
California is cracking down on the gig economy - luu
https://www.vox.com/policy-and-politics/2019/5/30/18642535/california-ab5-misclassify-employees-contractors
======
ravenstine
This last year, I drove for GrubHub for about 6 months in order to pay rent
while trying to build a business as well as do web development contract
work(I'm now employed full time). The whole time, I was active in various gig
economy subreddits.

There are some people out there who _only_ want to drive for companies like
GrubHub, but most of the drivers are people who already have jobs and are
using the gig as _supplementary income_.

The topic has come up before in these communities about whether they want to
be employees or contractors. At the end of the day, most people want to stay
contractors because they already have other jobs and want to make some extra
cash during their off hours and weekends, and being an employee would
_actually_ mean being their GrubHub's bitch because then they could be told
that they can't refuse to pick up orders that are too far away.

While I do see the argument that businesses shouldn't be using contractors as
a replacement for employees, unless we solve the problem of stagnating wages,
doing so will take away a lot of needed extra income from people who don't
feel wronged by these companies.

~~~
momokoko
I really get confused about this. I wonder if it is because I'm a bit older.
Plenty of part time employment is like that. For example, many people that
work retail or service part time have very flexible schedules. They typically
have an availability chart and then if they need a day off last minute, they
are often required to find someone else to cover for them.

The reality is that the contractor part of this is to hide them(GrubHub) from
the risk involved. That's what no one understands here. Bicycle messengers
were notoriously the original "gig economy" job. The reason no one wanted to
make them employees is that they would then be responsible for workers
compensation when they got in an accident.

This is the same as GrubHub. You were lucky. You did not get in an accident.
Someone else working for GrubHub somewhere else in the country probably did.
And they very likely had very expensive medical expenses. Workers compensation
also covers permanent long term disability payments if someone is injured and
can no longer work. This can be millions of dollars.

When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's the
difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and other
things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you. As well
as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> When anyone does the math with these gig jobs, they leave out risk. That's
> the difference. GrubHub is pushing the risk of long term disability, and
> other things like unemployment due to business slowdown, entirely onto you.
> As well as other risks they are free from if you are not an employee.

It's generally quite the opposite. It's employer regulations hiding the cost
of insurance from you. There is nothing stopping you as an individual from
buying disability or unemployment insurance.

But insurance typically has a negative expected value. With perfect efficiency
the expected value is zero; probability of claim times payout from receiving
claim equals average premium. Then you add the costs of administration and
insurance fraud and it goes into the red. Whether the peace of mind from
having the insurance is worth that cost to you is your own decision.

Requiring employers to provide it does two things. The first is that it hides
the cost from you. The employer is a corporation and corporations don't really
pay for anything, employees, customers and investors do. It'd be nice to think
the investors are paying for it, but the kind of employers who hire unskilled
workers are typically not in high margin industries. In practice it's
generally going to be the workers and customers. And then people ask for more
and more things like that, thinking someone else is paying for it when it's
really still them.

Which leads to the second problem, which is that when it's required you can't
decline it. If some double digit percentage of the people on unemployment are
committing insurance fraud, you may be better off to just put the money you
would have paid in premiums into a brokerage account to rely on if you lose
your job, but you no longer have that option. You no longer even realize its
cost, because you never receive a bill for unjustifiably high insurance
premiums, you just get paid that much less or pay more when you buy stuff.

~~~
momokoko
I'm sorry, but this all just sounds like free market ideology. We are saying
the same thing. You just think someone needs to be at fault and there are good
guys vs bad guys.

I'm talking to an individual. Please refer the comment I was replying to. I'm
not trying to make generalized ideological debates about the gig economy or
taxation or any other of the typically religious arguments people shout at
each other about online.

