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

241–250 of 330 posts

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#241

Post by conanbatt »

momokoko wrote: post #196
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…

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to…

I think the ones that don't do the math are the ones that think the gig workers don't take into account the risk.

Why is unemployed casual employee better than employeed contractor for you? Because its definitely not for the gigers: if it were, only 1 of the gig companies has to offer the contract, take that into account into the pay they give the employees (or substitutes like insurance) and then they would get all the workers.

There are definite market failures, but the vast majority of denouncing of market failures are people not understanding the market has made a good decision.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#242

Post by sosborn »

dahfizz wrote: post #166
Shikadi wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

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

Maybe, maybe not. It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.

> 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.

Or, maybe it's an indication that there aren't other jobs available for the people flocking. The want is to make money, not to drive for Uber.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#243

Post by conanbatt »

entropea wrote: post #154
zaroth wrote: post #146

> That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay, workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage. That’s an pretty optimistic take on the situation. What these new “employees” are going to get, is fired. I know some people are OK with that…

This is always the right wing take on this, that they're going to get fired, create fear, uncertainty, doubt, and inject that right into others minds, repeat for the next issue that helps anyone except for a corporation. That FUD works really well on the general public too. Surely Uber wants to do business and make money in one of the worlds largest economies, California, right? Why would they fire all of their emplo…

Where were the uber/lyft drivers before these companies existed?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#244

Post by kelnos »

welly wrote: post #234
kelnos wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If the rest of us continue to incorrectly call Uber etc. "ridesharing" then that definition will soon become set in stone. Can we not just call them exactly what they are? Which is taxis. By every definition, they are taxis.

I'm pretty sure that ship has already sailed.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#245

Post by GabrielBen »

whiddershins wrote: post #171

I just don’t understand who is being protected here. When I talk to people doing these jobs they are glad to have them, and don’t have a problem with the terms. They like the flexibility and many are doing them as a stepping stone to the next thing. If an Uber ride becomes more expensive, how does that benefit an elderly person living on social security who can’t walk well and has to get across town?

The marxists that believe any money taken from a corporation is recuperating the thievery of labor surplus.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#246

Post by conanbatt »

inferiorhuman wrote: post #16
manfredo wrote: post #2

Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over twice that of the US. The ease of enteri…

This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of employees if it passes. Will it hurt them more than making roughly minimum wage or less? https://www.marketwatch.com/story/this-is-how-much-uber-driv... Marketwatch is estimating under $11/hr with no insurance, no retirement benefits, etc. Even In-n-Out and Starbucks pay more, offer better benefits (even for part timers), and generally offer fle…

What job will they get if this one stops existing?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#247

Post by jquery »

kartan wrote: post #49
brianchu wrote: post #31

I'm coming to the view that gig workers are neither employees nor independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or barred from their profession if their rating falls too low. All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a round hole or fits a triangular hole. We need a third classification fo…

> 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…

Edit: [mistaken reply to wrong post]

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#248

Post by kelnos »

traviscj wrote: post #167
kelnos wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> carpooling implies some kind of repeated/scheduled vehicle sharing

In the Bay Area there's something called Casual Carpool; essentially it's just a series of locations you can go to around work-travel hours, and people who have cars and are willing to pick up people going to the same area will randomly show up and pick people up. No scheduling or prior arrangements aside from the locations. (And it's been around way longer than Uber/Lyft/etc.)

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#249

Post by kelnos »

mch82 wrote: post #191
kelnos wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Ridesharing is when a group of people rent a van through a ridesharing program and one of those people drives it. The driver is kind of like a school bus driver. Carpooling is when 2+ drivers ride together in a car one of them owns instead of everyone driving separately.

I've never heard of your ridesharing example before. When people do that I still hear it called carpooling, just perhaps, "we rent a van and carpool".

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#250

Post by kerkeslager »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #204
momokoko wrote: post #196

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older. Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they are often required to find someone else to cover for them. The reality is that the contractor part of this is to…

> When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee. It's generally quite the opposite. It's employer regulations hiding the cost of insurance from you. There is nothing stoppin…

> It'd be nice to think the investors are paying for it, but the kind of employers who hire unskilled workers are typically not in high margin industries.

This is one of those cases where you're just abstracting things away from the issue at hand to justify your position, which hides nonsense like this because you're talking theoretically rather than concretely. But if we look at the actual companies targeted, no, GrubHub, Uber, DoorDash et al are NOT low-margin industries. With worldwide services like this where your costs per-unit are basically only server costs, the margins are extremely high because your costs approach zero as users increase. The costs these companies incur are mostly money they reinvest into business development.

For example, Uber taking a loss on rides should be seen as reinvestment into the business (trying to undercut competitors and drive them out of business) rather than a result of the fixed costs of a ride.

> You no longer even realize its cost, because you never receive a bill for unjustifiably high insurance premiums, you just get paid that much less or pay more when you buy stuff.

You don't think employees notice when they are paid less? You don't think customers realize when they pay more? If you really want to make the claim that employees don't notice lower pay and customers don't notice higher prices, that's tantamount to admitting that the free market doesn't work.

Yes, obviously investors will pass the cost off to employees and customers, but if they pay an unjustifiably high insurance premium and try to pass that cost off, they open up a business opportunity for a competitor to pay employees better and/or charge customers less by buying cheaper insurance and passing off less of that cost. There are additionally some regulations in place that prevent employers from passing off too much of the cost to employees or customers (i.e. minimum wage or fixed taxi fares).

The advantage that a big company has is that when they shop around for insurance, they're much more likely to be able to get a good price than an individual because they're a large, valuable customer.

Post reply on HN