California Voters Exempt Uber, Lyft, DoorDash from Having to Reclassify Drivers • Hacker News Board

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

#381

Post by deeeeplearning » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 8:52 PM UTC

nxc18 wrote: post #284

deeeeplearning wrote: post #240

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>I'm not defending the gig economy, but I'm sure that if these companies were forced to employ all their workers as FT employees, they would be inviable. Then they should be inviable. Why would you allow a few dozen people to make billions off the backs of gig workers?

Those gig workers want to do it and the customers want to pay. If the state wants to provide a social safety net, it should provide one. It shouldn’t pass a law that fucks Lyft’s business model into unviability, say “if you don’t want to comply with California’s laws you can stop operating in California” and then go surprised pikachu face when Lyft stops operating in California, as almost happened a few months ago. I…

>Those gig workers want to do it and the customers want to pay.

Do a poll of Drivers and ask if they would rather "set their own hours and be their own boss" or have the standard benefits of a FTE.

>Lyft has saved me from the atrocious business model of taxis, which is based on screwing customers who have few or no choices.

This says something about the Taxi industry not the goodness of Uber and Lyft.

>Again, we should just have a social safety net, like every other first world country. Don’t pretend rejecting stupid band aid fixes that the supposed beneficiaries don’t want is an attack on drivers.

I don't think you understand your own argument. This is nothing but a slap in the face for drivers, a giveaway to Uber and Lyft Stockholders and a burden for Taxpayers.

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

#382

Post by shuckles » Thu, Nov 05, 2020, 10:49 PM UTC

ac29 wrote: post #279

shuckles wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Sure, but the post you are responding to isn't talking about things like electricians or plumbers - which require some amount of training and licensing/certification. They're talking about things like garment workers - jobs with little to no requirements.

Unskilled day labor in the Bay Area easily charges $25/day with breaks and, if your GC is ethical, workers comp. I also think it's incorrect to characterize factory workers as unskilled. Labor intensive manufacturing in America usually involves qualities of dexterity, since those are hard to automate, which inherently have a skill component.

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

#383

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 7:57 AM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #280

nxc18 wrote: post #276

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. Having a functional social safety net basically moots the issue of classifying employees.

> I voted for this arrangement specifically because I think the state _should_ be paying, ideally fully, for maternity, paternity, healthcare, and social security. I don't know why you would want to change the law now to a state that would be better in this area if you had a law you would like, but which doesn't exist and for which there is very little public or institutional support. It would seem to make more sense…

> I don't know why you would want to change the law now

The law change was when app drivers were ruled to have to be employees. That is the status quo that was change.

Prop 22 merely reverts the situation back to the previous status quo, that the drivers preferred. (the majority of drivers supported prop 22)

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

#384

Post by stale2002 » Fri, Nov 06, 2020, 8:38 AM UTC

coldcode wrote: post #78

cody3222 wrote: post #33

This is a huge win for all, including drivers. If a driver decides they don't like how they're paid or the benefits they get, they have complete control to not do the job and work elsewhere.

Really huge win for those without health insurance in the US. In any other country having a job with no benefits is not an issue, except here, where getting sick and going bankrupt are fine with everyone. Of course with such low unemployment, all the driver who have no desire to work in this job can just start as programmers and make huge salaries. Maybe they can take your job since you can just drive an Uber and be…

Most drivers supported Prop 22. So I think I am going to listen to their opinion on the matter.

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

#385

Post by lsiebert » Sat, Nov 07, 2020, 12:55 AM UTC

cody3222 wrote: post #62

lsiebert wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

prop 22 prevents drivers from organizing together to negotiate with these companies. Having the freedom to say no to a corporation individually is not at all the same as the ability to create a union and negotiate terms collectively.

These jobs didn't exist a decade ago. Drivers chose to work them in a fair economic transaction (I will trade my time for $X). They can choose to no longer work these jobs the same way that they didn't work them when they didn't exist. When they do this, and they eventually will, supply for these jobs will dry up and wages will naturally rise.

If that were true then there wouldn't be an issue with collective bargaining.

Uber and Lyft only pay for the time a passenger is in the car, what is called engaged time, not for time with the app open waiting for customers or for driving to pick them up.

Given how many drivers they have, studies in california estimate that up to a 1/3 of time drivers are not engaged, and thus not earning, just driving around clogging the streets or parked, and make as little as $5.64 an hour.

Maybe you don't care about paying people poverty wages so they can never do better, but even if you are a sociopath who lives only for yourself, whose tax dollars do you think subsidize folks who can't afford rent, food, health insurance etc?

https://laborcenter.berkeley.edu/the-effects-of-proposition-...

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

#386

Post by Wolfenstein98k » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 1:26 PM UTC

bergstromm466 wrote: post #138

bhupy wrote: post #126

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Which is fine, because that's progressively taxed. The alternative is higher prices which flatly burden everyone equally.

> Which is fine No it's not fine [that taxpayers "ultimately end up paying for the social security, healthcare, and other unmet needs (lack of paid sick leave, lack of paid maternity/paternity leave etc.) of these contractors"]. The Commons have been slowly plundered. It's the working class who is suffering. Look around you, homeless people everywhere. This is digital Rentier Capitalism, which enriches the ruling cla…

Why is this truest in the bluest areas? It's not nearly as true in (say) Salt Lake City.

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

#387

Post by matt-attack » Sun, Nov 08, 2020, 9:01 PM UTC

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.

Honest question: do you feel it’s noble to tell that supposed person in your scenario that he or she he’s not permitted to except that job? Or that his employer is not permitted to offer it?

In other words there are two consenting adults, one offering a position and one willing and eager to except it. Enter you, who wishes to get in the middle of it.

For what it’s worth, I have great compassion for someone who is stuck in a situation where they feel compelled to take a difficult, or dangerous, or Low paid job. But at the same time I Cannot muster the hubris needed, nor do I think I have the moral authority, to insert myself into two other peoples business. I believe there must be other ways to remedy the situation, that don’t involve prohibiting free trade.