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

81–90 of 387 posts

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

#81

Post by dboreham »

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.

Obligatory note that self driving cars don't actually exist at present.

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

#82

Post by gogopuppygogo »

NormenNomen wrote: post #76
Rebelgecko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The People have voted and they desire low cost transportation options more so than protecting vulnerable transportation workers.

The state will not get its payroll tax.

The employees will not get their benefits.

Wait till the people get to vote on public sector pension plans...

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

#84

Post by anonuser123456 »

NormenNomen wrote: post #76
Rebelgecko wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>vindictive, corporate withdrawal from the state

Companies withdraw operations when they are unprofitable. That's how business works. Capital get allocated based in margins. The AB5 restrictions make profitability unlikely. That means uber/lyft jobs simply won't exist. Is that a better outcome?

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

#85

Post by username90 »

gogopuppygogo wrote: post #82
NormenNomen wrote: post #76

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The People have voted and they desire low cost transportation options more so than protecting vulnerable transportation workers. The state will not get its payroll tax. The employees will not get their benefits. Wait till the people get to vote on public sector pension plans...

The state gets its payroll tax, being an independent contractor doesn't prevent that.

The drivers will get their benefits, prop 22 added benefits to them without making them employees.

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

#86

Post by Cederfjard »

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.

That's extremely optimistic regarding the state of self-driving cars in 5 years.

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

#87

Post by elmalto »

username90 wrote: post #72
lopmotr wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO

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

#88

Post by zajio1am »

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.

> unions have compulsory membership

In EU, compulsory union membership is generally prohibited as violation of right-to-work and freedom of association.

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

#90

Post by username90 »

elmalto wrote: post #87
username90 wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO

Their minimum wage is 20% higher to adjust for that. Exactly how much higher it should be is arguable, but it can be worked out. Including waiting time in the equation will force Uber and Lyft to exit California, it is better to try to make gig work viable. This isn't a question about cost, but about business viability.

Also waiting time is very abusable. Uber could just force quit your app if there aren't any rides, and then you have to try to login and it will boot you instantly every time. Then once there is a ride it accepts you. Exactly how to meassure waiting time is therefore not viable, either uber wont be able to boot you making their business model unviable or you will never get any wait time anyway.

Post reply on HN