To an _individual_ it is important for them to realize that they need to
account for the risk involved in what they are doing. If you drive for a
company as an employee and get injured and can never work again, you will
receive payments from them for the rest of your life. If you do it as a
contractor you will be disabled and at best be able to receive the very
limited US government disability which would force you to live in poverty.
Remember, driving all day is one of the most dangerous types of professions.
And absolutely no, you cannot get an individual workers compensation policy
because it would cost more money than the income from the gig. Its absurd you
would think that exists.

Please do not go into online forums and just shoot idealism everywhere. We get
it, you hate big government and taxation is theft. We've all heard it 10
million times. Unless it has a unique connection to the topic being discussed,
you are just derailing the conversation.

~~~
username444
I think you're missing the point as well, and that may be a generational
difference.

You value security and loyalty, because that's what your generation was raised
with.

My generation has no delusions of job security. It does not and will not exist
in our future. We value independence and freedom, and the opportunity to
pursue our careers.

I've done contract work my entire life and wouldn't have it any other way. I
do not want to be tied to a company. I earn much, much work working
independently.

My insurance is my savings account. My insurance is my adaptability. My
insurance is my skillset.

Your reply indicates that you think that has something to do with idealism,
and it doesn't. We want to do work, get paid for it, and fuck off to the next
thing.

You don't have to agree with it, just don't participate in it if you don't.
But don't try to get in the way of other people doing what they want because
you don't understand it.

~~~
momokoko
No. The comment was off topic.

I was replying to an individual. And then someone decided to add a reply to my
comment with typical internet free market talking points. I was not discussing
these debated to death boring religious debates about government and taxation.
I was talking to an individual. Please refer to the comment I was originally
replying to for context.

For an individual, the loss of worker compensation is a very very significant
thing to consider. Driving is a very dangerous job. Most police officer deaths
each year are from automobile accidents. Whether they should make that choice,
or if a society should allow it, was absolutely nowhere in any way at all in
my comment. Please reread my comment as it appears you seem to have missed
that.

If you want to rehash the same typical talking points we've all heard 10,000
times, please do it in a different thread. I have a very difficult time seeing
how repeating things that have been said so many times does anything but waste
all of our time here.

~~~
CryptoPunk
These are not ideological talking points. They are basic economics.

Believing that markets work according to principles like the law of supply and
demand is as ideological as believing that vaccines reduce population wide
mortality.

------
brianchu
I'm coming to the view that gig workers are _neither_ employees nor
independent contractors. Employees don't get to unilaterally set their own
hours, and contractors don't get prices unilaterally dictated to them or
barred from their profession if their rating falls too low.

All this regulatory squabbling is arguing over whether a square peg fits a
round hole or fits a triangular hole.

We need a third classification for gig workers that affords them some
protections while preserving the economic viability of ridesharing companies.
Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think
ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

~~~
kartan
> Disregarding any problems we might have with specific companies, I think
> ridesharing companies are a benefit to consumers.

I am all for ridesharing. But Uber and Lyft, as an example, has nothing to do
with that concept. It is not like your Uber driver was coincidentally going to
the exact place that you were going.

Ridesharing, as understood before the gig economy, was someone in the company
realizing that there were more employees in her neighbourhood and providing a
ride for them for a price (some times just sharing gas expenses).

That is a really good approach. Uber/Lyft and others hide their business model
calling themselves ridesharing when they are not, calling their employees
contractors, when they are not, etc.

~~~
kelnos
Except we never called that "ridesharing". It was just "carpooling".

As much as I hate the term ridesharing, since it doesn't actually describe
what these companies and drivers do, it's not like it was a widely-used term
that's been redefined over the past decade.

