Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

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

wsj.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

61–70 of 387 posts

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

#61

Post by gwd »

cody3222 wrote: post #34
perfunctory wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Unless you are a slave, abolishing slavery would only cause you to face higher prices ...

No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

> Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working.

But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In the 1800's, lots of white people in the North weren't legal slaves; but they were "wage slaves" in factories -- they worked 11 hours a day, 7 days a week, for just enough to have a roof over their head and food in their stomachs; and if they got sick or injured they were just out of luck.

The idea that all of those people were "opting in" to that kind of life is preposterous. They were being coerced to work by their physical needs; and the Market, recognizing this, offered them the smallest amount better than "homeless and starving" that they could.

Obviously things are better now than they were in the 1800s, but only because we have laws against "opting in" to bad jobs. As soon as those laws are taken away, the Market will ensure things go back to the way they were.

Uber and Lyft have done many things differently than traditional taxi companies; but one of the things they've done is make an end-run round the labor laws that stop the Market from coercing people into dead-end jobs.

The only other way to prevent that kind of coersion is Universal Basic Income. If employees can walk away from a job that's dangerous and pays poorly, then the Market will make sure employers offer more reasonable conditions.

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

#62

Post by cody3222 »

lsiebert wrote: post #58
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.

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.

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

#63

Post by nullc »

renewiltord wrote: post #54
nullc wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The best part about Prop 22 is it reveals who reads their props before expressing an opinion on them. Well, thanks for exposing that your heuristic is broken-- because the only place I've seen it brough up is from reading it myself. (If you saw it discussed elsewhere you may well have seen /me/ writing about it). The 7/8th's threshold is an insult-- it exists for the only purpose of telling an effective lie about t…

Perfect. Having read it yourself, perhaps you can explain to us why you have concluded that a 7/8ths majority could overturn it.

A substantial amendment to the Business and Professional code could defacto overturn it.

That isn't the only way the props effects could be effectively bypassed, they could be bypassed by other updates to california law, e.g. to unionize app workers, changes to laws governing working conditions for drivers, etc. All such changes are potentially pre-empted by prop22's language.

Prop22 arguably creates a fairly broad automatic veto for Uber/et. al. against any California law that could be argued to impede the rideshare business. For example, there is a clear argument post prop22 that a law which prohibited registered sex offenders from being rideshare app drivers would now require a 7/8th's vote.

Uber has repeatability shown itself more than willing to exploit loopholes in an unethical manner and we've now granted them a fairly generalized shield against loophole closing.

Ultimately the courts may not be willing to follow such a broad effect, but the recipe for a lot of time and money to be wasted litigating it is coded right into the proposition.

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

#64

Post by beeper-beeps »

db48x wrote: post #7
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Most Californian voters are pretty disappointing. There was one a few years back that basically eliminated paid breaks and meals for EMTs, and there are probably a string of other bad decisions going back as far as you care to look.

It’s an illustration of the flaws of “direct democracy”, the question voters should be asked is: “Do you want workers in CA to be entitled to meal breaks? Or, are you willing to give up protected meal breaks?”

The overwhelming majority of voters are not motivated enough to properly consider an issue which is going to impact a tiny minority of other people. And people will never feel responsible for their vote.

This is why politicians should exist, to be responsible for these decisions and to be accountable afterwards (in theory). Direct democracy lets everyone wash their hands of any responsibility.

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

#65

Post by nullc »

refurb wrote: post #27
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

Did you know that CA has been busy passing special exemptions to AB 5 for a ton of professions ever since it first passed? Here is an example of professions as of September, but I know they passed additional exemptions in October as well. https://www.wagehourblog.com/2020/09/articles/california-wag...

I'm aware-- and if Prop22 just grafted the ride-share businesses into those lists or overturned AB5 I'd have less to complain about it.

Instead, Prop22 acts as a generalized shield against any act of the legislature which limits or imposes specific restrictions on rideshare app businesses by requiring a 7/8th's vote and requiring that they be "consistent with the purpose" of the prop22 amended law.

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

#66

Post by renewiltord »

nullc wrote: post #63
renewiltord wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Perfect. Having read it yourself, perhaps you can explain to us why you have concluded that a 7/8ths majority could overturn it.

A substantial amendment to the Business and Professional code could defacto overturn it. That isn't the only way the props effects could be effectively bypassed, they could be bypassed by other updates to california law, e.g. to unionize app workers, changes to laws governing working conditions for drivers, etc. All such changes are potentially pre-empted by prop22's language. Prop22 arguably creates a fairly broad a…

This is Wikipedia lawyering. It's no surprise Californians found themselves unconvinced.

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

#67

Post by nullc »

renewiltord wrote: post #66
nullc wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A substantial amendment to the Business and Professional code could defacto overturn it. That isn't the only way the props effects could be effectively bypassed, they could be bypassed by other updates to california law, e.g. to unionize app workers, changes to laws governing working conditions for drivers, etc. All such changes are potentially pre-empted by prop22's language. Prop22 arguably creates a fairly broad a…

This is Wikipedia lawyering. It's no surprise Californians found themselves unconvinced.

"Wikipedia lawyering"?

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

#68

Post by nullc »

sieabahlpark wrote: post #6
nullc wrote: post #2

A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.

> It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one. Well I'm sure you'll get over it when you consider that overreach and imperfect laws don't operate in a vacuum.

Fair enough, I certainly have sympathy for the comment above about "using it as a referendum on AB5", although I think it is an extremely poor tool for that.

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

#69

Post by redis_mlc »

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.

> 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.

In theory, yes. In reality, no.

It's important to maintain entry-level jobs that don't require advanced English skills, credentials, E-verify, or that allow self-scheduling.

The US is the land of opportunity. Let's keep it that way, especially for people who want to work.

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

#70

Post by cody3222 »

gwd wrote: post #61
cody3222 wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No one is forcing them to do this work. They opt-in to being a driver. Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison?

> Slavery is coerced labor, how can you even make the comparison? There are different levels of coercion. After all, even a literal slave doesn't have to work -- they can just allow themselves to be beaten to death. But given the choice between being beaten to death and working, most people choose working. But the fact is that even people who aren't slaves still have to have a place to live and something to eat. In t…

I follow your logic and see your point...but it still seems like a stretch to label this as coercion. Where do you draw the line?

You can always try to argue that the lowest income earners deserve more. Who is to judge their life is too deep in "survival mode?" Uber has literally been a way out for many of them (earn that extra income on their own schedule).

PS: I also think UBI is a fantastic idea and a great way to avoid all these expensive discussions and campaigns about what to do. UBI would enable the elimination of so much costly regulation while solving this underlying discussion of people in "survival mode."

Post reply on HN