
Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs - kmod
https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/truckers-sue-california-say-new-gig-economy-law-would-kill-70000-jobs
======
joshklein
This article is about a suit from The California Trucking Association, a trade
group and industry lobbyist representing corporate management, not truckers.
You can learn about them on their website if you're curious. The only source
providing a statement in the body of this article is the association's head
lobbyist. Background sources seem to include a politician and an academic
institute. No truckers.

I don't have any comment about the suit or the law, but I do think this is
fine opportunity to discuss the nature of propaganda.

~~~
favorited
Thank you! The Teamsters union (and locals), which actually represent
truckers, supported AB5.

~~~
stickfigure
Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents.

~~~
hn_throwaway_99
> Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with
> independents.

Not to overstate the obvious, but that's pretty much the entire point of
unions: by working collectively, individuals aren't directly competing against
each other, forcing management to pay higher wages, with the goal being that
the wages paid are higher than any individual could make if the union didn't
exist.

~~~
denkmoon
Thus avoiding a race to the bottom where truckers drive all day just to feed
themselves and our insatiable desire for free shipping.

~~~
merpnderp
What if someone is perfectly happy to drive for $1 less than the union
negotiated? Why would you use the force of government, police with guns, to
keep them from selling their labor a dollar cheaper. Especially when they’re
perfectly happy to do so?

~~~
merpnderp
Always darkly humorous when people openly support using force to control how
people sell their labor in a very strict sense, which is certainly kissing
cousins with slavery.

~~~
denkmoon
Yeah, governments setting a market bottom is definitely similar to unpaid,
forced labour.

------
crooked-v
The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because
the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be
about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still
needs to be done.

> Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks

I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000
trucks to get into the business.

> and the right to set their own schedules

I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws,
wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the
contracting company's fault.

~~~
pmcginn
I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide
variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right
that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of
this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else.

I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will
say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job that tends to attract
people who want to be left alone. These are people who value freedom and hard
work above everything else and many of them will change careers or retire if
they are forced to work for big corporations. The average trucker is 55 years
old, and many of them will just sell their and retire if AB5 is not
overturned.

Supplying a $150,000 truck is not at all a barrier to entry. There is a major
shortage of truckers and employers are offering free training, big sign on
bonuses, and high starting pay to attract talent. Walmart, which is certainly
not known for paying its employees well, pays truckers an average of almost
$88,000 per year--and Walmart supplies the truck. The people spending $150,000
on a truck are doing it because they want to, not because they have to. This
is not a medallion situation.

As for your "wink wink" comment, ELD's have been mandated since the end of
2017, and even companies that are small enough to not legally be compelled to
use one are often forced to comply due to customer contracts. (Shippers want
the data the ELD provides to offer better ETAs to their customers.)

In my opinion, the most likely outcome of this law is that some truckers
retire and sell their rigs to big corporations, some decide to work for big
corporations, and prices go up for everyone who ships goods or buys shipped
goods. Unless you're in asset based trucking and looking to expand, the
chances are that AB5 is going to hurt you, not help you.

~~~
BurningFrog
Note that if trucking prices do go up, the amount of cargo that gets moved
_will_ go down.

~~~
fzeroracer
No, not necessarily. Correlation is not causation and what not.

If trucking prices go up, companies might opt to move more cargo at the same
time (same amount of moved cargo, but less trucks on the road) or they might
simply eat the loss (if they're already making massive profits) or any number
of alternatives.

If we were to take your argument into absurdity, the best thing to do would be
to reduce trucking prices to $0, because then we would fundamentally move a
lot more cargo, which would drive down prices across all of the US benefiting
a lot more than just the small minority of truckers.

It's an overly simplistic way of looking at things that reminds me of the
assumption that raising the minimum wage would cause the prices on everything
to hike up by the same amount.

~~~
stickfigure
_absurdity, the best thing to do would be to reduce trucking prices to $0_

What is absurd about that? If we could wave a magic wand and reduce the _real_
transportation cost of goods to 0, it would have massive beneficial effects in
the overall economy. In large part we're seeing the benefit of that in the
macro due to the (formerly) falling cost of global shipping.

It's magical thinking that an increase in the cost of transport won't have
some sort of negative effect on the economy.