~~~
welly
If the rest of us continue to incorrectly call Uber etc. "ridesharing" then
that definition will soon become set in stone. Can we not just call them
exactly what they are? Which is taxis. By every definition, they are taxis.

~~~
kelnos
I'm pretty sure that ship has already sailed.

------
egypturnash
From TFA:

 _Uber would likely have to reclassify tens of thousands of drivers in
California as employees — something Uber drivers have been fighting for in
court, unsuccessfully, for years._

"Fighting for in court" links to [https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-
drivers-strike-20...](https://www.vox.com/2019/5/8/18535367/uber-drivers-
strike-2019-cities) \- which includes these choice paragraphs:

 _It’s worth reemphasizing this: Uber doesn’t want to pay drivers to take
15-minute rest breaks every few hours because it would cost too much, even
though all US employers are required to give hourly workers paid breaks under
federal law._

 _In the filing, the company says that dissatisfied drivers could become a
business liability, as recent protests in India, the United Kingdom, and the
United States have interrupted business on the platform. Instead of outlining
ways to make drivers happy, Uber suggests it will just get worse._

 _“As we aim to reduce driver incentives to improve our financial performance,
we expect Driver dissatisfaction will generally increase,” the company
stated._

Sssssooo this maybe sounds like something employees who have been doing these
jobs have been wanting for a while...

~~~
manfredo
Drivers want it, but drivers probably don't look at Uber's finances. Ask
drivers this:

You would get the benefits of employees, but now you would have to work at
least 40 hours a week and now those hours will be set by Uber - you will not
get to choose your own hours.

Do you think they'd want that situation?

~~~
inferiorhuman
_now you would have to work at least 40 hours a week and now those hours will
be set by Uber_

Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week? There is such a thing as
a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try to keep employees under
full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs qualify for.

Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week
and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want
to drive for Uber in the first place?

~~~
manfredo
> Why would you have to work at least 40 hours a week?

Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough
revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits.

> There is such a thing as a part-time employee In fact most low-rung jobs try
> to keep employees under full-time to avoid the extra benefits that FTEs
> qualify for.

If that's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either. And
on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in order
to keep them from qualifying for benefits.

> Or, put it another way, if Uber required its drivers to work 40 hours a week
> and this resulted in unhappy drivers, what makes you think anyone would want
> to drive for Uber in the first place?

They wouldn't. That's my point. If this legislation goes into effect, then
driving for Uber will not be a viable employment option for many current
drivers because of the loss of work flexibility.

~~~
inferiorhuman
_Because if you work less than that then the employee does not generate enough
revenue to pay for the overhead cost of benefits._

That's not how things work at a low wage job. Beyond a threshold (around 30
hours) employers are hit with extra mandates (e.g. health insurance).

 _If that 's the case with Uber drivers then they don't get benefits either.
And on top of that, the company will probably have to cap drivers' hours in
order to keep them from qualifying for benefits. _

That's not true either. Being classed as an employee will mean that the
drivers qualify for unemployment insurance, that Uber will pay half of some of
the taxes typically levied on wages, oh and having W2 wages will qualify you
for a tax-advantaged IRA (retirement account). There are some other perks as
well depending on the locality. Being an employee versus contractor comes with
a number of benefits that aren't health insurance.

~~~
manfredo
The whole idea of "unemployment insurance" for an Uber driver is not
compatible with their business model. This isn't a factory where workers come
in at 9 and leave at 5 and you either have a job or you don't. Uber drivers
set their own hours. What would unemployment insurance for an Uber or Lyft
driver look like? If you get less than X rides per hour you get unemployment
insurance?

Regardless, let me make this simpler because we seem to be getting lost on
tangents. Each Uber driver bring in $X revenue per hour. For each Uber driver
there are $Y hourly expenses (almost certainly dominated by the drivers'
wages). So for every hour of work each Uber driver generates $X - $Y dollars
for Uber. But that's not the whole situation. Uber also has overhead costs for
each driver. Currently this is minimal, probably just the cost of operating
the web service. Let's say $X is 20, $Y is 15, and each driver has a $50 a
week overhead cost. So Uber drivers have to drive for 10 hours a week to make
even.

Benefits almost always take the form of overhead costs. So now lets say these
overhead costs go up from $50 a week to $150 a week. Now each driver needs to
drive for at least 30 hours a week to break even. Uber now has a strong
incentive to get rid of the drivers working less than that amount because
they're costing the company more in expenses than they're bringing in.

