
Vox Media to cut hundreds of freelance jobs ahead of California's AB5 - prostoalex
https://www.cnbc.com/2019/12/16/vox-media-to-cut-hundreds-of-freelance-jobs-ahead-of-californias-ab5.html
======
keenmaster
In my opinion, AB5 went too far. I do not believe we should interfere with the
market _when it 's working_. It's like burning a pile of cash. Whatever you
think about gig economy companies, they have created flexible work that has
served as a lifeline and supplemental income for tens of thousands of people
across America. It feels like a step backwards to mandate that these people
have bosses and strict schedules (that's the second order effect of AB5).
That's to say nothing of the immense consumer surplus generated by a workforce
that fluctuates with demand. It is much better to increase our social safety
net with Medicare for All than to mandate that companies like Uber provide
health insurance.

~~~
larnmar
A better idea would be to quit linking health insurance to employment. Ban
employer-provided health insurance and let everyone buy their own (reasonably
regulated) health insurance as individuals.

The link between employment and health insurance is, from my perspective as an
external observer, America’s worst idea.

~~~
usaar333
Isn't this what ACA does? Employers just happen to offer health insurance as a
benefit, but I'm not sure why it needs to be banned.

~~~
brianlweiner
Employers have significant tax advantages when offering health insurance that
individuals do not have access to.

~~~
usaar333
Only if you are unemployed. If you are self employed (e.g. a 1099 contractor),
you can write off health insurance. (Basically letting you pay with pretax
dollars, the same as if you are employed)

------
antielectronite
I found these tweets to be very informative:
[https://twitter.com/okhanSTR/status/1207059687041982464](https://twitter.com/okhanSTR/status/1207059687041982464)

He's a lawyer who moonlights as a writer for SactownRoyalty, a Sacramento
Kings fan blog that is basically being shut down by SBNation.

One interesting point he makes is that it's unsurprising that the Vox Union
hasn't said anything about these hundreds of people losing work in favor of a
dozen or so full time workers. It's not in their best interest to let people
do part-time as a hobby what they do for their careers full-time.

~~~
dmix
Unions always benefit the few lucky ones to get the work and the hiring
process gets riddled with nepotism and friends/family of current union
workers. It was an open secret in the small town I grew up in that you had to
know people in the unions to get a job and multi-generational workers from
families was the standard.

It does give workers plenty of power but the exclusionary nature of it is
rarely talked about. I remember reading a history of unions about how they
originally started by white working class groups who wanted to prevent new
black migrant workers from taking their jobs and working at a lower rate than
them.
[https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030646](https://www.jstor.org/stable/30030646)

It's too bad the focus couldn't have been giving freelance workers more rights
and protections while still giving them flexibility work-wise. The fact
freelance and part time workers are going to get burned by this shift isn't
really surprising. People seem to want to force either/all in order to push
more unions instead of a more mixed economic approach.

~~~
reaperducer
Unions work for the benefit of union members. Not even remotely surprising,
and I'm not even a big union guy.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
It's not _surprising_ , but the narrative they prefer is that they're working
for the benefit of union members against capital, not against hardworking
independent contractors who are already making less money than them.

~~~
larrywright
Not to mention that if a business has the audacity to hire non-union labor,
the unions will picket them and make all kinds of accusations about the
business. Unions, for all intents and purposes, do not believe in free
markets.

~~~
rchaud
"Free markets" in the Economics 101 sense don't exist anywhere but in the
poorest parts of the world. A minimum wage is anti-market. So is paid time
off, parental leave, anti-discrimination protections, and a host other rules
and regulations that rich countries enshrined into law decades ago.

~~~
AnthonyMouse
> A minimum wage is anti-market.

A minimum wage is essentially a subsidy for certain poor people which comes
mostly at the expense of different poor people. It's a very silly and
inefficient alternative to better policies to help the poor, like a UBI.

> So is paid time off

This is also basically useless (but not as actively harmful as a minimum
wage), because not long after it's passed, the value of the benefit gets
priced into wages. If people wanted lower wages in exchange for paid time off
then there was nothing preventing them from negotiating it to begin with.

> parental leave

 _Almost_ the same as paid time off, except that it's a cross-subsidy in favor
of new parents, so you couldn't negotiate it in exchange for the same wage
reduction in a free market, since you get the benefit (and wouldn't negotiate
for it unless you intend to use it), but the wage reduction is spread across
everybody and not just you.

Notice that you could get the same cross-subsidy with less distortion by
having the government pay your salary during parental leave rather than the
employer, because then the cost wouldn't fall disproportionately on employers
of parents. That would also require the government to do a more accurate
accounting of the cost of the program rather than passing an unfunded mandate.

> anti-discrimination protections

This one's the weird one, because in theory it's a useless requirement since
discrimination is irrational and money-losing so nobody should want to do it
anyway. But that was a different story when you had white people refusing to
patronize employers with black employees or then women, so the original reason
this got passed was in the nature of _antitrust_ , which is pro-market. It's
debatable whether we still actually need it anymore but it probably doesn't do
a lot of harm since (unlike e.g. minimum wage) it isn't prohibiting anything
anybody has any good reason to do to begin with.

------
metalliqaz
“In 2020, we will move California’s team blogs from our established system
with hundreds of contractors to a new one run by a team of new SB Nation
employees.”

So in other words, the headline could be "California's AB5 creates better jobs
at Vox Media"

