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

71–80 of 387 posts

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

#71

Post by colejohnson66 »

vmception wrote: post #21
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.

Do you think it passes the Equal Protection Clause of 14th Amendment of the US constitution? Treating some companies' employees differently than others? Because I hope it does. I also unfortunately have to hope that the ride-share companies give the benefits they suggest, but I also want the US to unbundle this from companies to begin with, across the whole republic.

We already have discriminated for a century on pay: tipped vs non-tipped wages. Also, they’re not modifying it to single out Uber and Lyft, but “gig economy workers”. Requiring someone who fulfills certain requirements to be classified as an employee isn’t unconstitutional.

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

#72

Post by username90 »

lopmotr wrote: post #59
refurb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

People readily choose to let themselves be exploited. That's why minimum wages are compulsory not negotiable by employees. It's why human trafficking is illegal - the victims choose to be trafficked. It's why unions have compulsory membership. Here, individual drivers might be more concerned about losing their jobs or lifestyle (perhaps justifiably) than the consequences of the exploitation.

Prop 22 added minimum wage protection and benefits to gig drivers. Thinking that they need to be employees to receive it is conservative thinking.

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

#73

Post by gwd »

cody3222 wrote: post #70
gwd wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

> 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?

Do you mean for Uber and Lyft, or for 19th-century factory workers?

I absolutely think the 19th century factory workers had it better than the 19th century plantation slaves. Exactly where we draw the line for "coercion" matters less to me than the recognition that such a lifestyle still wasn't "voluntary": they were forced into doing something nobody should be forced to do.

I don't really know whether Uber or Lyft reach the level of coercion at the moment; but unless there's something to prevent it, the same thing will happen eventually.

> 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?"

I like John Rawl's "Veil of Ignorance": https://fs.blog/2017/10/veil-ignorance/

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

#74

Post by _2d30 »

rmrfstar wrote: post #51
refurb wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

I don't believe that, but would read any evidence you have that tends to substantiate your claim.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-...

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

#75

Post by NormenNomen »

MattGaiser wrote: post #17

Unless you are an Uber driver (and even then, there is debate among drivers), AB5 would only cause you to face higher prices and reduced availability. Voting for this would be an altruistic act that would come out of people's wallets. No surprise that this passed easily.

Given the legality of unionizing, I certainly don't see wages going up in the near future. It sounds like a lot of these employees weren't educated about their (lack of) rights.

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

#76

Post by NormenNomen »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #22
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.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

Err, is the "casual use of the gig economy" good? These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. This certainly isn't going to make getting bread on the table any easier except in the extremely short term—and that's assuming a collective, vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state.

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

#77

Post by makomk »

refurb wrote: post #47
rmrfstar wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So... you're OK with having an exploited underclass of marginally attached gig workers? Or you're not?

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

It was particularly interesting watching journalists cheerlead for AB5 right up until the point where they realized that it affected them too and not just Uber and Lyft drivers.

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

#78

Post by coldcode »

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 carefree.

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

#79

Post by coldcode »

mike_d wrote: post #55
xiphias2 wrote: post #18

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You mean cheap Ubers of course. I also don't think direct democracy lost here. Most people don't want Uber prices to go up. Democracy always sucks for the minority / people who don't have voting rights.

Uber rides are either going to get really cheap, or they are going to go out of business. Waymo doesn't have the labor overhead and will eat their lunch. It is almost cute that we are trying to pass or block protections for a workforce that won't exist in 5 years.

In the long run Uber goes out of business, since it can only be profitable if the drivers are actual slaves and earn nothing. Until of course people perfect AI taxis, then all Uber drivers can get unemployment, oh, wait.

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

#80

Post by NeutronStar »

Rebelgecko wrote: post #22
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.

Part of why I voted for prop 22 is because the list of special exemptions to AB5 is a mile long. On top of the original exemptions, we even passed AB2257 which added a few dozen more ( https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm... ) I think prop 22 is flawed, but I'm using it as a referendum on AB5 (and I think it's marginally better than the alternative). AB5 is a defacto ban on casual use of the g…

So if I make a new company I'm not allowed to abuse the law like those?
Post reply on HN