61–70 of 120 posts
You’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll spend if they can’t cut a deal. Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single party state.
Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law? TFA states: > The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex. implements a legal ruling sounds suspiciously like "the court says that the previous state of law was ambiguous/incongruent and the le…
The new law codified the Dynamex ruling but also added some new industry-specific exceptions; outside of those exceptions they are essentially the same.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by definition it isn't subcontracting. This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs within the same industry. A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting as described in this wiki is morally bad. But instead you made neither…
You can subcontract work to another firm, which has employees. Your contract is with the firm. California believes that if you "subcontract" an individual to do the work your company is in the business of doing, you're not "subcontracting" with them at all, you're employing them. That's not a ban on subcontracting. It's a ban on calling an employee a contractor.
Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other photographers. They are also independently established.
1. This is banned by the California law?
2. You approve of this restriction?
To be clear, these people aren't employees under the law in Canada, our jurisdiction. California seems to be redefining the word "contractor".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else. I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job…
Note that if trucking prices do go up, the amount of cargo that gets moved will go down.
The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else. I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job…
You’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll spend if they can’t cut a deal. Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single party state.
Between Jerry Brown and Pat Brown one single family has ruled the state as governor for over 40 years combined.
Are you counting in base10? I count[1] 6 terms of 4 years each = 24 years.
67% off. Not bad for government work.
If your argument is a Democrat in the governorship, since 1942 it's (R=47, D=30). Since 1958 it's (R=31, D=30). Republicans are at least equally to blame for California's governorship.
In practice, the governor is largely about qualities of a single person. The legislature is heavily skewed D/blue because that's how density votes in the US.
[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Californi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think the point is more to set the floor for work conditions (such as with minimum wage laws) so that the very desperate and those who have difficulty assessing long-term costs (such as with MLMs or Uber) don't set the minimum conditions for everyone.
So set the floor and increase education. This regulation doesn't do any of that, instead it just removes that way of working as if these people can't make the choice for themselves.
I've been on the 1099 side of the fence for a handful of jobs. It's a difficult place. You're on your own for a large portion of taxes and likely need to make estimated quarterly payments, there are no benefits (health insurance, etc), and there's a tangible lack of stability compared to a standard W2 situation.
The only solution I see is twofold, first providing adequate social services so that people can survive reeducation / changing careers and then legislation exactly like this which ensures that employers act in a manner that's compatible with long-term social stability.
Pretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.
What Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say 2000? Some of the old companies have like HP and Intel certainly made certain office work redundant and to an extent Oracle. What does HN think?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They're working on it. As a trucker, I have no problem with automation. No one has the right to any specific job or career.
So no companies with viable products. Drone trucks that follow a real driver are more realistic than fully automated trucks. Everything I’ve seen from Tesla to GM’s cruise to the German luxury brands is just driver assist tech not self driving. Im asking about any company since 2000 or mid 1990s that has put people out of jobs. Netflix nope, Alphabet nope, Facebook never. Salesforce maybe some jobs. Here’s the SV 150…
So the following trucks don't need the drivers that would drive them today.
Things change. Not always the way we predict. I do expect much to be automated, not just trucking, because about everything else that is streamlinable seems to have been done, and companies or executives don't seem to be able to survive unless they find some way to cut costs. Status quo is not good enough.
Automation is Checkov's gun on the wall. It will go off.
The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the bus…
I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else. I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job…
Claiming that there is a shortage of workers in a particular field is generally nonsense. Is there a shortage of gold? No, I can buy as much as I want tomorrow ... at the market price.