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

181–190 of 387 posts

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

#181

Post by makomk »

CogitoCogito wrote: post #156
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.

As I understand it, this can be repealed in the same way and with the same margins as it was passed by getting majority support for another ballot proposition repealing it. The 7/8ths provision only applies to attempts by the legislature to mess with it.

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

#182

Post by shuckles »

mdorazio wrote: post #170
silexia wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Many Californians would willingly work in 1900s factory conditions with machines eating body parts and people passing out from exhaustion because that's the only work they can get. This kind of completely unregulated employment market that you seem to want is exactly the thing that people fought against for decades for damn good reasons.

There is plenty of unfilled demand for the trades, so I’m skeptical that there is a large pool of labor willing to work those kinds of jobs.

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

#183

Post by jrowley »

jrowley wrote: post #180
virmundi wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes. There are developed countries without a minimum wage. Having a floor only limits labor’s ability to find buyers.

Yeah, they can have no minimum wage because they have organized labor. But if you’re a 1099 for Uber and you attempt to organize a union, you’ll just get fired. Without the ability to form a union, or wage protection, workers are going to be racing to the bottom.

Also in those developed countries without minimum wage, they have national healthcare. So a poor comparison in my opinion.

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

#184

Post by mdorazio »

jimbob21 wrote: post #173
mdorazio wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you better be sure that's what they want. This logic makes no sense at all. For example, everyone wants a bunch of free money - should the Assembly pass a ton of bills that write blank checks with no budget changes to back them up? Everyone loves artificially low property taxes for existing residents, and that's been an unmitigated disaster for the state. The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit…

>The Assembly's job is to pass bills that positively benefit California as a state and as a society long-term. While also ensuring that what they're passing is what members of their state want. If they're not sure, you should not pass that thing. If the state needs the benefits of that thing (and that need is backed by research), then they should go about finding another way to acquire the benefits that has public ap…

I think you missed most of my point. Which "members" are you talking about? States have multiple interest groups on every issue.

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

#185

Post by dmitriid »

sida wrote: post #164
joshribakoff wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

According to the companies lobbying its what the drivers want. No one has established it actually is, and in fact some drivers have quit and spoken out about the apps constantly nagging with propaganda. Also as a rider who’s gotten drunk drivers, idiots going reverse on highway when the exit was missed, or pulling up in beater cars where the engine stalls out, I’ll just say there’s a reason taxis were more expensive…

Have you talked to drivers? There have been many independent surveys that show drivers disproportionately want to remain contractors.

People in the US are disproportionately uneducated on how the rest of the world operates. And any idea left of hunting people for sport [1] is dismissed with ultimate disdain.

The US is overwhelmingly "why should I pay for some lazy slacker with my hard earned money". And this is especially prevalent among the lower income people.

[1] A joke from the internets that goes something like "In the US everything left of literally hunting people for sport is called socialism"

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

#186

Post by JumpCrisscross »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #13
roenxi wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The only thing worse than democracy is all the other -cracies. 58-42 is a wide margin. Ideally the government shouldn't be legislating stuff which has only 40% support.

Not really. Black people might still be slaves if we left that up to popular opinion. That was NOT a popular opinion at the time. Same for women's voting rights. Black voting rights. Gay marriage. All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25% - and shortly after they were passed, public opinion quickly shifted in an S-curve.

> All these were passed when public support was hovering at 25%

True for all except gay marriage. It was an exception in being popular when legalised.

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

#187

Post by dmitriid »

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.

Ah, the myth of American freedom: with no health insurance, no maternity leave to speak of, no safety nets, no guarantees in the form of liveable minimum wages...

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

#188

Post by remote_phone »

mdorazio wrote: post #178
zaroth wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber has been profitable in the USA for years now. https://fortune.com/2016/02/18/uber-profitable-us/

No it hasn't. Please stop saying this. If you read their actual financial filings instead of press releases, it is very clear that they are not profitable on a GAAP basis without accounting games in any region, especially this year. They hide their unprofitability with non-GAAP figures and loss allocation to departments where they don't really belong (ex. technology development).

If you knew anything about accounting you would understand that what you’re saying is preposterous. Hiding by allocating their losses to the technology department? If you have proof of this please bring it up because what you’re saying is blatantly illegal and the CEO, CFO etc will all be liable. Otherwise if you’re just speculating then say so.

As to GAAP you don’t understand what that term is because that’s more about having a standard way of representing numbers but GAAP numbers don’t show the true numbers because of many different accounting rules like accounting for employee stock, which does not hit cash flow.

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

#189

Post by mdorazio »

cody3222 wrote: post #60
tdeck wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because our society depends on economic precarity to compel an underclass of people to work in whatever shitty jobs are offered in order to meet their basic needs.

I don't think that's true. Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them. When people no longer work these jobs, then companies come up with other solutions to get the job done. This is what happened in Japan and why automation is so big there.

> Creating more jobs for people to opt-in to only helps them.

Except if the only jobs available are awful and don't actually pay enough to have a decent standard of living. You seem to be assuming that more available jobs of any kind = better for workers over time, but a quick review of the US labor market over the last 30 years shows this isn't really the case at all. I'm also not sure why you're bringing Japan into this discussion - its economic, demographic, and societal conditions are so different from the US that it doesn't make much sense to use it as a comparison.

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

#190

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN