California is cracking down on the gig economy • Hacker News Board

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#121

Post by augstein » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:21 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #106

cycomanic wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…

> How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor?

The gig workers I talked to basically told me „it’s either that gig job or starving“, so I‘m not so sure about the voluntariness anymore.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#122

Post by bko » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:26 PM UTC

Shikadi wrote: post #113

bko wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…

OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model. My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it…

The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place.

Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a significantly large employer, the market is not a closed system and things change

Regarding your welfare claim, it depends how you look at it. Walmart is offering these people the best employment opportunity they can get, otherwise they would work elsewhere. If they lost that opportunity which certainly some would with increased costs, they would likely be moved to more generous government benefits.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#123

Post by cc81 » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:27 PM UTC

TomMarius wrote: post #90

chungleong wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A service like BlaBlaCar (in Europe) is what can legitimately be called ride-sharing. Uber is fleet of pirate taxis.

In many cities of Europe (like Prague, where I live) we call Uber "savior". Using taxis used to be flat out dangerous (crazy drivers with no regards for anything, often drunk or on cocaine or meth) and it was guaranteed you're going to pay at least 3 but usually 5 times more than you should - Uber fixed that and is cheaper than the "correct" (by law) price, it solves safety, I don't have to wait 30+ minutes, ... And…

It is also very nice when you are visiting a country with unreliable taxi services for work. Just skipping the hassle of learning to avoiding the scams, getting the correct price, getting a receipt is annoying and all that is removed with uber.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#124

Post by gruez » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:30 PM UTC

augstein wrote: post #121

bko wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Just because somethin has a benefit to the consumer does not mean we should keep it a viable business model, otherwise we should also allow slave labor. How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? > well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. I don't buy it. The math that claims that these designations cost taxpayers is naive. As though applying additio…

> How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? The gig workers I talked to basically told me „it’s either that gig job or starving“, so I‘m not so sure about the voluntariness anymore.

>it’s either that gig job or starving

You could say the same about every American living paycheck to paycheck. Are they all slaves?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#125

Post by ravenstine » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract work(I'm now employed full time). The whole time, I was active in various gig economy subreddits.

There are some people out there who only want to drive for companies like GrubHub, but most of the drivers are people who already have jobs and are using the gig as supplementary income.

The topic has come up before in these communities about whether they want to be employees or contractors. At the end of the day, most people want to stay contractors because they already have other jobs and want to make some extra cash during their off hours and weekends, and being an employee would actually mean being their GrubHub's bitch because then they could be told that they can't refuse to pick up orders that are too far away.

While I do see the argument that businesses shouldn't be using contractors as a replacement for employees, unless we solve the problem of stagnating wages, doing so will take away a lot of needed extra income from people who don't feel wronged by these companies.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#126

Post by your-nanny » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:35 PM UTC

gruez wrote: post #124

augstein wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> How could you compare someone voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor? The gig workers I talked to basically told me „it’s either that gig job or starving“, so I‘m not so sure about the voluntariness anymore.

>it’s either that gig job or starving You could say the same about every American living paycheck to paycheck. Are they all slaves?

maybe!?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#127

Post by your-nanny » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:37 PM UTC

kartan wrote: post #49

brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to the exact place that you were going. Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company realizing that there we…

yeah the whole "sharing economy" is just bs marketing.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#128

Post by ravenstine » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:38 PM UTC

> The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business, and (c) has an independent business in that industry. If they don’t meet all three of those conditions, then they have to be classified as employees.

What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in California? It's arguable that an engineer would likely be working on something that is central to a company's business, and whether said engineer has an "independent business" in their industry.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#129

Post by jacobolus » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:39 PM UTC

bko wrote: post #122

Shikadi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

OC wasn't comparing voluntarily engaging in employment to slave labor, they were giving an example of something good for the consumer that we don't want as a business model. My personal opinion on your last statement about removing options being unlikely to benefit, the other way of looking at it is a race to the bottom. If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it…

The whole point of a voluntary exchange of labor or goods is that it has to benefit both parties for it to take place. Companies, including Walmart, don't set wages arbitrarily. Despite their size, they can't control the market for labor. They don't pay what they do because they are generous. There are frictions with hiring and onboarding people. They want their employees to be happy. And even if they were a signific…

There is a long history of people deliberately selling themselves into slavery. Just because there is consent involved doesn’t mean it should be legal; there are many types of desperate / coercive situations under which people will make choices that compromise their own bodily autonomy or sacrifice their values.

> [Walmart] wants their employees to be happy

There is little evidence for this that I have seen. Rather, they want to provide as little support for employees possible consistent with maintaining their profits. But there are many, many horrific stories of Walmart abusing and taking unethical (often illegal) advantage of employees.

In addition Walmart spends considerable effort and money lobbying governments to undermine basic worker rights and protections.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#130

Post by ravenstine » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 1:41 PM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #16

manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of employees if it passes. Will it hurt them more than making roughly minimum wage or less? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv... Marketwatch is estimating under $11/hr with no insurance, no retirement benefits, etc. Even In-n-Out and Starbucks pay more, offer better benefits (even for part timers), and generally offer fle…

Mostly no, because the majority of gig economy workers already have full time employment and are working for Uber or DoorDash to make supplemental income. I'm saying this as someone who drove for GrubHub for months and knew other drivers.