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

Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

knock-la.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 125 posts

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#71

Post by mullingitover »

zajio1am wrote: post #54
ndespres wrote: post #12

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>>"We can't paper over our lack of viable careers by creating low-skilled jobs that pay the same as jobs requiring a college education." Well, why can't we? If we are saying that these types of jobs need to exist, why can we not agree that the people who do the job deserve to be compensated with a living wage and deserve dignity and stability?

> why can we not agree that the people who do the job deserve to be compensated with a living wage Living wage based on locally inflated housing prices is just fundamentally broken concept. It is just ideological cover for wealth transfer from productive economy to landlords (by focusing on 'living wage' based on market housing costs and not on 'affordable rents' based on market wages). If there is an excess of worke…

> Living wage based on locally inflated housing prices is just fundamentally broken concept. It is just ideological cover for wealth transfer from productive economy to landlords (by focusing on 'living wage' based on market housing costs and not on 'affordable rents' based on market wages).

Man, this is painfully true. Until California can decide between housing being affordable and housing being an asset that is guaranteed to increase in value 10% every year (which is what we've decided for the moment) every increase in wages is just going to be an additional subsidy for the top 1%.

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#72

Post by Mountain_Skies »

The UFCW sounds really weak in this article. When I worked for Pavilions twenty-five years ago, it was a closed shop and the union was protective of any attempt to change that. Allowing an entire segment of employees to be replaced with independent contractors seems to set the stage for other groups of employees, perhaps cashiers, to also be replaced with contractors. Grocery delivery isn't something new for Pavilions. They offered it at least as far back as the mid 1990s and maybe all the way back to their opening day as a premium-service grocery store.

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#73

Post by mullingitover »

renewiltord wrote: post #69
Pfhreak wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, why can't we just say housing isn't a market, it's priced primarily for livibility and less for some concept of quality. Then living wage doesn't need to be opened to inflated housing markets.

Because there is an existing large class of people (2 in 3 Americans) who have acted based on the idea that housing is a market and have bought a home on that basis. They have no interest in altering the status quo. To add to that, you can't choose what housing is priced by unless you have government price controls and that is a cure that's worse than the disease.

Singapore has some pretty nice public housing. If there was a government policy that any time median rents climb above X, the state will procure land and build housing until it drops below that number again, it might be more workable than the blunt instrument of price caps.

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#74

Post by Jommi »

slg wrote: post #65
Jommi wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You realize many laws don't allow any legislative input at all right? By default, a law enacted by ballot measure can only be changed by another law enacted by ballot measure. You can go learn something about it from here: https://www.ncsl.org/research/elections-and-campaigns/initia...

>"I’ve looked at a lot of ballot measures over the years," said Moylan, adding that a two-thirds majority is common. >But a seven-eighths "super, super, super-duper majority," she said, "is new as far as I’m aware."[1] It is relatively standard for propositions to include some ways for the legislature to amend the law. It isn't a full legal requirement, but it is common. The a 7/8 majority is nearly impossible to rea…

From the same article:

>No surprise, many ballot measures do not say otherwise. Compared to that default, Prop. 22’s high bar for amendments actually gives the Legislature more influence than the norm.

-

>If Prop 22 is going to be amended or repealed, it basically has to be done through the popular vote.

And how exactly is this a bad thing?

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#75

Post by seany »

slg wrote: post #4

For those who maybe clicked through to the comments before reading or didn't make it several paragraphs into the article, this is a direct result of Prop 22 which was passed on the backs of a nearly $200m campaign by Uber, Lyft, and other rideshare companies. This is one of the exact results predicted by opponents of Prop 22. Also there is basically no way for Prop 22 to be amended or repealed through the state legis…

but why is that a problem?

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#76

Post by mushbino »

Jommi wrote: post #56
slg wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Prop 22 is much more stable than AB5 because the requirements to change it are much more difficult to reach.

We are not talking about stability of AB5, but rather the situation before it. It was trivial for most other industries to get excemptions to AB5 (there are tens, if not close to 100 excemptions now). So what really changed with prop22 comapared to before AB5?

Prop22 requires a 7/8 majority in the house to overturn (practically impossible).

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#77

Post by slg »

Anon1096 wrote: post #67
slg wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Money buys votes at the margin. Everyone agrees on this including the people who supported Prop 22 otherwise they wouldn't have spent some $175m more than their opponents.

That doesn't mean the voters were brainwashed into supporting something they otherwise wouldn't have.

Why do you think these companies spent roughly $175m more than their opponents if they didn't think it would help them win?

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#79

Post by ndespres »

isoskeles wrote: post #59
ndespres wrote: post #36

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a story about a grocery store chain replacing their own employees who perform a job at the company, with "independent contractors" from a 3rd-party service. I'm not sure what case you're trying to make, whose dignity are you saying is violated? Who said anything about taxis? Why are you arguing to me against raising minimum wage, when all I said was that people deserve a living wage?

> Why are you arguing to me against raising minimum wage, when all I said was that people deserve a living wage? Well, you said: > why can we not agree that the people who do the job deserve to be compensated with a living wage and deserve dignity and stability? How do you propose that a person doing a "job" earn a "living wage" without making changes to the minimum wage? I sense much more of an argumentative tone to…

As others have said in this thread and in many other places, the minimum wage does not really correspond to the wage required to live a comfortable and dignified life. It is merely the least amount of money an employer can pay an employee without it being illegal, and has very little to do with the cost of living.

If I seem argumentative, it is because I am exasperated with the gymnastics that people will do in order to justify the conscription of more and more people into precarious existences under a gig economy, which largely benefits people at the top of the economic ladder at the expense of those at the bottom.

Re: Vons, Pavilions to Replace Drivers with Independent Contractors

#80

Post by slg »

Jommi wrote: post #74
slg wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>"I’ve looked at a lot of ballot measures over the years," said Moylan, adding that a two-thirds majority is common. >But a seven-eighths "super, super, super-duper majority," she said, "is new as far as I’m aware."[1] It is relatively standard for propositions to include some ways for the legislature to amend the law. It isn't a full legal requirement, but it is common. The a 7/8 majority is nearly impossible to rea…

From the same article: >No surprise, many ballot measures do not say otherwise. Compared to that default, Prop. 22’s high bar for amendments actually gives the Legislature more influence than the norm. - >If Prop 22 is going to be amended or repealed, it basically has to be done through the popular vote. And how exactly is this a bad thing?

Because the 7/8 majority is nothing but lip service to being flexible. It is designed to be used the exact way you are doing now in debates like this. A majority that high is not feasible to actually be implemented.
Post reply on HN