
California Labor Bill, Near Passage, Is Blow to Uber and Lyft - koolba
https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/business/economy/uber-lyft-california.html
======
cletus
I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple
reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time.

Here's what I don't want:

\- I don't want quotas as NYC is doing. This is just recreating the taxi
medallion system.

\- I don't want each company to be forced to pay a minimum wage per hour that
then means a driver loses the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at
once.

\- I don't want regulations to keep smaller competitors out of the market.
There's a real risk of this.

\- I don't want drivers to lose the flexibility to do this on a casual or
flexible basis. Quotas and the like will mean the only option is to drive
full-time. I'm all for people being able to supplement income. I feel like
this is useful to a lot of people.

Note: I do want drivers to earn a sufficient income from this. It's just that
quotas and company minimum wages aren't the way to do this.

~~~
maxehmookau
I worry that you (and me, and others) have bought in to the "flexibility"
bullshit that Uber often spouts.

Most people still have the same rough, basic needs. A "supplementary" income
is not enough to do this. Every single Uber driver I've ever asked does it as
a full-time job, but doesn't get the pay or protections of a full-time worker.

Especially in the UK and other more regulated countries than the US, becoming
an Uber driver takes time and money as you require a licence. People aren't
doing it as a side-gig. It's their job. And Uber knows it.

~~~
umvi
So basically desperate people ruin everything?

Say I use Uber to take advantage of HOV lanes going to and from work (and make
a little extra cash). Now because desperate people have commandeered the
platform as their sole source of income, I should not be able to do that
anymore?

Seems like you can't have nice things at all because of this. If I make an app
called "Clean Streets" that pays a dime per piece of litter picked up from
local streets, desperate people would try to turn it into a full time living
and I would be sued for abusing people, not paying living wage, not giving
full benefits, etc. (even though I just wanted to incentivize passively
cleaning up of litter, geez)

~~~
jeltz
Yes? Why do you think we need things like minimum wage and OSHA? Because there
are desperate people and people who exploit them.

~~~
repolfx
You don't actually need a minimum wage, as it's a very recent invention.
Things worked fine before that was introduced. And do you really have to
assume employers always "exploit" employees? That's the basic idea of
communism and it's always a disaster. Employers don't exploit labour. It's a
trade that leaves both sides better off.

~~~
maxehmookau
> Employers don't exploit labour.

lol

------
zaroth
Discussing Uber and Lyft is boring because the companies are so reviled, but
this bill is much bigger than Uber and Lyft.

It seems the ABC contracting test is pretty detrimental to any kind of
contract hiring that is done in an area which is closely related to a
company’s core business.

Software development contracting in particular seems like it would be
particularly problematic under this test.

I contract out work all the time which I closely manage many aspects of how
the work is done, and for work which is core to my business operations, and
within my core competency.

Mostly this is to be able to quickly scale up development capacity during a
project where there are isolated pieces that can be worked on concurrently.
It’s often work that I could do, but for scheduling purposes, would rather
hire out.

I’ve also done “micro-contracting” where I break out specific problems which I
could eventually figure out a solution but it’s easier to find an expert who
can spend 5 hours on it while I keep moving on other pieces of the puzzle.

What I’m doing seems like it’s exceptionally common, and because of how ABC
test is a logical AND I’m not seeing the “escape hatch” where it wouldn’t be
basically preventing software contracting work for software companies.

~~~
gamblor956
A lot of people on HN seem to think that this bill mandates (a) full-time
employees and (b) fully independent contractors without anything in-between.

There is such a thing as a temporary, part-time job (as an employee). See,
e.g., every single Walmart ever. Most major fast food chains. Most retail
stores during the holiday season. Etc.

The primary change is that companies will start having to handle payroll taxes
for part-time workers rather than pushing these administrative costs onto the
workers by claiming that the workers are actually their own businesses.

~~~
sieabahlpark
Temp workers and contractors are very different types of employees...

~~~
gamblor956
Yes, they are.

Temp workers are part-time employees that can be performing any task your
business requires, including your primary business activity. While working for
you, they aren't working for someone else (though they might be working for
someone else when their shift ends for the day).

