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

California is cracking down on the gig economy

vox.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#161

Post by baggy_trough »

ravenstine wrote: post #125

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 supplemen…

This is certainly terrible news for the drivers, but the companies will get by.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#162

Post by ghaff »

ravenstine wrote: post #139
aembleton wrote: post #135

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in California? The state’s Chamber of Commerce and dozens of industry groups have been lobbying for exemptions, and a long list of professions were excluded from the bill: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, insurance agents, accountants, engineers, financial advisers, real estate agents, and hairstylists who rent booths at salons.

I'd be interested in knowing whether any of us would be considered "engineers" under the law, given that many of us don't have engineering degrees or certifications of any kind. My job title at my current employer is "software engineer", but I don't have a formal education in engineering, and who knows if the California legislature sees that as engineering or a glorification of "what my nephew does on his computer wi…

The actual text would seem to be: "Require an active license from the State of California and involve the practice of one of the following recognized professions: law, dentistry, architecture, engineering, or accounting." http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml...

So, presumably no. Only engineers with a P.E. license (which has been pretty much phased out for software engineering).

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#163

Post by johnnycab »

nmstoker wrote: post #101
TomMarius wrote: post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 feels like this says more about the status of the law and behaviour in Prague than it does about the apparent merits of Uber style services. In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs", but with the undercutting of Uber they are more likely to try underhand tactics.

>In London we used to have a good taxi system that was well run with trustworthy drivers in "Black cabs"

It is hard to deduce from your comment, which period of time you are describing ─ as black cabbies haven't been very popular or trustworthy for a very long time[1]. Also, there was a very similar campaign of resistance to 'mini-cabs' decades ago, as the one conducted against Uber et al. at present, by the 'Black cab' community.[2]

I am glad that these dinosaurs are slowly diminishing in their market share, who have been exploiting 'The Knowledge'[3] for far too long by regurgitating morally repugnant views/opinions, formed from a diet of gutter press/red-tops and forcing them upon unsuspecting passengers and blind siding visitors into thinking that it is the traditional experience!

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Worboys

[2] https://www.spectator.co.uk/2014/02/the-case-against-london-...

[3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Taxicabs_of_the_United_Kingdom...

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#164

Post by whiddershins »

It would be interesting if I could see someone do the math on where all the money (for example) Uber would need to pay as a result of this actually goes.

How much of a bill like this is actually the government looking to increase revenue, and how much of it would ultimately benefit pole dancers?

Uber drivers are a particularly weird case because there is no way to really stop them from working for Lyft at the same time ... so they are supposed to get a guaranteed minimum wage? From each ride service they drive for?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#165

Post by DataWorker »

ravenstine wrote: post #125

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 supplemen…

So the drivers think they are getting away with something (not being grubhub’s bitch) and the company is actually turning that misperception into profit. Sounds like good old fashioned exploitation to me. And I think if people had a first job that paid them a livable wage there would be no need for supplementary income. People don’t deliver pizza as a hobby, they do it for financial reasons.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#166

Post by dahfizz »

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…

> If you create a job market segment where employees are being underpaid, but they're accepting it because there aren't better options for them, the overall job market can suffer.

I think this statement is trivially true. The question becomes:

1) Are these people being underpaid, and would making them employees increase their pay?

2) Are there no better options available?

I am not convinced of either of these points. Uber's pay seems to be competitive [1]. We also have historically low unemployment. It is easier to get a job now than anytime in the past ten years[2], and much easier than the historical average. The fact that this is the case and people are still flocking to be gig workers should tell you that people want to be Uber drivers, they are not forced into it.

[1] https://www.forbes.com/sites/niallmccarthy/2016/11/28/fare-d...

[2] https://tradingeconomics.com/united-states/unemployment-rate

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#167

Post by traviscj »

kelnos wrote: post #64
kartan wrote: post #49

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling". As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term that's been redefined over the past decade.

To me, the distinction comes down to: carpooling implies some kind of repeated/scheduled vehicle sharing (like coworkers coordinating a route to get to work at 9a every weekday, while ridesharing is much more ad-hoc/on-demand (like craigslist rideshares between Seattle and Portland to split the gas bill).

Definitely agree that Lyft/Uber aren’t really ride sharing in that sense though — the driver’s goal is to earn a fare on a trip he wasn’t going to take otherwise, while the original ride shares were a cost-reduction on a trip the driver was going to make anyway.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#168

Post by lostmymind66 »

This will most likely result in a loss of many jobs. If Uber/Lyft is going to be forced to reclassify contractors as employees, there will be stricter guidelines on who will actually be able to work for them (which means less people working for them), because the company simply will not be able to afford to pay insurance and a higher wage for everyone and anyone that wants to drive for them.

Everyone has a choice: You can choose to work for Uber/Lyft and make extra money or get a job somewhere else that provides benefits and a higher wage. There is no scam going on and everyone is trying to make a buck. I see no problem with classifying the drivers as contractors.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#169

Post by sidlls »

I don't understand the implications of the second item in the test: "doing work that isn’t central to the company’s business."

How does this apply to business-to-business contracting arrangements, especially in the world of software engineering? Businesses hire contract labor from vendors all the time--are those laborers to be considered employees of both the vendor and hiring company now?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#170

Post by xfitm3 »

DataWorker wrote: post #165
ravenstine wrote: post #125

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 supplemen…

So the drivers think they are getting away with something (not being grubhub’s bitch) and the company is actually turning that misperception into profit. Sounds like good old fashioned exploitation to me. And I think if people had a first job that paid them a livable wage there would be no need for supplementary income. People don’t deliver pizza as a hobby, they do it for financial reasons.

Sometimes a living wage isn’t enough.
Post reply on HN