~~~
fzeroracer
This isn't an increase in the cost of _transport_ , this is an increase in the
cost of _trucking_. There's a subtle but very important distinction there
because the actual human cost of trucking (ie wages, healthcare etc) is likely
much smaller than the costs of fuel, maintenance and many more externalities.

Yes, if you could magically teleport goods from one location to another, that
would be fantastic for the economy and terrible for truckers. I think it's
more magical thinking however to look at one statistic and assume that it
would lead to doom and gloom, as many did when Seattle decided to change the
minimum wage to $15.

That said, if we believe that reducing the cost of trucking at all costs is
important to the economy: Why not just remove all worker protections? In fact,
why not just not pay workers at all? We have plenty of prisoners that could be
truck drivers.

We can kick out all of the high earning truck drivers being leeches on the
economy by increasing the cost of transport and replace them with something
far cheaper until automation comes along. That sounds like a good idea, yeah?

------
raintrees
In our small town in very Northern California along the coast, the local
paper, which is struggling to survive, having just been bought out of
receivership, has decided to start delivering the paper via USPS to avoid this
law's ramifications with the paper delivery router people.

So more jobs lost, thanks to legislation to protect a certain group of people.

Hazlitt would have recommended examining the law's merits prior to passage to
see if it 1) Benefited only a group of people, not the whole, and 2) Did not
help the whole in the long run (paraphrased).

~~~
greglindahl
Jobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but
changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?

~~~
lwf
Increasing mail volume by one newspaper per household will not result in a
comparable increase in mail carriers -- they're making the trips anyways.

~~~
so_tobeclear
Uh, he's taking about a paper route. Like a paper boy. Remember that video
game, riding your bike up the diagonal street? So yeah, those jobs in that
small town will end the same way they've ended in every town, with mail
carriers

------
bhupy
Pretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put
truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.

~~~
wil421
What Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say
2000? Some of the old companies have like HP and Intel certainly made certain
office work redundant and to an extent Oracle.

What does HN think?

~~~
a3n
They're working on it.

As a trucker, I have no problem with automation. No one has the right to any
specific job or career.

~~~
wil421
So no companies with viable products. Drone trucks that follow a real driver
are more realistic than fully automated trucks. Everything I’ve seen from
Tesla to GM’s cruise to the German luxury brands is just driver assist tech
not self driving.

Im asking about any company since 2000 or mid 1990s that has put people out of
jobs. Netflix nope, Alphabet nope, Facebook never.

Salesforce maybe some jobs.

Here’s the SV 150 list.[1] Intel and HP killed paper pushing jobs that could
be automated by computers. Adobe probably killed a lot of art departments.

[1] [https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/01/sv150-2017-ranking-
of...](https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/01/sv150-2017-ranking-of-silicon-
valleys-top-150-public-tech-companies/)

~~~
jogjayr
> Netflix

Blockbuster employees' jobs?

~~~
wil421
Ha! I just said to my wife, don’t forget Netflix started as mail order DVDs
and successfully pivoted to streaming.

At Blockbuster’s height they employed 85k. The majority were high schoolers in
my area.

------
graeme
This element of the law is an odd standard:

> performing work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business

That bans subcontracting, no? It's a common, long established practice in a
lot of industries.

~~~
dangrossman
It doesn't _ban_ anything, it just says that certain types of people working
in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.

~~~
graeme
This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by
definition it isn't subcontracting.

This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs
within the same industry.

A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal
subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting
as described in this wiki is morally bad.

But instead you made neither point and appear to think I'm merely confused.

[https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor](https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor)

~~~
dangrossman
You can subcontract work to another firm, which has employees. Your contract
is with the firm.

California believes that if you "subcontract" an individual to do the work
your company is in the business of doing, you're not "subcontracting" with
them at all, you're employing them.

That's not a ban on subcontracting. It's a ban on calling an employee a
contractor.

~~~
graeme
Ok, that's more concrete. So, to give a specific example: a friend of mine
runs a photography business. He's independently established in the trade.

Sometimes, he subcontracts for others when they have a job they can't fulfil
on their own. At other time, he has subcontracted work out to other
photographers. They are also independently established.

1\. This is banned by the California law?

2\. You approve of this restriction?

To be clear, these people aren't employees under the law in Canada, our
jurisdiction. California seems to be _redefining_ the word "contractor".

~~~
tstrimple
This is easy enough to answer by looking at the provisions in the bill.

[https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-
decision...](https://iccoalition.org/top-news/california-dynamex-decision-
demonstrates-need-for-harmonization/)

> The Court adopted an “ABC” test for determining “employee” status for
> purposes of the wage order, which presumptively considers all workers to be
> employees, and permits workers to be classified as independent contractors
> only if the hiring business demonstrates that the worker in question
> satisfies each of three conditions:

> (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in
> connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the
> performance of the work and in fact; and

> (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the
> hiring entity’s business; and

> (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established
> trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the
> work performed for the hiring entity.

Your friend's subcontracting would be covered by case C. The problem becomes
if that subcontractor that your friend sometimes works with __only ever __does
photography work for your friend, and isn 't "engaged in an independently
established trade" they might run into problems. At some point that starts to
resemble a part time employee.

> C Factor: Is the worker customarily engaged in an independently established
> trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed for
> the hiring entity? The Court interpreted this factor as intending to
> identify an individual who independently has made the decision to go into
> business for himself or herself, for example, through incorporation,
> licensure, advertisements, routine offerings to provide the services of the
> independent business to the public or to a number of potential customers,
> and the like. The fact that a company has not prohibited or prevented a
> worker from engaging in such a business is not sufficient to satisfy this
> factor; rather, a hiring entity will need to prove that the worker is
> customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or
> business.

~~~
graeme
Each means all three of the conditions. So they have to satisfy B as well:

> (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the
> hiring entity’s business; and

This pretty clearly seems to render the arrangement illegal. Does this change
your view at all?

~~~
tstrimple
Yeah, good catch. Satisfying any of them seems reasonable. Satisfying all of
them is definitely problematic.

------
d0ntt4z3m3br0
Used Roadie to ship some furniture this year to few customers. Much easier
than dealing with LTL carriers and the customers liked it much more. Be
interesting if they can stay around..

------
thephyber
Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1]
(I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?

TFA states:

> The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court
> regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex.

 _implements a legal ruling_ sounds suspiciously like "the court says that the
previous state of law was ambiguous/incongruent and the legislature must pass
a law to address it".

Can anyone shed light on whether I am on base or not?

[1] [https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-
west-...](https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-
superior-court-34584)

~~~
dragonwriter
> Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court
> ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?

The new law codified the Dynamex ruling but also added some new industry-
specific exceptions; outside of those exceptions they are essentially the
same.

------
sedeki
I am curious about what federal law they are referring to and what it says? I
am not an expert nor a US citizen.

~~~
thephyber
If I am correct, I think it's the Interstate Commerce Clause[1] of the US
Constitution.

[1]
[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause)
(note that the wiki article is the "Commerce Clause", but it mentions the
"Interstate Commerce Clause")

------
kissickas
Well, now we know what Yang will be talking about in the debate next week.

~~~
stjohnswarts
Yang is basically a foot note in history at this point.

~~~
dba7dba
I wonder what makes you think so? Because of low polling #? Just curious.

------
nemo44x
You’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly
condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll
spend if they can’t cut a deal.

Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t
about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single
party state.

~~~
thephyber
> Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system

Can you explain your thinking here?

From my reading, the law she wrote/sponsored was largely aligned with the
Supreme Court of California interpretation of the Dynamex case.

~~~
nemo44x
She says that they are “delaying justice” by taking their grievance to “the
courts”. I read it as a condemnation of the courts as an obstacle to her view
of what justice is.

Any law maker should embrace a court challenge to their law. Suggesting the
courts are an obstacle to their constituent’s is bad precedent.

------
xiaodai
As predicted by Andrew Yang. Read "War on normal people"

~~~
chillacy
I don't recall a prediction of laws against this in The War on Normal People.
He does mention the changing nature of jobs (most newly created jobs are gig
or contract) in the past few years though, and what that means for worker
stability (healthcare, etc).