A contractor is someone with their own client base who handles a specific
project that is not your primary business activity (though the project may
support that activity). While working for you, they could be working for
someone else as well (as long as they're not billing both clients for that
time if the contractor bills on a period-basis).

These distinctions above are generally how the difference between employees
and contractors are laid out internationally, and especially when dealing with
cross-border worker classification issues. These distinctions have also been
part of US jurisprudence for many decades, though they've only been formally
or informally codified relatively recently.

------
bko
From the bill:

> a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an
> employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity
> demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the
> hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person
> performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s
> business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently
> established trade, occupation or business.

Under these conditions, what position would qualify as a contractor?

The first clause

> free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the
> performance of the work

seems awfully broad. If I contract someone to clean my house, I would hope I
have some control and direction of the person in connection to them cleaning
my house. Or am I reading this wrong.

The second clause

> the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring
> entity’s business

means I can't contract out work that I normally do? So if I'm a cleaner, I
can't contract out other cleaners if I'm swamped.

The third clause

> person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade,
> occupation or business

I don't really know what that means

Can someone shed some light on the text?

[0]
[https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019](https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019)

~~~
m0llusk
This problem of legally differentiating between employees and contractors has
been around for a while and relates to multiple factors so it is informative
to look at this in contextual terms. This arrangement has become known as the
"ABC Test". There is a good summary of what it means at The Balance Small
Business: [https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-the-abc-test-for-
indep...](https://www.thebalancesmb.com/what-is-the-abc-test-for-independent-
contractors-4586615) and discussion of adoption of this test by the California
Supreme Court at the California Public Agency Blog:
[https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-
and-...](https://www.calpublicagencylaboremploymentblog.com/wage-and-
hour-2/california-supreme-court-adopts-new-abc-test-for-classification-of-
independent-contractors-potential-risk-and-impact-on-public-agencies/).

To attempt to summarize in a way that answers your questions: First do you
know how to do the work and use your own expertise to adapt to circumstances
or do you follow specific direction, training, and escalation procedures as
dictated by management? If you are following a script as trained and have
someone overseeing you as you work then you are an employee. If you know what
to do and get only summary instructions then you are likely a contractor.
Second, if you are hired by a cleaning company to extend their cleaning
capacity using their methods and equipment then you are likely an employee,
but if you are hired by a software company to sweep their floors whenever they
get really dirty then you are probably a contractor. Finally, if you do
cleaning on your own for various clients and are hired to do cleaning then you
are likely a contractor, but if you clean for one client by their instruction
and with their oversight and support then you are probably an employee. Note
that each of these criteria has substantial wiggle room and the idea is they
all work together to support a decision one way or the other.

~~~
bko
If that's true, then I would argue that Uber and Lyft are contractors not
workers:

> First do you know how to do the work and use your own expertise to adapt to
> circumstances or do you follow specific direction, training, and escalation
> procedures as dictated by management? ... If you know what to do and get
> only summary instructions then you are likely a contractor

Surely Uber drivers already know how to drive. I'm not sure whether they're
under obligation to follow GPS instructions.

> Second, if you are hired by a cleaning company to extend their cleaning
> capacity using their methods and equipment then you are likely an employee,
> but if you are hired by a software company to sweep their floors whenever
> they get really dirty then you are probably a contractor.

The Uber driver uses her own equipment although you could argue that they use
Uber's methods.

> if you do cleaning on your own for various clients and are hired to do
> cleaning then you are likely a contractor, but if you clean for one client
> by their instruction and with their oversight and support then you are
> probably an employee

In my experience, almost every single Uber I've been in drives for Lyft as
well.

~~~
yardie
> I'm not sure whether they're under obligation to follow GPS instructions.

UberX, no, the GPS is a suggested route. UberPool, yes, you have to follow the
GPS as instructed.

> The Uber driver uses her own equipment although you could argue that they
> use Uber's methods.

This is where I tend to agree, with caveats. A rideshare driver is a
contractor. But when it comes to compensation Uber and Lyft want to act as an
employer. Currently, compensation has been trending down to the point it's
becoming a unprofitable for the driver. A contractor would be able to
negotiate a rate saying, "I'll drive for $0.55/mile." What we currently have
is an email to all "contractors" stating the rate starting today is X/mile.
That sounds more like an employer notice than a contract negotiation.

