is stating that market dynamics would dictate that someone working as a 1099 for ride share that also had a preference for w2 status would simply find a different, w2 job instead of continuing to work SS a 1099. And I agree with that statement.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#187

Post by hellojesus »

scyzoryk_xyz wrote: post #109
Spivak wrote: post #95

Earlier quoted context omitted.

[flagged]

As an ex-Lyft driver (SF,CA) and someone who knows/knew many of them I would add here that it is rare for anyone doing this kind of work to be planning to do it for life. It’s usually part of some temporary plan or arrangement. This is why these people often argue against what would seem to be in their interest. They want to stay under radar, they just want/need the cash. That being said, I’m not so sure in hindsight…

The solution is the free market. People don't have to drive. It's a super low barrier to entry position and therefore is ultracompetitive. Drivers wouldn't drive if they wanted benefits. They would work elsewhere.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#188

Post by uoaei »

SllX wrote: post #184
oneplane wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nobody here is talking about nullifying votes (well except you), and your bad faith argumentation leaves no more room for actual conversation.

Context! This was the question that was posed by the parent: >>> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? I don’t know about you, but that’s the kind of question you ask when you want to question the legitimacy of something, e.g. a vote. There was a lot of controversy around the amount of money spent by the “Yes on 22” campaign that the “No on 22” camp hasn’t stopped comp…

> that’s the kind of question you ask when you want to question the legitimacy of something, e.g. a vote

This and similar kinds of assumptions are why you have earned the label "bad-faith" in this thread. You have not honestly attempted to understand the thrust of the conversation, instead imposing some kind of victimization complex at the behest of "your vote" and in the process ruining any attempts at a meaningful exploration of the effects of propaganda on the governance of our society.

I am OP, and I stopped engaging because I have learned that when someone wants to push the conversation in ways that you have demonstrated above, there is no point in hoping they may then develop a more considerate approach.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#189

Post by SllX »

uoaei wrote: post #181
SllX wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getti…

> the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States The "fuck 'ought', only 'is'" attitude is not quite the pragmatic rationalist take you think it is.

Could you clarify the “ought” in this?

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#190

Post by uoaei »

SllX wrote: post #189
uoaei wrote: post #181

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States The "fuck 'ought', only 'is'" attitude is not quite the pragmatic rationalist take you think it is.

Could you clarify the “ought” in this?

Ought we or ought we not consider the lopsided information access of voters in elections? Ought we be doing something to limit or counteract the propaganda? As opposed to, crudely, "it is the way it is because laws", which is of course an entirely normative claim.
Post reply on HN