Money doesn't appear out of nowhere. If Uber drivers are getting more
benefits, then that costs money and that money needs to come from somewhere.
It's either going to be lower pay, less flexible hours, or something we're not
thinking of. There's no having your cake and eating it too.

~~~
cycomanic
Why should I as a taxpayer (mind you I am not American, argument still holds
though) subsidise ubers business practices? Because that is exactly what you
are arguing for. The article clearly states, that uber is extwrnalising costs,
which results in significant losses for the state. Somebody will have to pick
up the tap, and your argument seems to be that regular taxpayers should do it.

~~~
tomohawk
You are aware that we are all subsidizing the money losing operations of the
state all the time? Pretty much anything the state does is assumed to be a
money losing proposition. Is it right for the state to externalize its costs
on business?

If I'm an independent contractor, then it is my responsibility to get
insurance, etc. It is my responsibility to make sure I'm taking in enough
money to cover that stuff. So, the state is going after the wrong entity here.

~~~
cheerlessbog
> money losing proposition.

You are defining money losing as not funded by selling goods and services.
Most accountants would define it as costs exceeding revenue.

------
zaroth
> _That small status change is huge. These workers would suddenly get labor
> protections and benefits that all employees get, such as unemployment
> insurance, health care subsidies, paid parental leave, overtime pay,
> workers’ compensation, and a guaranteed $12 minimum hourly wage._

That’s an pretty optimistic take on the situation. What these new “employees”
are going to get, is fired.

I know some people are OK with that, if the task isn’t profitable enough to
pay a human full benefits to work on it, then it’s not profitable enough to
employ a human to do it at all.

But there’s a lot of space to integrate under the employment curve for these
types of super-low-skill jobs that people mostly use to fill in the gaps in
their earnings. I think ultimately this does a huge disservice to the people
who worked these gigs to earn some extra money, because it will no longer be
possible to do that.

What will be left is full-time workers in these roles who have no other
choice, who probably have a significantly shittier work experience doing jobs
or working hours they previously would have passed on.

Which honestly is sad, because there is little to no advancement opportunity,
so this is not supposed to be a career, and you’ve taken away the option for
all these low friction ways to make up a financial gap that might come up one
month to the next.

If someone finds themselves struggling to pay rent next week and they know
they’ll be facing an eviction notice in 10 days, today they can jump on any
number of apps and make up that couple hundred dollar shortfall. That’s not
going to be possible if they’re classified as an employee.

~~~
ac29
> What these new “employees” are going to get, is fired.

If the choice is between raising prices to support higher employee
expenditures, and firing all of their drivers and leaving the California
market, you think they'll choose the latter?

Or is there a third option I'm not thinking of?

~~~
didibus
Firing some of their drivers, not all. And making it harder for someone to
become a driver. Like say someone wants to drive 2 days a month, they won't be
able too anymore. Uber will probably pick only the serious drivers willing to
do it full time, fire all the others, and we have ourself a taxi industry
again.

~~~
lozenge
Although Uber touts their casual drivers, I'm sure that a huge % of the rides
are actually served by very serious drivers working roughly full time.

------
dmode
While I am sympathetic to Uber and Lyft drivers and other gig economy workers,
I am wondering if anyone has the done the calculus on job losses vs. making
something. And whether making something is better than being jobless. I met a
Uber driver the other day who drives 5000 miles per month. Clearly that is
close to exploitation. But if Uber is forced to pay drivers 100% more surely
there will be fewer drivers. And many people may not have a path to make
money. In addition, I have met many Uber drivers who are retired and only do
few hours over the weekend for supplemental income. This sweeping bill will
also take out those positions. It feels like short sighted without accounting
for these edge cases.