~~~
gok
> What we currently have is an email to all "contractors" stating the rate
> starting today is X/mile.

By that logic all taxi drivers are employees of the cities of their medallion,
because cities set the taxi driver rates.

~~~
malandrew
Actually it goes beyond just setting the rates. The state sets the rules. The
state can "fire" drivers. Managing transportation is core to what government
does. According to the ABC criteria, they should qualify as state employees
with all the ensuring benefits and it would be hilarious if all taxi drivers
in California sued the state to become state employees just like bus drivers
and train operators.

------
julianozen
I feel like both sides of the “are they contractors or employees” arguments
feel like they are trying to jam puzzle pieces that don’t fit together to make
an argument.

Clearly drivers are not employees in that they pick their own hours, and they
can drive for as long and for whomever they want - and these are all things
that make Uber/Lyft a great option for people between jobs, substitute
teachers, actors, etc.

At the same time it is pretty clear that your inability set prices, control
which requests/routes you accept/decline and lack of differentiated work makes
you an employee, especially if you drive 40+ hours a week.

The law needs a way of handling this type of job, without forcing it into one
camp or another because there are downsides for everyone by doing so. Let’s
call them semi-contractors for the sake of differentiation. There should ways
of getting health insurance pro-rated by multiple companies if you work X
hours a week. There should be requirements around the workers insurance
provided to these semi-contractors while on and off the clock. There should be
guaranteed minimum wages after expenses. There should be strict rules about
building out complex and accurate payout reporting for both regulators and
semi-contractors including complex bonus payouts. It should be 100% illegal to
steal tips from an app. Semi-contractors should have the right to tell Uber
they don’t want to drive to east bay without penalty if they’re contractors
that can have autonomy over their work.

But none of these issues get solved by calling driver employees

~~~
amluto
The insurance issue is a defect in the US insurance system and is not Uber or
Lyft’s fault IMO. Insurance should either be purchased exclusively by
individuals or should be a government service. Employers should not be
involved.

As I understand it, the US is essentially unique in the idea that jobs come
with insurance.

------
cobbzilla
This looks a lot like rent control to me — optically it’s perfect, help the
little guy; but in practice supply is restricted, prices rise, competition
decreases, service gets worse. the poorest suffer the most (fewer driving
jobs, higher prices).

“Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim
may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than
under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes
sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us
for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval
of their own conscience.”

— C.S. Lewis

~~~
sieabahlpark
Just let them vote for the bill that causes them more unemployment. California
needs more homeless.

------
code4tee
The ultimate issue here for Lyft, Uber and such is not contractors vs
employees but the amount of subsidy these companies need to give to get people
to buy their product. Making people employees is only a big issue for these
companies because it further increases the subsidy required to get people to
buy.

There’s an old saying that’s its easy to grow fast if you’re selling $2 bills
for $1 and the Uber, Lyft, (and WeWorks) and such of the world are simply
following that model. The market is finally smelling the BS on this strategy
for long established “startups.”

If such companies don’t have a viable path to profitability then the whole
1099 vs W-2 argument is moot.

------
ensignavenger
I haven't read the bill, how does it effect other companies that have
traditionally used sub contractors? Like for example, General Contractors?
This bill is being touted as a poison pill to harm Uber and Lyft, but based on
the articles I have read about it, it sounds more like a bomb with a much
larger blast radius.

~~~
choxi
I was the CEO/cofounder of Bloc, an online coding bootcamp. Our mentors
started out as tutors but we eventually converted them all to employees and
learned a lot about California labor law in the process.

What was frustrating about the labor laws is that there were never any clear
rules about what constitutes a contractor versus employee, there are just some
"smell tests" and guidelines but it's ultimately deferred to the judgement of
California's labor bureau.

