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

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

161–170 of 754 posts

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#161

Post by mrfusion »

mikekchar wrote: post #150
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

Wow. You might be right about B. That could be interesting. (I don’t think A is any different than existing federal laws)

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#162

Post by [deleted] »

pcurve wrote: post #10

“Today, our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of rideshare drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits,” What is their idea of thoughtful solution?

[deleted]

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#163

Post by Ensorceled »

kmlx wrote: post #151
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

it's not clear to me. if i work as a contractor for software development companies in California, will I be classified as an employee? 'cause these look like every long-term contractor needs to become an employee in one way or another.

You probably are an employee unless you are providing specialized consulting expertise and have several clients.

In this case, it's just financially to your benefit to be a consultant. This sword will cut both ways.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#164

Post by Ensorceled »

mikekchar wrote: post #150
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

If you really are a consultant and not just a skilled worker with enough pull to negotiate your own terms, B should not apply, you'll be doing something unique that is not normally part of their business. Also, A would not apply because the manager should not have the expertise to actually directly manage you and instead should be setting objectives out in a statement of work.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#165

Post by Donald »

mikekchar wrote: post #150
droidno9 wrote: post #43

For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x... . The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contra…

As a software contractor... (A) and (B) are terrifying. I think (A) means you really can't do contract work while working under the direction of a manager, or PGM. So you essentially have to be doing work for hire rather than filling in a specialist role for a defined period of time. (B)... Wow... So if the company is a software development company, they can't hire contractors??? I really hope I'm reading that wrong.…

You can still form an LLC and hire yourself as a w-2 employee.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#166

Post by uasm »

romanovcode wrote: post #158
uasm wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "I wonder how happy they will be when their job simply goes away because of that bill." Taxis are... not "going away". They may get more expensive. Taxi companies are simply going to make a comeback. Uber was making it easier/cheaper for passangers - it did very little for the drivers themselves.

Uber is not Taxi. OP point is still correct. Taxi companies are coming back but Uber drivers get fired.

> "Uber is not Taxi. OP point is still correct. Taxi companies are coming back but Uber drivers get fired"

They can't be "fired", since they were never properly hired in the first place! They were never regarded as employees. That's exactly what this legislation is setting out to change!

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#167

Post by AndyMcConachie »

jackmodern wrote: post #83
stickfigure wrote: post #14

If this actually gets enforced, I predict we'll all be talking about the law of unintended consequences in a year's time.

don't know why this is getting down voted, all of you folks using lyft/uber.. get ready for the prices to double or triple.

If that means people driving for Uber/Lyft can now have a decent standard of living I'm all for it.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#168

Post by pishpash »

mlthoughts2018 wrote: post #132
droidno9 wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The burden of proof would be on Uber and Lyft to show: (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. This would be a hard sell because Uber and Lyft are in the business of providing transportation to people. They may argue that they're only providing the platform that enables drivers to provide rides, but considering the amount of evidence that says otherwise, I'd like…

Also (A) would probably be a big issue, since Uber, Lyft etc. actually do interfere fairly directly with exactly how a driver provides service, even giving them a constantly-updating rating from detailed feedback collected from riders, and manipulating rides sent to drivers to influence what time of day / parts of town they end up working in to satisfy macro level shifts in demand that the larger organization observe…

You seem to imagine what you want to see. Drivers choose whether to work, when to work, where to work, whether to accept jobs, whether to complete a job or cancel it, whether to take the route suggested or not, whether to take jobs from other gig companies at the same time, whether to run personal errands in between, whether to take breaks, whether to heed feedback given by their own customers, whether to be in areas where demand will be high and jobs are likely, whether to be influenced by incentives or other payments dictated by market conditions, etc. What is the interference?

Au contraire, it is the various governments over the years that have re-regulated drivers (cannot drive in certain areas at certain times, must display decal, must carry license, must pay ransom fees, cannot stop in places, etc.) in ways that have taken away their control over work. We're headed back to capped and regulated taxis, unfortunately. New York City already has a black market trading TNC plates, just like medallions, and prices are back to taxi levels. Hope you like that.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#169

Post by jmull »

kart23 wrote: post #64

So what's actually going to happen? I'm still confused. Ridesharing drivers will now be paid wages, not based on the time that they have a passenger? Will the ridesharing service have to pay for the cars and their maintenance? From the article, it seem the only effect is that drivers are going to be scheduled in advance, and flexibility is going to be decreased.

> only effect is that drivers are going to be scheduled in advance

That’s a claim the ride-sharing companies are making but the law doesn’t require that. They could do that, but they could also let drivers take a shift at a moment’s notice. In that scenario, though, there may not be a shift available when a driver wants one. The ride sharing company will have to pay at least minimum wage so they probably won’t offer a shift when demand is low. Perhaps that won’t be a huge difference in effect in terms of a driver getting work since the limiting factor is demand, regardless.

There are significant effects besides scheduling, though. Drivers will have to get basic benefits like minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc. there are a lot of labor laws that make a distinction, so there will be a lot of changes from that perspective.

In terms of vehicles, I would think drivers would be able to continue using their own vehicles, but would need to be paid for that somehow. The typical way to do that is a per mile amount which covers everything, fuel, wear, depreciation, etc.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#170

Post by mobilefriendly »

rtpg wrote: post #148
lovetocode wrote: post #134

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’d have to side with Uber and I don’t think their lawyers will have a hard time arguing it. Uber doesn’t own, lease or maintain the vehicles. If the argument is that Uber is a transportation company than how can a transportation company operate if they don’t have any vehicles?

They don't own, lease or maintain the vehicles because they're trying to claim that the drivers aren't employees. It's like saying that the drivers aren't employees because Uber doesn't provide health benefits. Companies routinely get in trouble for forcing their employees to buy their own equipment. But it still happens all the time because of the power imbalance even when they're employees. This is one of the many…

Plus Uber has at various times assisted with vehicle financing and insurance. And they're working on creating a fleet of autonomous cars.
Post reply on HN