Also, what is the difference between Uber and eBay / Airbnb ? Can a seller in
eBay or a host at Airbnb be considered an employee ? Essentially both eBay and
Airbnb have no business without their sellers or hosts. One can claim that
these are marketplaces, but the only difference between these marketplaces and
Uber is that Uber sets price (according to the ABC test). Can Uber then simply
skirt the law by allowing a price "opt-in" suggestion ? or even outsourcing
pricing to another LLC ?

Edit: just thinking more about my last point. Uber can easily let drivers set
their own price and simply show the lower price range to the passenger. Will
be interesting to see how that plays out

~~~
manfredo
> I met a Uber driver the other day who drives 5000 miles per month. Clearly
> that is close to exploitation.

Averaging 30 miles an hour, that's 166 hours a month.

~~~
stevesimmons
How did you know 30mph is the right average speed? For instance, average
driving speed in Manhattan in 2016 was 7.1mph.

Your working time calculation also needs to consider loading and unloading
passengers, gaps between fares, time for comfort breaks, refueling, vehicle
cleaning and maintenance, etc.

~~~
manfredo
> How did you know 30mph is the right average speed? For instance, average
> driving speed in Manhattan in 2016 was 7.1mph.

And on the highway, it's 60-80 MPH. It could very well be under 160 hours.

> Your working time calculation also needs to consider loading and unloading
> passengers, gaps between fares, time for comfort breaks, refueling, vehicle
> cleaning and maintenance, etc.

True, and the 5000 mile count also needs to subtract driving for personal
reasons. Judging by the previous comment the figure of 5000 was not limited to
miles specifically driven for Uber.

------
ravenstine
> The California bill, known as AB5, expands a groundbreaking California
> Supreme Court decision last year known as Dynamex. The ruling and the bill
> instruct businesses to use the so-called “ABC test” to figure out whether a
> worker is an employee. To hire an independent contractor, businesses must
> prove that the worker (a) is free from the company’s control, (b) is doing
> work that isn’t central to the company’s business, and (c) has an
> independent business in that industry. If they don’t meet all three of those
> conditions, then they have to be classified as employees.

What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in
California? It's arguable that an engineer would likely be working on
something that is central to a company's business, and whether said engineer
has an "independent business" in their industry.

~~~
aembleton
> What does this mean for engineers who are independent contractors in
> California?

The state’s Chamber of Commerce and dozens of industry groups have been
lobbying for exemptions, and a long list of professions were excluded from the
bill: doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, insurance agents, accountants,
engineers, financial advisers, real estate agents, and hairstylists who rent
booths at salons.

~~~
ravenstine
I'd be interested in knowing whether any of us would be considered "engineers"
under the law, given that many of us don't have engineering degrees or
certifications of any kind.

My job title at my current employer is "software engineer", but I don't have a
formal education in engineering, and who knows if the California legislature
sees that as engineering or a glorification of "what my nephew does on his
computer with a thing called Word Press." Perhaps I'm too cynical.

~~~
ghaff
The actual text would seem to be: "Require an active license from the State of
California and involve the practice of one of the following recognized
professions: law, dentistry, architecture, engineering, or accounting."
[http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml...](http://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5)

So, presumably no. Only engineers with a P.E. license (which has been pretty
much phased out for software engineering).

~~~
bsimpson
Colloquially, we use profession to mean "I get paid for this thing."
Traditionally, there are requirements for something to be a profession. A
central licensing body must assert a professional has gained the requisite
knowledge to practice. (The Bar serves this purpose for lawyers.)

The examples given imply this classical meaning of "profession". As you've
pointed out, engineering in this context means jobs you'd need a license for,
like civil engineering.

------
CryptoPunk
The people I see working gig economy jobs seem to come from diverse
socioeconomic backgrounds, ranging from people with new Teslas to those who
look like they are on the margins of society.

With respect to the latter, these are people who I don't see in any other
occupation. I assume the reason they work these jobs is that they cannot get
traditional jobs which generally have higher barriers-to-entry due to higher
guaranteed wages and more benefits.

If gig economy jobs are made to be more like other jobs, then the same
barriers to entry are going to emerge.

It's the very low-cost nature of providing these jobs that makes them
accessible to those at the lower end of the skill scale.

Th US has actually seen wages for low-skilled workers grow very quickly over
the last couple of years and perhaps it is not a coincidence that it has been
over the last couple of years when the number of gig economy jobs has grown to
become a significant portion of the total job market.

Basic economy theory dictates that increasing the sources of demand for low-
skilled labor will increase wages for low-skilled labor. That's why gig
economy jobs shouldn't be prohibited.

