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

California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

151–160 of 387 posts

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#151

Post by silexia »

SilasX wrote: post #118
Rebelgecko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…

People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#152

Post by encoderer »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

It is a terrible response to a terrible law.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#153

Post by wpietri »

username90 wrote: post #90
elmalto wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO

Their minimum wage is 20% higher to adjust for that. Exactly how much higher it should be is arguable, but it can be worked out. Including waiting time in the equation will force Uber and Lyft to exit California, it is better to try to make gig work viable. This isn't a question about cost, but about business viability. Also waiting time is very abusable. Uber could just force quit your app if there aren't any rides,…

Uber and Lyft claim that they would exit. But I don't see much reason to believe that. And if they did, well, it would be a great opportunity for other companies. The barrier to entry for rideshare is very low; the main reason we have only two options is that they've been burning money trying to establish their monopoly/duopoly position.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#154

Post by chmod600 »

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad.

The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#155

Post by jrowley »

silexia wrote: post #151
SilasX wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hm, the screwiness of AB5 is a reason I'd vote against 22 [0]. Basically, it just compounds the existing problem of AB5 being totally capricious by making it hard to streamline and fix long-term now that there's a Proposition-locked special exemption. IOW, the only thing worse than the legislature making arbitrary carveouts, is carveouts being claimed by anyone who can fund a prop campaign. At least with the former,…

People should be free to work for whom they please under the terms they want. As a Californian, I am proud of the people for getting this passed.

We already have laws that restrict how Californians work (eg minimum wage, OSHA, EEOC). Do you think we should rollback those requirements as well, in the name of freedom?

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#156

Post by CogitoCogito »

nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

The whole concept of being able to pass laws and then being unable to repeal them by the same margins as before as always seemed totally insane to me. Basically the definition of an unstable system and totally undemocratic.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#157

Post by whimsicalism »

chmod600 wrote: post #154

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.

> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want

The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#158

Post by whimsicalism »

eplanit wrote: post #130
snorrah wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Apparently some drivers did not want this. “Drivers and labor groups opposed Prop 22, saying it would allow companies to sidestep their obligations to provide benefits and standard minimum wages to their workers even as they make billions.” From https://www.theguardian.com/us-news/2020/nov/04/california-e...

"Drivers and labor groups" = Drivers who were hoping to unionize, so not very surprising. I think the whole goal of 22 was to expand the ranks of unions. Very glad it failed.

> I think the whole goal of 22 was to expand the ranks of unions. Very glad it failed.

You seem ill-informed on the issue. Prop 22 succeeded.

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#159

Post by whimsicalism »

nickpp wrote: post #145
deelowe wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't buy that drivers would prefer to not have benefits, vacation time, over time pay, or any of the other things that come with being employees.

Why do you find hard to believe that there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great. Choice is a great thing to have.

> there are people valuing their freedom and independence more than those benefits? Not everybody likes being an employee and I think that is great

Free to be forced to work off medical debt because they didn't have health insurance, yeah?

Re: California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers

#160

Post by sida »

whimsicalism wrote: post #157
chmod600 wrote: post #154

Prop 22 may or may not be good, but its passage means that AB5 was bad. The state Assembly screwed up. When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want. Instead of a practical solution, AB5 came across as just meddling.

> When you pass a law that affects so many ordinary people, you better be sure that's what they want The reason we have a representative democracy is because sometimes legislators can make decisions that might be different from the typical voter who has not spent extensive time thinking about the issue.

And the counter-argument would be that the reason for possibilities of direct democracy is for situations like this where unions have achieved regulatory capture, such that a small number of people wield disproportionate influence and drive the legislature against what the people want
Post reply on HN