~~~
modeless
"Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions
created.

~~~
reaperducer
_" Hundreds" of contractors fired, and "about 20" part and full time positions
created._

To clarify: most of these "jobs" were so sparse they could hardly be
classified as jobs. They were people working intermittently one or two hours a
week as a hobby.

Replacing a bunch of people cosplaying journalists when the mood strikes them
with a couple of dozen actual journalists is a good thing.

~~~
tengbretson
These team blogs were formerly run by actual fans of the teams they were
covering. The content of these blogs is going to slide now that those
responsible for them don't have a personal stake in them.

~~~
reaperducer
_The content of these blogs is going to slide now that those responsible for
them don 't have a personal stake in them._

Or the content will improve because they have a professional stake in them.

~~~
tengbretson
You simply cannot pay someone enough to care this much about Illinois
football. [https://illiniboard.com/story/2019/10/16/leave-us-
alone/](https://illiniboard.com/story/2019/10/16/leave-us-alone/)

The best content in sports media comes from fans, and it's not even close.

------
lpolovets
Laws like this usually have a ton of (undesirable) unintended side effects. A
relevant tweet from a few days ago:
[https://twitter.com/EricBoehm87/status/1206728178728865795](https://twitter.com/EricBoehm87/status/1206728178728865795)

~~~
Retric
Vox is replacing contractors with employees, that seems to be the direct
intent.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
A lot of contractors with a few employees, raising unemployment.

~~~
Someone1234
But improving employment for those that remain. There's something to be said
for lower levels of stable employment relative to higher levels of unstable.

For example unstable employees would struggle to buy a house, car, and lack
things like health insurance.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
As opposed to unemployed people who get those things easily?

~~~
Someone1234
As opposed to the thing I said it was opposed to: Stable employment.

~~~
Matticus_Rex
... for a few, and unemployment for more. I'm calling out the quiet part. It's
easy to say "This will lead to better jobs available." It's not as easy (but
should be required) to say "... but not for everyone, and a bunch of people
will be completely out of work."

------
jandrese
If an industry can only exist if it exploits its workers and leaves them
destitute then that isn't an industry we should be celebrating. A lot of
people are calling this unintended consequences, but this seems like one of
the goals of the law. It sucks for the workers that they'll have to find new
jobs, but at least their new jobs (if they can find them) are guaranteed to be
less abusive.

~~~
faet
The issue is many industries don't have any exemptions. You can write 35
articles for a company before you need to be hired.

There is no exemption for musicians. Say your drummer is sick and your band is
performing. You'll need to hire that drummer as an employee for the 2hour gig.
Or said drummer will need to pay Cali $800/yr to form an LLC and perform
contract work.

Music venue? Same thing. Either hire the performers as employees or the band
needs to form an LLC and pay cali $800/yr.

~~~
rchaud
Wouldn't a drummer just be paid cash for a one-off 2-hour gig? The music
industry isn't exactly renowned for ethical accounting and there is no union
for session drummers that would enforce the rule you're describing.

~~~
mrkstu
Then the venue is opening itself to legal liability when any of the past
drummers decide to sue.

------
legitster
Flexible labor markets are clearly a good thing for society. People changing
jobs and doing things part time is a better way to find good jobs and do
things they enjoy. There is nothing magical about a 35 hour a week job, or
sticking with the same corporation all day every day.

One of the reasons I think we should push for decent social safety nets is
specifically to free people up from being locked into arbitrary jobs. It is
insane how often people put off changing careers or jobs because they are
locked into a benefits plan.

Laws like this have their heart in the right place, but are doing the easier,
worse thing.

~~~
pergadad
This approach of changing jobs every 1-2-3 years seems really strange from a
European perspective. Yes when you're young, but do you want to continue that
for life?

No one is stopping you from quitting or changing jobs - but it's in everyone's
interest to have a long-term relationship. The employer will treat their
employees better and ensure they are happy and healthy, get regularly trained,
etc and at the same time doesn't have to be constantly worried of employees
gettint poached, training new staff, losing institutional knowledge, etc. And
the worker knows that they have safety, can plan housing and family, etc.

It still doesn't need to be rigid (say forcing some to employ/remain
employed), but there's no reason why you'd really need to be able to fire
someone from one day to the next as seems to be the expectation in the US.