> a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an
> employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity
> demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the
> hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person
> performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s
> business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently
> established trade, occupation or business

The new laws being proposed here don't look much different from the guidelines
that already exist, they're just more black and white leave less room for
interpretation. I think the most troublesome one for startups is "the person
performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s
business", but it shouldn't affect general contractors unless they're working
for a general contracting company.

~~~
ensignavenger
How does the law define the hiring entities business? A general contractor is
in the business of building things. Uber is in the business of transportation.
The GC contracts out the actual building tasks to sub contractors. Uber
contracts out the actual driving to sub contractors.

------
acollins1331
I wonder when companies will just stop starting up in CA. It seems like they
could just operate in another state and everything would be fine. You'd find
plenty of programmers in a place like the NC research triangle.

~~~
maxaf
This is a question of ethics, not domicile. Any company founded on the premise
of an unethical and harmful business model that externalizes all of its costs
deserves to be put down the same way.

~~~
AJ007
Releasing all of these drivers in to the general workforce could reduce wage
pressure employers are feeling right now. While that might be the more ethical
thing to do, no one else is going to benefit besides employers who want cheap
employees.

~~~
maxaf
Simply shutting down the business isn’t the only possible outcome, nor the
most desirable. The mere fact that Uber’s current business model is unethical
doesn’t imply that it’s also incorrigible. Hire drivers as employees, pay Uber
management roughly what a SV software engineer makes, and raise prices to
compensate for the difference in order to become somewhat profitable, like a
real business. The presumption that customers will simply stop using Uber is
either naive or purposefully misleading, I really can’t tell which.

------
Const-me
I don’t think these drivers are independent contractors. These people don’t
negotiate prices they charge for their services. How’s that independent if the
rates they’re paid are fixed by some other parties?

~~~
mdorazio
While I agree with you, the counter argument is that they're not forced to
take a fare offered - Uber/Lyft are basically posting the option to take a
fare and the driver has to choose to accept it. It's similar to if you posted
a project on Upwork for a fixed dollar amount - it's up to the workers on
there to decide if it's enough or not without negotiating.

This is why the whole ABC test of the new proposed law came into being.

~~~
njnuyidhahbf
What you're missing is drivers are specifically not told the value of a ride
before accepting it.

You often find out after you've driven 5-15 minutes to a pickup that you're
about to spend 10-20 minutes in traffic and of the $9 they're paying you're
only getting $3.75.

The bad rides are essentially bundled with the good.

------
preommr
I thought this was supposed to be good for uber and lyft since it would choke
out any smaller companies with less cash to burn in contrast to uber/lyft who
have deep pockets.

~~~
maxlybbert
Uber and Lyft will probably respond by directing the drivers more closely (
[http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-
for...](http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-forcing-uber-
drivers-to-become-employees-may-hurt-many-drivers.html) ). They’re in a
position to do so. You are correct that smaller companies probably couldn’t
pull that off.

------
mrlala
Maybe a start would be having universal healthcare so we don't have to worry
_so much_ about someone having a full-time job.

I have to imagine a large part of this argument is rideshare drivers just want
some healthcare without it costing a fortune. They are already making a lowish
wage driving people around, how the hell can they afford healthcare on their
own?

Yes there are other workers rights that might be nice, and things like
vacation time etc. But I have to imagine a large part of this conversation is
directly related to healthcare...

------
mises
A gentle reminder to every one that Uber and Lyft (though mostly uber) broke
the monopoly that was considered un-breakable. Such companies aren't supposed
to provide a "living wage", they're supposed to be "gigs" on the side. Some
people to live off them because they don't have jobs at the moment, but I'm
not sure that makes it incumbent upon the services to change their models. You
can have a day-job and also drive a bit for a ride-hailing service. They've
provided more opportunities for people to pick up some extra work, in an
industry where the previous option was _zero dollars_ for any one trying to
drive a taxi on the side.

Bear also in mind that cities may have an ulterior motive of their own. Always
ask, "Qui bono?" They sell expensive licenses, and don't like a revenue stream
being lost (even if it's better for constituents). Maybe this is for the
better, maybe not; but the motive of the cities is likely self-interest.

On the other hand, Uber's long-term play is quite possibly self-driving cars.
I'm guessing that this is the route all taxis will go eventually, but it's
also worth considering that Uber is not sustainable without continuing
investment as it stands today.

------
justinzollars
Now Uber and Lyft will force a ballot measure, as they promised and we will
probably learn that Sacramento is out of step with the average voter in
California.

