California is cracking down on the gig economy • Hacker News Board

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#271

Post by lisper » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:33 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #267

lisper wrote: post #260

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The person taking the brunt of the hardship is clearly the person suffering Of course that is true. That doesn't mean that the cost imposed on others is zero.

> Of course that is true. That doesn't mean that the cost imposed on others is zero. It's never zero . But you're making it out to be a significant cost relative to the effect on the person making the decision. Having a way to internalize the cost of others' displeasure at being aware of their possible misfortune wouldn't materially affect their decision one way or the other, because it's so much smaller a factor tha…

For an individual, yes. For society as a whole, no. If you have one homeless person on the street who is seen by 1000 passers-by, their discomfort on an individual basis has to only be 0.1% as much as the homeless person's in order for the aggregate cost to be the same. This is just the tragedy of the commons in another form.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#272

Post by aiisjustanif » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

Why don't we start with extending some employee coverage to 1099? Like just one thing healthcare, and idk car insurance for Uber/Lyft and then see how it goes.

Sounds better than dealing with extremes.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#273

Post by bsimpson » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:36 PM UTC

ghaff wrote: post #162

ravenstine wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Colloquially, we use profession to mean "I get paid for this thing." Traditionally, there are requirements for something to be a profession. A central licensing body must assert a professional has gained the requisite knowledge to practice. (The Bar serves this purpose for lawyers.)

The examples given imply this classical meaning of "profession". As you've pointed out, engineering in this context means jobs you'd need a license for, like civil engineering.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#274

Post by dahfizz » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:37 PM UTC

sosborn wrote: post #242

dahfizz wrote: post #166

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 av…

> It would give them access to healthcare and other things a lot of people take for granted.

This is something I'm not clear on. Couldn't Uber still hire the drivers and limit them to 39 hours a week? Wage workers don't get benefits like health insurance. Even being a salaried worker does not guarantee health insurance, etc.

Am I missing something? Maybe California's labor laws are different than my states.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#275

Post by unknownkadath » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

morpheuskafka wrote: post #218

cycomanic wrote: post #82

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. Moreover, while there might be an immediate benefit to consumers, as the article notes it might as well be detrimental overall, because it increases costs for everyone. The only people who are really benefiting are the large shareholders.

Slavery deprives someone of a basic human freedom. A free market is the exact opposite of that.

I think that second sentence this isn't as obvious as the first.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#276

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:39 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #261

Zak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no reason why they couldn't. Yes there is. Workers compensation insurance and other benefits have significant fixed costs per employee. If someone is treated as an employee, they'll be required to work a minimum number of hours to cover those costs.

That seems like a failure of the insurance market more than anything else. It seems like insurance companies are using employee count as a proxy for hours worked... is there really that much of an increase risk for 4 people working 2 hours each vs one person working 8? Maybe, but we should be able to price that risk and allow a company to insure people per hour.

[deleted]

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#277

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:40 PM UTC

panitaxx wrote: post #120

inferiorhuman wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So why don't they go work there then? Come back when you have an answer. You'd prefer that I answer "because gig economy companies provide unmatched flexibility and freedom to their employees^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^H^Hcontractors", right? I'm not really here to play that game, so how's this? - They may not work in an area where In-n-Out exists or Starbucks is hiring. Note: this doesn't mean that the other available low/no ski…

So basically your answer tldr is "gig economy workers are dumb and financial/life decisions must be made for them in group and disregarding their particular situation and free will"

lol, for the people that parent describes, if the whole gig economy died, what kind of poor life decisions would they be making instead? What a ridiculous thought process to think the problem is the gig economy.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#278

Post by kllrnohj » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:43 PM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #25

inferiorhuman wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week and this resulted in unhappy drivers…

> Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits. > There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for. If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either.…

> Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits.

Nonsense. If this were true part-time jobs wouldn't exist, but they do. There's no shortage of stories of people working at major retailers and being unable to get >29 hours / week because the employer doesn't want them crossing into full-time status (IRS defines this at 30 hours, many companies follow this for benefits purposes as well).

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#279

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:48 PM UTC

cortesoft wrote: post #261

Zak wrote: post #253

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> there's no reason why they couldn't. Yes there is. Workers compensation insurance and other benefits have significant fixed costs per employee. If someone is treated as an employee, they'll be required to work a minimum number of hours to cover those costs.

That seems like a failure of the insurance market more than anything else. It seems like insurance companies are using employee count as a proxy for hours worked... is there really that much of an increase risk for 4 people working 2 hours each vs one person working 8? Maybe, but we should be able to price that risk and allow a company to insure people per hour.

Or, you can just pay them what their market salary is in cash including what would have gone into insurance, and let them figure it out themselves. Why are you trying to overcomplicate things?

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#280

Post by kllrnohj » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:51 PM UTC

ravenstine wrote: post #128

> The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing work that isn’t central to the company’s busine…

> What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in California? It's arguable that an engineer would likely be working on something that is central to a company's business, and whether said engineer has an "independent business" in their industry.

Are they, though? It's not just related to the business, it's central to the business. If you're an engineer working as an IC at a bank to beef up their IT security, for example, I don't see how that'd classify as being "central to the company's business." Similarly if you're an IC hired to help with QA or testing would that ever really be central to the business? It's a part of the companies product/offerings, yes, but is it central? Does the company's existence hinge on your role specifically?

Take away most IC engineers from most IT companies and the company gets worse but probably still exists. Take away the drivers from uber and there's literally no uber anymore.