------
Reedx
_" I just lost my ability to earn a living because of California Assembly Bill
No. 5. My freelance brokerage company says they have to let California authors
go. Almost a decade of hard work gone in an instant. I can't stop crying.

Right before Xmas."_

[https://twitter.com/ms_andiloveall/status/120670581104242278...](https://twitter.com/ms_andiloveall/status/1206705811042422785)

------
kyleblarson
woops: [https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/5/28/18638480/g...](https://www.vox.com/policy-and-
politics/2019/5/28/18638480/gig-economy-workers-wellbeing-survey)

~~~
makomk
Even more relevant article:
[https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20851034/california-
ab-5-worke...](https://www.vox.com/2019/9/11/20851034/california-ab-5-workers-
labor-unions)

Vox aren't alone in this, of course; a whole bunch of journalists across a
swathe of publications acted as cheerleaders for this law right up until the
point they realised it'd affect them and not just other freelance workers.

~~~
jlmorton
Response from the author:
[https://twitter.com/AlexiaCampbell/status/120696741694690508...](https://twitter.com/AlexiaCampbell/status/1206967416946905088)

------
40acres
There is a huge problem with legislating in this country. Studies have shown
that on the state level a large portion of laws passed are identical to model
legislation proposed by think tanks and advocacy groups.

The 2017 tax bill was massive in regards to page length but had no debate and
was passed without enough time for legislators to seriously read it and
provide amendments. The same issue is happening with USMCA.

Journalists are pissed on Twitter and for good reason, but I hope the lesson
here is that shotgun legislation is not the way to write bills. It's trendy to
complain about how long it takes to get bills passed but this is the result of
going too far in the other direction.

------
rchaud
> Uber, Lyft and DoorDash pledged $90 million on a ballot initiative for the
> 2020 election that would exempt them from AB5.

How much would it have cost them to provide minimum wage coverage and health
benefits to their CA workers, as opposed to putting that money towards
advertising and lobbyist fees?

------
larnmar
How does this law affect the many HN readers who have side “consulting” gigs?

~~~
holler
moved out of california to a tax-friendly state

~~~
buboard
but doesnt it still affect you if you are consulting a california company?

~~~
holler
I guess maybe if I consulted with a CA company? Or rather, maybe they would
choose not to offer consulting under the new rules? Seems like an overreach,
and ironic that it was targeting the very companies that started in CA and
disrupted the world (uber/lyft/airbnb etc)

------
cies
> cut [...] freelance jobs

Is that not a contradiction in terminus? You dont "cut jobs" when you
terminate contracts with other businesses, that's what reducing the amount of
freelancers comes down to.

------
reaperducer
So Vox _Media_ is going to have to treat freelancers like all other media
outlets have treated freelancers for the last hundred years.

Cry me a river, disruptor.

~~~
mrkstu
Well, actually, they'll limit the CA freelancers to under 35 articles a year
and move the work to non-CA freelancers. Other companies are letting their CA
workers go completely.

The point is that this isn't particularly hurting Vox, just those CA residents
who are doing contracting work that can easily be moved to other workers
elsewhere.

------
subsaharancoder
Poorly crafted legislation primarily driven by unions that want new members =
more union dues and designed to punish gig economy companies like Uber and
Lyft, is now coming back to destroy the same people it was meant to protect.
CA continues to show that it is the most business hostile state as it attempts
to legislate every business into extinction. Sow the wind, reap the
whirlwind!!

------
buboard
doesnt this affect freelancing programmers and consultants as well?

~~~
faet
>This law contains exemptions for lawyers, dentists, physicians, vets,
psychologists, architects, private investigators, accountants, direct sales
salesperson (telemarketer), fishermen, podiatrist, graphic design artist,
travel agent, grant writer, “Fine Artist” (does not include musicians), Human
Resources administrator, marketing, photographer, freelance
writers/cartoonist/editor (limited to 35 items per year per publication),
esthetician, manicurist, barber, cosmetologist, electrologist, annnnd repo
men.

------
heymartinadams
Of course! This shouldn’t be a surprise to anyone. As long as people overlook
the vast wealth that’s right in front of us (or rather, underneath us — more
on that below), there will always be a struggle between labour and capital.

1\. Labour struggles to keep wage increases in lockstep with the cost of
living.

2\. Cost of living increases are primarily driven by rent increases (this
includes property values, which contain capitalized rents).

3\. The struggle between labour and capital remains as long as those rent
increases are privatized and only flow into the hands of a few, namely
property owners and banks that finance property ownership.

Once you truly start sharing rents, this binary struggle will disappear. Marx
had it wrong, Henry George got it right.

See: unitism.com

------
rvz
Oh dear, well perhaps it's time to learn to cod.

~~~
ralusek
Your snarky comment will probably not do to well on a site that services
thousands of people who actually just learned to code and vastly improved
their circumstances.