~~~
nutjob2
That's not a given, I'm sure that labor will paint the big corps as taking
advantage of the little guy in the name of their stock price. It's easier for
riders to empathise with their drivers than rich tech guys and VCs.

------
jiveturkey
Ah. I now understand a bumper sticker I saw 2 days ago, to the effect of:

"No on AB5.

I own this truck.

AB5 will put me out of work."

It was on a heavy double trailer dump truck, the kind that hauls dirt and
debris to/from construction sites. I guess his thought is that AB5 will limit
the ability to subcontract, forcing independent haulers of this type "out of
business". As the services are still actually required, why the hiring company
can't employ these folks rather than sub them out, I don't know. It might be
fear of change.

In my own (limited) 10 minute reading, and from
[https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-
stor...](https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-storms/),
ISTM that the existing law governing this is based on "Borello", and I guess
that for uber/lyft, "Dynamex" (ABC) would apply instead. AB5 has an explicit
carve-out for the construction industry, where the existing Borello test would
continue to apply.

If that reading is accurate, I don't know why this dump truck driver would
have such a sticker on his trailer. The law doesn't change for him.

------
novok
My guess what will happen with the bill

\- drivers cant deduct car expenses, and uber /lyft wouldn’t be able to do so
easily, which will increase prices and thus decrease total revenue and thus
the total amount of people employed by uber / lyft

\- drivers wont be allowed to drive full time to avoid benefit requirements
like many places

\- uber / lyft will insist on exclusivity when you are driving, complete with
shifts, locations and last minute schedule changes to compensate and because
they can because they are employees. Just like working at walmart or
mcdonalds. Working at both will be hard to juggle.

------
aabajian
Can someone more informed than myself explain if this applies to AirBnB?

I'm a host in Seattle. The city now requires short-term rental operators to
register as their own businesses.* If I'm a contractor for AirBnb, this makes
sense.

However, if I'm an employee of AirBnb, then the Washington State income tax
law would prohibit Seattle from collecting taxes on short-term operators.

 _Note that 30+ day stays are_ not* required to register, which doesn't make
any sense since you're still operating a business.

------
microcolonel
Because Uber and Lyft drivers are not employees, perverting the law to define
them as such will have unintended consequences. Then again, it seems
California is the land of unintended consequences.

~~~
linuxftw
They're definitely employees. I hope the scam ends.

~~~
microcolonel
By what measure? Most I've seen contract through two or more systems at once,
or use it as a way to make a bit of money off carpooling to work. No employee
does that.

~~~
mdorazio
If you're going to post comments like this, please at least make an effort to
read some of the content of the thing you are arguing against. In this case it
is very clearly explained in multiple places that the proposed bill utilizes
the ABC test to determine whether a person is a contractor or employee.

Furthermore, working for multiple companies has absolutely nothing at all to
do with whether you are an employee or not. There is nothing preventing a
normal W2 FTE from working for two companies, provided their employee
contracts allow it and they're able to sustain the hours.

You also seem to be making the argument that since _some_ rideshare drivers
only work a few hours a week, the ones who drive full time should just suck it
up for less than minimum wage and no benefits.

------
ilaksh
This may actually kill Uber.

I hope to see some popular decentralized alternatives (like Arcade City, but
better or more popular?) within the next couple of years.

Beyond 1-2 years I expect Waymo, Tesla and others to start deploying on a
fairly large scale. At that point people may be discussing "basic income" etc.
very seriously.

Meanwhile, the US still will not have much manufacturing and our leads in
other areas will be diminishing.

China will be over dollars. Cryptocurrency will be threatening all fiat.

There may be a war at first between China and the US, primarily driven by AGI
invented in China.

Then an international group of cyborgs and AIs may decide to end both China
and the US and create a new global paradigm.

We may only have another 10 years until the Singularity.

------
i_am_nomad
This headline could easily have been written, “California Labor Bill, Near
Passage, is Boon to Drivers.” It’s worth contemplating why it wasn’t written
that way.

------
kryogen1c
This reeks of regulatory capture in the making. I don't understand at all.

How we got here: 1\. Taxis are various forms of monopoly everywhere they exist
2\. Startups Lyft/Uber capture market share because riders want an option 3\.
Drivers _flock_ to use this system voluntarily that didn't exist at all before
and make money if they want to 4\. ??? 5\. Drivers are being taken advantage
of by evil corporations

Lyft and Uber are already operating at a loss. If this forces upward wage
pressure in CA, do they just stop existing there?