~~~
JMTQp8lwXL
I've never been picked up by a Tesla when requesting Uber or Lyft rides.

~~~
cardiffspaceman
It might happen if you change your preferences in the app, but then you'd be
paying a higher fare. I usually use Uber for "occasions" and I wouldn't be
surprised by a model X or model S. Usually it's an Escalade or similar.

------
tomohawk
In the 80s IBM got the federal law changed so that tech workers no longer had
a safe harbor provision to be 1099s. They wanted to pay less for the workers,
and they got their wish. The take home for tech workers dropped a lot. You
have to wonder what the big interest is that is pushing this puff piece from
vox.

This law will have an overall negative impact on people who want to work
independently and take care of their own stuff.

Here's how its already impacting freelance journalists:

[https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/california-
freelan...](https://www.cjr.org/united_states_project/california-freelancer-
dynamex.php)

We're not talking about slave labor here. It's a consensual relationship.

If I want to be a 1099 and be more independent, I'm not sure what the state's
interest is here.

~~~
imagetic
I fall under this umbrella, as I do journalism, media and TV production work.
It looks as if it will have a HUGE impact. But to be honest, I don't think
many of the freelancers/contractors really understand any of the fine print. I
barely do.

------
cheerlessbog
I totally get the negative consequences of gig jobs: no benefits, security and
so forth. But whenever I take an Uber or Lyft (maybe 100 in the US and UK) I
ask the driver how they feel about the job. Almost all of them are happy with
it - some gripe about the pay but they like the flexibility. It's possible
they aren't thinking far enough ahead - and I'm talking to the self selected
group who didn't get a disabling injury or illness and fall into poverty.

~~~
sgillen
I think people in general want to put up a positive persona up. I think most
people (certainly not all) aren’t going to tell strangers how awful their job
is, even if they think that.

~~~
Zak
I have a couple of friends who have driven for Uber and found it to be a
positive experience. It's not very many peoples' dream job, but it's a way to
make money with a fairly low barrier to entry for anyone who already has a
suitable car. It offers a _lot_ more flexibility than, for example a retail or
restaurant job.

------
whiddershins
I just don’t understand who is being protected here.

When I talk to people doing these jobs they are glad to have them, and don’t
have a problem with the terms. They like the flexibility and many are doing
them as a stepping stone to the next thing.

If an Uber ride becomes more expensive, how does that benefit an elderly
person living on social security who can’t walk well and has to get across
town?

~~~
conanbatt
The marxists that believe any money taken from a corporation is recuperating
the thievery of labor surplus.

------
lostmymind66
This will most likely result in a loss of many jobs. If Uber/Lyft is going to
be forced to reclassify contractors as employees, there will be stricter
guidelines on who will actually be able to work for them (which means less
people working for them), because the company simply will not be able to
afford to pay insurance and a higher wage for everyone and anyone that wants
to drive for them.

Everyone has a choice: You can choose to work for Uber/Lyft and make extra
money or get a job somewhere else that provides benefits and a higher wage.
There is no scam going on and everyone is trying to make a buck. I see no
problem with classifying the drivers as contractors.

------
dnautics
Just charge drivers $1/day to use the platform and now they aren't
contractors, they're customers.

