45 ms·

California passes bill that classifies gig economy workers as employees

• baggy_trough 7y ago
  Awful news for drivers. Good news for union parasites.
• Me1000 7y ago
  It seems pretty clear that the Governor is going to sign the bill, so this is going to be a pretty big deal. The law wouldn't take effect until the beginning of next year, and in that time Uber, Lyft, and Doordash will have collectively spent $90 million on a ballot prop campaign to exempt them from the law. Not looking forward to all the ads, but I will be curious where the money comes from on the other side.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
  • toomuchtodo 7y ago
    I’m unsure what ad spend is going to help with three months until the bill takes effect. The bill clearly has enough support to be signed into law. What states use this initiative next as a template is the most interesting question.
    • daveFNbuck 7y ago
      The ad spend can undo this in November 2020. Ballot propositions can't be undone by the legislature or governor.
      • toomuchtodo 7y ago
        That seems exceedingly unlikely to occur, regardless of ad spend, in a state as progressive politically as California (similar to AirBnB’s tone deaf failed ad campaign in San Francisco). This assumes gig companies haven’t exhausted their runway by then. Humorously, Uber and Lyft thought they might extinguish taxis if they waited them out long enough, and then the California government did the same to them.
        • CameronNemo 7y ago
          Yet we are sure to see ads as long as these firms are either desperate or dumb.
        • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
          You’d be surprised. Californians love their ability to Uber, if this gets rid of that (or severely curtails it), they would have no problem overriding the legislature at the ballot box.
          • toomuchtodo 7y ago
            Maybe! In the interim, burn rates of already unprofitable companies are going to increase drastically. Does it matter if you overturn the law if you’ve already ceased operations?
            • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
              Uber ride share is actually profitable in California (and most of the USA), they are burning lots of cash on UberEats however. If this law is applied fairly, it affects taxi and limo operators as well, so everyone will be in the same boat at least, fares will surge but they will still be in business.
              • deleted 7y ago
                [deleted]
              • pnongrata 7y ago
                I'm curious, do you have a source for the claim that uber is profitable in most of the USA? That goes against their disclosed info of huge annual losses.
                • seanmcdirmid 7y ago
                  It’s in their earnings report: https://www.businessinsider.com/where-uber-spends-its-money-lost-5-billion-second-quarter-2019-8 https://www.businessinsider.com/where-uber-spends-its-money-....
      • babkayaga 7y ago
        I saw ballots bypassed by the jegislature and the governor multiple times in MA. Ianal so no idea about the technicalities.
        • daveFNbuck 7y ago
          California is not Massachusetts.
  • writepub 7y ago
    The money comes from lobbyists for previous incumbents in those industries, like legacy taxi, hotel, restaurant... businesses. Those legacy businesses also tend to have stronger Union bases
• irjustin 7y ago
  In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately. While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by Softbank and other investors. Similar story for lots of other gig based apps. I'm not sure what the real answer is here, but overly simplifying the problem, better pay/benefits for the individual person is better. Let's hope it pans out to be exactly that.
  • tempsy 7y ago
    I haven’t closely followed this but it definitely seems like something that could have serious second order effects that (surprise, surprise) politicians who optimize for optics never think about. For example I think the bar will immediately be higher for drivers who want to remain drivers, meaning less tolerance for drivers that have below median ratings. Maybe that’s a good thing for riders but it could make driving more stressful than it already is.
    • dmix 7y ago
      This is why it's good to have states be the test beds for policy experiments. It's not all bad for everyone. If this turns out to be a giant net negative, the rest of the world can learn from California's experience. Worst case it will be a boon for other states who will be able to offer better taxi availability for all the business people they are trying to attract away from California, putting pressure on CA to update it's laws (although let’s be honest this is pretty rare even in the face of changing marketplaces). This could also accelerate the adoption of AI and the subsequent loss of the driver's jobs in favour of automation as the human capital costs increases and/or driver availability issues could help tilt the cost efficiency scales. Plus a lot of people are predicting truck drivers are going first and I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an influx of people looking for urban Taxi jobs soon. 1. Although it's not always the case other states actually look at data and studies first before copying other state's policy.
  • 7y ago
• goatinaboat 7y ago
  Let’s hope that the UK follows this lead very soon, and collects all the taxes Uber owes us, backdated.
  • alimbada 7y ago
    Amazon, Apple Google et al owe orders of magnitude more in taxes than Uber do. Get your priorities straight.
    • goatinaboat 7y ago
      Agreed but we’ve got to start somewhere. Think of Uber as an appetiser.
• pcurve 7y ago
  “Today, our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of rideshare drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits,” What is their idea of thoughtful solution?
