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

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#41

Post by pgeorgi » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:42 AM UTC

cinquemb wrote: post #14

Leszek wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Germany has similar workers' rights and protection from firing, yet it has a lower unemployment rate.

Not that I think employment rate means much (look at japan's very low employment rate compare to their economic growth since 1989, its very low [2.4% now]), but their unemployment rate for April came in at 4.9%, whereas in the US was at 3.6%.

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as:

"Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than estimates based on national definitions of unemployment. This indicator is measured in numbers of unemployed people as a percentage of the labour force and it is seasonally adjusted. The labour force is defined as the total number of unemployed people plus those in civilian employment." (https://data.oecd.org/unemp/harmonised-unemployment-rate-hur...)

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#42

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:44 AM UTC

inferiorhuman wrote: post #33

manfredo wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30 hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance). If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours…

The whole idea of "unemployment insurance" for an Uber driver is not compatible with their business model. This isn't a factory where workers come in at 9 and leave at 5 and you either have a job or you don't. Uber drivers set their own hours. What would unemployment insurance for an Uber or Lyft driver look like? If you get less than X rides per hour you get unemployment insurance?

Regardless, let me make this simpler because we seem to be getting lost on tangents. Each Uber driver bring in $X revenue per hour. For each Uber driver there are $Y hourly expenses (almost certainly dominated by the drivers' wages). So for every hour of work each Uber driver generates $X - $Y dollars for Uber. But that's not the whole situation. Uber also has overhead costs for each driver. Currently this is minimal, probably just the cost of operating the web service. Let's say $X is 20, $Y is 15, and each driver has a $50 a week overhead cost. So Uber drivers have to drive for 10 hours a week to make even.

Benefits almost always take the form of overhead costs. So now lets say these overhead costs go up from $50 a week to $150 a week. Now each driver needs to drive for at least 30 hours a week to break even. Uber now has a strong incentive to get rid of the drivers working less than that amount because they're costing the company more in expenses than they're bringing in.

Money doesn't appear out of nowhere. If Uber drivers are getting more benefits, then that costs money and that money needs to come from somewhere. It's either going to be lower pay, less flexible hours, or something we're not thinking of. There's no having your cake and eating it too.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#43

Post by johnchristopher » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:50 AM UTC

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…

> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contractor can get his own food and roof ? That would offer some protections to people while keeping the economy going on ? It would also allow really poor people to get on the job wagon with some kind of peace of mind regarding the end of the month.

The companies could make a year-contract euro style so they would be certain the original investment isn't wasted and the employee/contractor has a job for a year until he becomes a regular contractor.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#44

Post by johnchristopher » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:53 AM UTC

eecc wrote: post #28

naner wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is there a name for this type of reasoning? An extreme version is that sweat shops are more beneficial then letting kids starve to death. Can we try and improve the situation for low wage workers as well as additional methods to address unemployment?

TINA? Paternalism (think of factory owners building Falansteriums for their workers)

Interesting. I googled it and found that https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Phalanst%C3%A8re

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#45

Post by cinquemb » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:56 AM UTC

pgeorgi wrote: post #41

cinquemb wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not that I think employment rate means much (look at japan's very low employment rate compare to their economic growth since 1989, its very low [2.4% now]), but their unemployment rate for April came in at 4.9%, whereas in the US was at 3.6%.

https://data.oecd.org/chart/5A9X is the harmonized unemployment rate for Germany and the USA, which they define as: "Harmonised unemployment rates define the unemployed as people of working age who are without work, are available for work, and have taken specific steps to find work. The uniform application of this definition results in estimates of unemployment rates that are more internationally comparable than esti…

I'm just reporting what the German statistical office reports (https://m.investing.com/economic-calendar/german-unemploymen...).

Besides, harmonized or not, doesn't explain the economic weakness in Germany over the past decade compared to the US.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#46

Post by manfredo » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:58 AM UTC

chewz wrote: post #36

manfredo wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you seriously comparing gig workers to slavery? This is just beyond absurd, and it makes me dubious as to whether you're participating in this conversation in good faith. On the off chance that you're not trolling, contractors - unlike slaves - have the freedom to choose what work they'll do. Drivers for Uber often also drive for Lyft when it pays better. There's nothing stopping them leaving if their opinion is…

Slaves and serf were historically also free to go if they have paid off their masters. You could also argue thst they had received some protection and benefits. "Freedom" of choice is relative term here.

No, slaves weren't free to go. The whole point of slaves is that they don't need to be paid so saying that they could pay off their masters is moot. There was also no requirement that theirs masters set them free even if a slave could somehow reimburse them for their initial purchase cost. They were their master's personal property, and their master could decide not to sell them if he so wished.

Slaves also had next to no protection. Slaves could be killed in gladiatorial fights, and were often used to work in the most unhealthy and unsafe jobs. Masters could rape their slaves at will, or prostitute their slaves. The only "protection" they had was the fact that it was in their masters' self-interest to keep them alive so that they could continue working.

I seriously cannot fathom as to how you can think that the gig economy is comparable to owning other human beings as property.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#47

Post by rzwitserloot » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 7:58 AM UTC

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…

Take the wider view.

Let's posit as a hypothetical that 1% of the workforce is deplorably bad at the notion of being employed (let's define that as: It'll take them 100s+ of trying things until they find a job where the employer is better off employing them vs. not employing them). Let's say a further 1% is rated as 'quite bad' (defined as: More than half the jobs they would on paper qualify for, they'd do such a bad job the employer is better off not employing them).

Why employ these people? In western europe the common song and dance routine is a calvinistic 'because work is good for you, otherwise they'd be lazy gits'... at which point apparently the argument becomes: The employers of the notion must carry the burden of dealing with these folks, for the good of society.

In the US and a lot of right wing euro parties the sentiment is more: Well, they are lazy! I don't wanna pay taxes to enable these morons. Except that is an economic falsehood; they drag society down no matter what you do. I guess unless you're willing to take the moral position of just casually killing them in a way that is really cheap and easy (and thus, probably quite imprecise – few to no people are morally okay with this I assume), you just have to grin and bear it. Yeah, they drag a bit. It's fine; the economy can easily accomodate them.

The point is: A system that does let such people be employed here and there for a while is not inherently better than one that does not, and, 0% unemployment is a crazy goal.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#48

Post by threatofrain » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:02 AM UTC

johnchristopher wrote: post #43

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…

> We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies. Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers. How about the ridesharing companies should provide - by law - for food and shelter (paid for with a pay cut from the gigs) until the employee/contr…

Do you want employers to provide housing because you think employers can spend money on housing and food better than employees? Believable.

But I am wary of the efficiency of company towns. In my perspective, things like housing, food, and medicine are "power vacuum" issues, where not taking up these issues is the same as leaving power (and responsibility) on the table for someone else to grab. I also think once power is taken away it's hard to get back.

I view the issues you're talking about as social and government issues, and I'm wary about ceding more and more responsibility to businesses simply because we think government sucks.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#49

Post by kartan » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:05 AM UTC

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 were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses).

That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees contractors, when they are not, etc.

Re: California is cracking down on the gig economy

#50

Post by pishpash » Sat, Jun 01, 2019, 8:05 AM UTC

georgeecollins wrote: post #34

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. That reminds me of the posturing when they passed those child labor laws. And what did we get? A bunch of unemployed children.

Surely you're not arguing that adults have the same degree of agency and consent as children.