~~~
esolyt
Even better, categorize your app as a game. Now they're players.

Pokémon Go players don't even get paid, yet they drive from pokestop to
pokestop just to earn virtual items.

~~~
antisemiotic
By default you get 5 uses of GPS per day, for more than that use in-app
purchases. Also try our lootbox for a chance at winning fancy avatars to
display near your name!

------
jquery
We finally have the closest thing to a guaranteed jobs program that's ever
existed in the USA, and California (and New York) wants to destroy it? This is
disgusting.

If I want to drive for Uber, all I have to do is pass a background check. When
I want to drive for them, all I have to do is turn on an app. When I'm done, I
turn off the app. I can work whenever I feel like it. Very low stress! I get
wanting to "protect" workers but this ain't it. I want Uber/Uber-like things
to exist so I can earn a few dollars here and there if I need to.

Ugh, sorry, this makes me so angry and other people have been much more
eloquent on the subject.

------
LanceMan
This, along with the need to offset $1B operating losses will severely cripple
Uber. I enjoy the convenience of using an Uber to get around town but afraid
these coming actions will raise prices significantly.

------
whiddershins
It would be interesting if I could see someone do the math on where all the
money (for example) Uber would need to pay as a result of this actually goes.

How much of a bill like this is actually the government looking to increase
revenue, and how much of it would ultimately benefit pole dancers?

Uber drivers are a particularly weird case because there is no way to really
stop them from working for Lyft at the same time ... so they are supposed to
get a guaranteed minimum wage? From each ride service they drive for?

~~~
pishpash
And what is minimum wage? When are they actually "working", especially if they
are working multiple gigs at the same time? Dumb grandstanding lawmakers did
not think about these.

------
sidlls
I don't understand the implications of the second item in the test: "doing
work that isn’t central to the company’s business."

How does this apply to business-to-business contracting arrangements,
especially in the world of software engineering? Businesses hire contract
labor from vendors all the time--are those laborers to be considered employees
of both the vendor and hiring company now?

~~~
CydeWeys
In most B2B contracting arrangements, the contractors are full-time employees
of the contracting firm, and get their benefits from that company. (This was
my first job out of college.)

~~~
sidlls
Yes; I've done this myself. It's also not uncommon for individuals to contract
themselves out through a shell corporation.

The test as indicated in the article doesn't say anything about this kind of
B2B arrangement, though. Why _wouldn 't_ this law apply to individuals in this
case?

~~~
CydeWeys
The law is about classifying individual contractors as employees. It's not
going to re-classify employees of one company as employees of another.

------
nitwit005
I wish they would rework the laws so that being an employee or contractor
mattered less. It seems we've created a perverse financial incentive to
encourage this behavior of pretending everyone is a contractor.

------
webninja
“Here we are in a great economy and yet most working people have no money
saved,” Caitlin Vega, legislative director for the California Labor
Federation, told me.

This quote from the article resounds heavily with me.

------
aiisjustanif
Why don't we start with extending some employee coverage to 1099? Like just
one thing healthcare, and idk car insurance for Uber/Lyft and then see how it
goes.

Sounds better than dealing with extremes.

~~~
imagetic
That sounds far more reasonable of a solution.

------
ddffre
Then what's the point if gig economy?

With these laws it won't be profitable for those companies to run their
business.

~~~
mseidl
Well Uber has not been profitable for 10 years. So, changing the laws will
make it worse. But uber is horrible anyway.

~~~
ddffre
Yeah Uber is quite terrible, they are aiming for the autonomous taxis, that's
where they might start being profitable.

But the delivery companies, and the scooter companies that pay people to
charge the scooters.

Overall the gig economy is the future, we shouldn't harm it because of greed.

------
asicsp
seems like same topic as
[https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065910](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=20065910)

------
huffmsa
Ah yes, legislation from a "helpful government" which will ultimately drive
companies which depend on quasi-contractors to develop their robot
replacements at an accelerated rate.