~~~
wheelerwj
two things:

1) Equating Uber and Lyft to taxis in the sense of employment rights isn't a
fair comparison.

2) All that's going to happen is that Lyft and Uber are going to increase
their prices to cover the cost of the overhead. The market will determine if
the increased cost is worth the convenience.

------
njnuyidhahbf
Driver here. Several years full/part-time.

This looks like a situation where the solution is worse than the problem. And
there is definitely a problem which is that Uber and Lyft (especially Lyft[0])
want to treat drivers like employees. I don't think the solution is to
classify us drivers as employees but for them to stop treating us as such.

[0] - the most egregious example of Lyft controlling drivers is the treatment
of XL drivers. Uber gives XL drivers a toggle switch where you can turn off
regular and carpool rides as desired, this allows you to dual-platform. Lyft
does not. In an effort to "keep you busy"[1] Lyft tries to strong-arm you into
accepting regular and carpool rides regularly.

If you decide that, as an independent contractor running a small business, you
would like to only give XL rides on both Lyft and Uber's XL tiers it's
impossible to remain in good standing with Lyft and at all times you will live
with the threat of deactivation hanging over your head.

[1] - [https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-
to-...](https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-to-become-a-
Lyft-XL-driver)

------
minikites
If your business model entirely relies on paying your employees poverty wages,
maybe it's not a very good business model.

~~~
nvahalik
That's true, but yet people still want to drive for Uber/Lyft. Perhaps people
are just stupid and don't understand what they are getting into (though,
that's a _lot_ of people)... or maybe they truly don't mind/don't care about
the wages. I'm sure there are 3rd and 4th options, but regardless--you can
piss on people's business models all you want, but they don't force anyone to
work for them.

~~~
birdyrooster
The issue behind Uber and Lyft is not compulsory work. The problem is that the
depreciation, injury risk, and opportunity cost of the job is misunderstood
and people are being taken advantage of. In your argument, no one is forcing
them to be taken advantage of and our society should eat the cost.

You could use your same argument to say that businesses don’t need to legally
pay minimum wage since someone is willing to take less.

These conditions are bad for everybody and create a depressing effect on
earnings for workers.

~~~
PorterDuff
Couldn't you simply require Uberlyft to run potential drivers through a quick
course on depreciation, injury risk, opportunity cost?

That's really not a bad idea generally. Give them full information and then
treat them like adults.

~~~
minikites
Why would they tell the truth?

[https://thinkprogress.org/mcdonalds-tells-workers-to-
budget-...](https://thinkprogress.org/mcdonalds-tells-workers-to-budget-by-
getting-a-second-job-and-turning-off-their-heat-c3bce1526c1e/)

>McDonalds has partnered with Visa to launch a website to help its low-wage
workers making an average $8.25 an hour to budget. But while the site is
clearly meant to illustrate that McDonalds workers should be able to live on
their meager wages, it actually underscores exactly how hard it is for a low-
paid fast food worker to get by.

>The site includes a sample “budget journal” for McDonalds’ employees that
offers a laughably inaccurate view of what it’s like to budget on a minimum
wage job. Not only does the budget leave a spot open for “second job,” it also
gives wholly unreasonable estimates for employees’ costs: $20 a month for
health care, $0 for heating, and $600 a month for rent. It does not include
any budgeted money for food or clothing.

------
linuxftw
If you believe in the ability of the state to regulate labor, you should have
no problem with this bill. Uber and similar companies are exploiting
'independent contractors' to slash their labor prices. Those employees aren't
being offered health insurance or even minimum wage. Good for California.

------
carapace
Good. To hell with them.

One more time, with feeling: "The Market Fairy Will Not Solve the Problems of
Uber and Lyft"

> Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”).

> They don’t pay the cost of their capital.

> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the
> cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They
> pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is
> not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.

> These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and
> putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on
> desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to
> pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash
> now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills.

[https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-
the...](https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems-
of-uber-and-lyft/)

