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

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

nytimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

611–620 of 754 posts

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#611

Post by Gibbon1 »

hbarka wrote: post #599

I want to be empathetic to both sides of the argument. Don’t 1099 workers have preferential tax treatments? Why would you give that up and become W2? On the other hand, health insurance is a safety net. I feel like we need a new system where one can be an entrepreneur and still be able to afford healthcare.

> Don’t 1099 workers have preferential tax treatments?

It's complicated but the short answer is no. A 1099 contractor can write off a bunch of expenses. But importantly an employer can also write off a bunch of expenses. (like your health insurance) On top of that an employer pays half the FICA withholding where a self employed person pays the whole thing. And also you don't get unemployment as a contractor. And you don't get paid vacation either.

> I feel like we need a new system where one can be an entrepreneur and still be able to afford healthcare.

A saw someone claim about 10 years ago that there are more small businesses and self employed people in Europe than the US and government funded health insurance is likely the reason.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#612

Post by cultofmetatron »

dd36 wrote: post #274
neltnerb wrote: post #272

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my c…

Gusto will handle it all. Though I’m not a fan and we’re looking to switch. The never gave us our referral credits and while it’s NBD, it definitely left a bad taste.

been looking into gusto myself. what are the alternatives in this space?

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#613

Post by leetcrew »

jshowa3 wrote: post #458
stjohnswarts wrote: post #433

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Everyone who I've personally known do these jobs only do it temporarily just to make ends meet between real jobs. It doesn't matter how shitty the benefits are if you're going to get kicked out on the street because you missed the rent/mortgage payment. Maybe some people do it "for a living" but I bet most are between real opportunities or making some money for Christmas/vacation/etc

The reason they don't have a choice is because the system is designed to provide the lowest quality of living possible because we haven't done basic things like raised minimum wage with inflation or institute universal health care. Instead we've subsidized all these gig corporations so frequently that one of the biggest ones pays 0 in federal taxes. Something I don't even get the choice to do. It's about time we stop…

> Instead we've subsidized all these gig corporations so frequently that one of the biggest ones pays 0 in federal taxes.

which one is this?

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#614

Post by mattmcknight »

monkbroc wrote: post #183

Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...

So perhaps each Uber Driver could be given the tools to form their own LLC, where they are an employee of that LLC, and that LLC contracts with Uber and potentially other gig services. It could be completely automated for them.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#615

Post by notyourday »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #426
djsumdog wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In America, you have to work until you die. The major thing the gig economy takes from people is health care. It's insanely expensive, and the Affordable Care Act is a terrible shamble of broken policy. I spent time outside of the US and came back to find health care worse than when I left it: https://fightthefuture.org/article/returning-to-america-and-... I have a friend who has been fighting brain cancer for over a…

This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Think of the opportunity costs. First off, Uber drivers don't make that much. Then you have vehicle depreciation and maintenance costs. You need to carry an insurance rider that covers rideshare driving. You also need to pay for your own health care. When you add up all these expenses, plus the desire for a living wage, there is no way drivers can be making eno…

> This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Think of the opportunity costs. First off, Uber drivers don't make that much.

It must be nice to sit in air conditioned office on $800 chair, sipping kombucha, looking at 2x 28" 4k monitors pontificating "Why would anyone want to be driving for uber?"

Because for an Uber driver this job could be the best available. One needs to eat and put a roof over one's head.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#616

Post by eyeundersand »

labrador wrote: post #504
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #426

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is why I don't understand why people take gig jobs. Think of the opportunity costs. First off, Uber drivers don't make that much. Then you have vehicle depreciation and maintenance costs. You need to carry an insurance rider that covers rideshare driving. You also need to pay for your own health care. When you add up all these expenses, plus the desire for a living wage, there is no way drivers can be making eno…

I drive Lyft and Uber in the SF Bay Area. I'm a retired computer programmer and I need to supplement my income to have spending money. I'm on MediCal which is a great health insurance program and easy to get on if you are low income. I'm actually making really good money driving. When I am smart about knowing when and where to be I can make a too much money even working part time, by which I mean I will disqualify my…

Off topic but is your last sentence a nod to Vonnegut by any chance? Just curious

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#617

Post by 0xffff2 »

throwaway_law wrote: post #569
0xffff2 wrote: post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The sorts of company-to-company contracts where the individual "contractors" are W2 employees of a contracted company are totally unaffected by this legislation. If anything, this legislation is likely to introduce that relationship where it didn't exist before (e.g. Uber might contract with local companies formed solely to employ Uber drivers in that locality, so that Uber doesn't have to deal with all of the c…

>The sorts of company-to-company contracts where the individual "contractors" are W2 employees of a contracted company are totally unaffected by this legislation. You must have missed the part of my comment that specifies: "the firms who get the contract to do the work and *turn around and subcontract the work to you for pennys on the dollar" >(e.g. Uber might contract with local companies formed solely to employ Ube…

"the firms who get the contract to do the work and *turn around and subcontract the work to you for pennys on the dollar"

Hmmm, I've never seen that arrangement before. Maybe it's a common thing somewhere though. I can't imagine why anyone would take that kind of job.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#618

Post by kerkeslager »

ilikehurdles wrote: post #530
rsweeney21 wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not that simple. For a company, a contractor is much different than an employee, and it is much more regulated and costly to terminate an employee. For example, if you terminate an employee you have to have proper documentation to justify the termination. Even then, you are still vulnerable to a wrongful termination lawsuit...unless you offer them severance in exchange for signing away the right to sue. You are…

Wouldn't a way to "work around" this be to incorporate or form a sole proprietorship for your own services?

Incidentally, you'd be crazy not to do this, as having a business, even a sole proprietorship, makes taxes a lot easier.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#619

Post by jonfw »

titanomachy wrote: post #382
EpicEng wrote: post #344

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions. Well yeah, it doesn't force them to. Who are these "experts"? If Uber takes on 100,000 new employees and all of the costs that go along with them, why wouldn't they also manage them like... employees? You can't have…

If they're doing it because it makes them more efficient or profitable, it makes sense. If they're just doing it to punish the state for changing the rules... well, that's their prerogative, but if it makes them less efficient they will lose ground to competitors.

They're doing it because their current business model will no longer be legal and they now have to optimize to a new set of laws. They aren't doing this to be more efficient, this will be less efficient than their existing system. But it very well may be the most efficient way to handle it under the new regulations.

Re: California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

#620

Post by jonfw »

EpicEng wrote: post #588
farisjarrah wrote: post #381

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are plenty of companies who have successfully figured out the whole part-time flexible employee thing. I quit my last company, but they didn't want to lose me, so they wanted to keep me on as a flexible-part-timer and I didn't even have a set amount of hours I needed to work every week. As long as I was working less then something like 30 hours a week then they didn't need to provide me additional benefits like…

>If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money? Can you quantify (ballpark) the amount of money we're losing out on currently as far as roads and associated infrastructur…

> payroll taxes don't fund those

It's kind of silly to make the distinction between which taxes fund which programs. It's completely arbitrary. Dollar bills are dollar bills

Post reply on HN