Classic political short-sightedness.

~~~
entropea
Your FUD is basically saying "I approve of major exploitation". Robots are
coming, but not any time really soon. Autonomous vehicles are not a current
threat in the slightest, might as well make drivers lives better at the
expense of a corporation who's executives and corporate employee's will do
just great.

Remove the drivers, Uber doesn't have a business. Their drivers are the most
important thing to them.

------
seaghost
Gig economy is a capitalisam at it’s worst.

------
pascalxus
Consumers, make no mistake, This will drive up costs of using uber just like
everything else in CA

And it will reduce the # of uber driver demand / work pool

~~~
entropea
>Consumers, make no mistake, This will drive up costs of using uber just like
everything else in CA.

Excellent. Consumers should be paying more for these things so that drivers
have benefits and good pay. Solidarity with your fellow American worker. I
personally leave huge tips and 5/5 stars no matter what unless I almost
physically die or am assaulted. I know they aren't making great money and some
probably live in their cars. I don't use them unless it's a non-medical
emergency though.

" __We __the __people __"

~~~
whiddershins
“I don’t use them unless it is a non-medical emergency.”

I _think_ the drivers would like it if you used it more, not less, because
then they would make more money.

~~~
pishpash
"I leave a large tip only in a non-medical emergency." lol

------
hawkOne
Good news for workers

------
manfredo
Increasing benefits and worker protections also increases the cost of hiring
employees. This is widely understood. In countries where employees have
extensive benefits and protections like France, employers are very picky about
which employees they hire because it will be difficult or expensive to fire
them if they turn out to be poor workers. Hence, and unemployment rate over
twice that of the US.

The ease of entering and exiting the gig economy is one of its most valuable
aspects. What other kinds of jobs can you set your own hours, and join and
quit largely at whim? If Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, etc. all now have to consider
their contractors employees then they will have to start setting hours. If
they have to give their workers the same benefits as employees, then it will
be financially unsustainable to let them set their own hours. People who
depended on Uber for flexible employment will not be able to continue working.

This seems like political posturing that's going to hurt the majority of
employees if it passes.

~~~
Leszek
Germany has similar workers' rights and protection from firing, yet it has a
lower unemployment rate.

~~~
freeflight
Those German worker rights, and strong ties between companies and unions were
supposedly among the reasons why Walmart failed in Germany:

“They didn’t understand that in Germany, companies and unions are closely
connected,” Mr. Poschmann said. “Bentonville didn’t want to have anything to
do with unions. They thought we were communists.” [0]

[0]
[https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02...](https://www.nytimes.com/2006/08/02/business/worldbusiness/02walmart.html)

~~~
kwcts
>In Germany, Wal-Mart stopped requiring sales clerks to smile at customers — a
practice that some male shoppers interpreted as flirting — and scrapped the
morning Wal-Mart chant by staff members.

This is just fucking insane. That's not a supermarket, that's like a cult.

[https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpPUUWp5sO4](https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HpPUUWp5sO4)

~~~
smacktoward
It's one of those awful ideas that seems to bubble back up into the corporate
mind periodically. IBM actually did the same thing back in the first half of
the 20th century (see [https://www.networkworld.com/article/2333702/a-history-
of-si...](https://www.networkworld.com/article/2333702/a-history-of-singing-
the-big-blues.html) for the full history), even going so far as to publish a
songbook titled "Songs of the I.B.M": [https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/08/tripp...](https://arstechnica.com/information-
technology/2014/08/tripping-through-ibms-astonishingly-insane-1937-corporate-
songbook/)

They kept it up into the 1950s, when Tom Watson died and control of the
company passed to his son.

I like this note from the end of the Network World article, where they ask a
Harvard Business School professor if there's anything similar going on in the
contemporary tech world:

 _> "I don't think there is a Microsoft company song other than 'Get to the
bank as fast as possible so you can deposit the check,' " Tedlow adds._

