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

91–100 of 387 posts

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

#91

Post by rayuela »

coldcode wrote: post #78
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…

This was a proper roast. I really needed a good laugh this morning.

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

#92

Post by anonuser123456 »

dboreham wrote: post #81
mike_d wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are ghosts driving the Waymo fleet in AZ?

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

#93

Post by AnthonyMouse »

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.

> These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat.

The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home.

They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only requires them to get paid less or have less flexibility etc. as the trade off the company has to make to justify paying the additional cost of mandatory benefits.

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

#94

Post by bhupy »

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.

> These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat.

How about neither? They're overwhelmingly part-time side work. This was pretty clear in the polls.

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

#96

Post by [deleted] »

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.

[deleted]

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

#97

Post by xiphias2 »

dboreham wrote: post #81
mike_d wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

They exist. They are just not scaled up yet. Scaling is not tricial though, as hardware and real world is involved.

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

#98

Post by mola »

anonuser123456 wrote: post #84
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.

>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?

Since when is uber profitable?

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

#99

Post by wil421 »

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.

I will take your bet. No way full self-driving is coming and no way Waymo will deliver a self-driving taxi in 5 years that will compete with a driver based taxi. I can see Waymo or the like picking gimmicky routes like Las Vegas airport to select hotels/stops or another easy route in an area without rain.

I don't mean the self-driving meaning that keeps getting reinvented every couple years to kick the can down the road. I mean the car is driving itself without a driver or remote driver in the majority of circumstances such as a rainstorm.

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

#100

Post by Frost1x »

beeper-beeps wrote: post #64
db48x wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

Representative or indirect democracy allows much of the same with politicians who largely aren't held accountable by voters and don't seem to care about their actions on others. All we seem to do is shift the blame to someone with more moral flexibility while also losing power in the process. And our representatives are now selling our power to the highest bidder. At the same time, representative democracies at least help protect minorities against lynch mobs and group think a bit but that's far from guaranteed.

I'm not convinced which system is better or not, personally, or if a better system can exist.

Post reply on HN