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

Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

191–200 of 401 posts

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#191

Post by Jommi »

boomboomsubban wrote: post #170
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer? Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop the…

>If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them No, you put your brand on the chairs and if the customer likes them they can buy from you again. And I imagine Uber does forbid selling other services during rides. If not, I feel like Uber rides would be full of people pushing multi-level marketing.

Why are you even participating in conversation when you have not researched this at all? Uber doesn't forbid selling other services. Your point stands on flimsy sticks that are purely from your imagination.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#192

Post by colejohnson66 »

SmokeyHamster wrote: post #175
colejohnson66 wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?

That's the point. People deserve to be paid what they agree to be paid. The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.

So minimum wage shouldn’t be a thing? The problem with this thinking is that some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make. And without minimum wage, for example, companies would do a race to the bottom and people worse off would have to accept it.

And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#193

Post by maxehmookau »

SkyBelow wrote: post #183
maxehmookau wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm detecting quite a lot of judgement in your comment. You've attacked the person rather than the argument. Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Because that sounds entirely reasonable to me.

>Do you disagree that a job should mean that someone is able to afford rent and pay your bills? Could we focus down on this question. Ignoring what led to this question being raised, I would like to better capture what is being asked here. Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills? I think that is an entirely unreasonable interpretation, but I want to make sure we are in agreement…

Reasonable.

> Is the idea that any job should be able to provide for any rent and any bills?

No. We live a society of free will and choices. It's not reasonable for me to expect that _any_ job will allow me to live _any_ kind of lifestyle. I am firmly in the middle-class. I expect my job will allow me to pay my housing costs, but I don't expect it to pay for a brand new car every year and especially not if I spend all of my discresionary income on... something else!

It is reasonable for me to expect that a full-time job should allow me to have a roof over my head, food to eat, etc. I should make a living wage. There are examples of independent organisations that calculate what a living wage is and what constitues a living wage. (https://www.livingwage.org.uk/ in the UK for example) So I'm keen not to get in to an argument about what constitues a living wage, because people smarter than me have spent much longer than me considering it.

I am also not an expert. But I do know that europeans like myself look at the world of work in the US with abject horror, even when things here are not perfect.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#194

Post by Jommi »

xeromal wrote: post #185
dannyw wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies who treat people like employees generally: * do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work * do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want * do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters) but most importantly: * do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time. If Uber is too driver-unf…

Yeah, it almost seems like a compromise would be an hourly line. If you work more than 30 hours, you become an employee but you lose freedom in the hours you choose since you're now in an employee relationship and below 30 hours, you're just a contractor. Some kind of part time tinkerer.

This is what prop22 essentiallu tried to accomplish.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#195

Post by magicalhippo »

caymanjim wrote: post #184
truculent wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.

Just to throw more anecdata in, I've never met a fulltime Uber driver. Most of my drivers are retired people who got bored and wanted some extra cash, like to chat, and wanted to get out of the house. Others have some disability that prevents them from working fulltime. Many are doing it for extra cash, especially around the holidays. Many only selectively drive when there are events that they know will make the rate…

> people who got bored

One of the Uber drivers I had when visiting New York rolled up in a expensive German SUV (Mercedes IIRC) and was very well dressed.

Chatted and found out he was a lawyer by day, but drove Uber in the evenings when he was bored.

He didn't _need_ the $10-12 bucks we paid for the trip to the restaurant, but he did appreciate the chat.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#196

Post by colejohnson66 »

ZoomerCretin wrote: post #167
dannyw wrote: post #127

Earlier quoted context omitted.

All regulation and 'labor protection' does is accelerate the investment and transition into an AI anyway.

Exactly. This is why we need to repeal unnecessary government overreaches like the minimum wage and the 13th amendment.

I’m having trouble seeing how a Constitutional Amendment is government overreach. All amendments are voted on by the citizens, not just Congress.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#197

Post by sokoloff »

xeromal wrote: post #185
dannyw wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Companies who treat people like employees generally: * do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work * do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want * do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters) but most importantly: * do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time. If Uber is too driver-unf…

Yeah, it almost seems like a compromise would be an hourly line. If you work more than 30 hours, you become an employee but you lose freedom in the hours you choose since you're now in an employee relationship and below 30 hours, you're just a contractor. Some kind of part time tinkerer.

29 hours a week for Uber, 29 hours a week for Lyft, and 29 hours a week for the next ride-sharing company.

Have to be careful not to accidentally burn your hours by being logged into both apps at once.

I'm not sure that's actually better for drivers; it just makes for more paperwork and regulations to track.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#198

Post by Jommi »

kemiller2002 wrote: post #160
Jommi wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would never make any new decisions.

No, a small thing is blowing a tire, or fixing an engine. Being sued for pain and suffering because an accident occurred that wasn't your fault, that's not small. Things like that literally ruin your life. You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that th…

This really seems to be a common trend on these Uber discussions. Americans bringing up cracks in the terribly terribly faulty infrastructure/systems (such as the legal system or the healthcare system) and try to find a way to blame it on Uber/gigwork. It's quite incredible really.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#199

Post by CryptoPunk »

xtian wrote: post #168
dannyw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I d…

Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars. The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is…

I too wish roads could somehow be shared spaces again.

But let's not fall into these simplistic black and white anti-establishment narratives. The automobile massively expanded personal liberty and employment options. Some of these effects were very pro-worker, like reducing the power of the dominant employers of localities, by letting workers more easily pull up stakes and find a new home in a different locality, or simply commute to a more distant employer.

No conversation about the impact of the car is complete without mentioning the benefits it provided to society.

Post reply on HN