  • Mathnerd314 7y ago
    Full statement: Today, our state’s political leadership missed an important opportunity to support the overwhelming majority of rideshare drivers who want a thoughtful solution that balances flexibility with an earnings standard and benefits. The fact that there were more than 50 industries carved out of AB5 is very telling. We are fully prepared to take this issue to the voters of California to preserve the freedom and access drivers and riders want and need. So basically they want to carve out an exception for their industry as well, wait 10 years until competing taxi services are dead, and then pass some token legislation based on the outcome of AB5 in other industries. Standard corporate-speak.
  • deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
• stickfigure 7y ago
  If this actually gets enforced, I predict we'll all be talking about the law of unintended consequences in a year's time.
  • jackmodern 7y ago
    don't know why this is getting down voted, all of you folks using lyft/uber.. get ready for the prices to double or triple.
    • Barrin92 7y ago
      is this supposed to be an unintended consequence? We all know that the cheap rides of Uber are (partially) the result of them dodging around employer obligations.
      • onlyrealcuzzo 7y ago
        And also losing $1B per quarter subsidizing cheap rides for growth and market share. There just really isn't that much demand for a $20 2-mile ride in the city. Uber has show that there is a HUGE demand for the same trip at $4.
        • jackmodern 7y ago
          you ever take a lyft or uber in NYC? you'd be surprised how many people are willing to pay those prices.
      • paul_f 7y ago
        I disagree with this. What other job on the planet allows me to work when I want to work, bring my own tools, have no boss, and never even talk to the company I am working for?
        • friendzis 7y ago
          This is usually called "self employment" or "owning a business"
• guelo 7y ago
  These "gig" companies are all unprofitable. Their current business models are consumer-friendly as they try to capture market share, so people mostly love them. But they are not sustainable, the prices will eventually have to go up or become a worse deal in some other way. They are just hoping to use all that cash to stumble into some kind of monopoly or lock-in that eventually removes customer choice. They are not good for society overall, we might get a lot of cheap convenient transportation in the short term but eventually we'll all be worse off as they kill off competition. It's basically price dumping, and the sooner they are stopped the better.
  • dev_dull 7y ago
    The funny thing is that the incumbents have largely enjoyed the monopoly and “lock-in” you described because their position was legislated. Services like Lyft and Uber were just so much better they couldn’t be stopped. Now this is just an attempt to legislate back the status quo.
  • pcwalton 7y ago
    Killing Uber and Lyft outright means bringing back the taxi industry, which isn't better for anyone except the cab companies. The biggest benefit of ride sharing for me isn't that it's cheap: it's that I don't have to awkwardly assert my legal right to use a credit card every single time I ride. I'm fine with paying more to ensure drivers are earning a living wage.
    • guelo 7y ago
      I'm not saying that they are not convenient, I'm saying they're unsustainable. Eventually they either will be more expensive or less convenient. The question is how much they can reconfigure society to their advantage in the meantime. For example, their price dumping is causing some governments to cut mass transit funding which will have long term consequences.
• baron816 7y ago
  What this means: much more expensive Uber/Lyft rides which in turn means fewer riders, and thus, fewer drivers out on the road and longer wait times. The labor market is a complicated thing, much more complicated than just supply and demand. But these types of controls are often not the right tool for the problem.
  • moate 7y ago
    >>But these types of controls are often not the right tool for the problem. 1- Do you believe Uber/Lyft/etc exploit any part their labor for corporate gain? 2-What do you believe is the correct control to prevent labor exploitation by Uber/Lyft/ect, assuming your answer to 1 is true?
• siphor 7y ago
  Does anyone know how this will effect Google contractors? Seems like they'd have to make them employees under this ABC test.
  • SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    Most Google contractors are already employees, just employees of some vendor or contracting firm instead of Google itself. I don't think the ABC test prohibits that kind of arrangement.
    • newshorts 7y ago
      So that just means Uber won’t allow people to sign up to drive directly. Uber will contract with companies, who allow people to signup. Those companies will “employ” people at the same terrible rates Google contractors get with no medical or benefit of any kind.
  • syspec 7y ago
    I think most of those contractors are full time employees, just not of google. Generally they work for the staffing company as full time employees, which then places them at google
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
    • adamredwoods 7y ago
      It's the same at Microsoft and Amazon. In order to work as a contractor, we need to be represented by a managed service, or a preferred vendor. Some vendors offer benefits, others will give you more money for less of their "service". There is some benefit to having it run like this (E&O insurance, quarterly taxes, group health care). If you are a contractor, make sure you shop around for managed services. There are transparent vendors out there and some willing to show you their cut (although not many).
  • syspec 7y ago
• antropofagico 7y ago
  Does this mean drivers will need working visas? If so, it will drastically reduce the number of drivers.
  • erichocean 7y ago
    Unlikely, California is a "Sanctuary State" and essentially has no enforcement of state (or federal) laws governing "illegal" employment. If anything, they consider it to be a good thing.
    • SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
      Sure, but I can't imagine Uber and Lyft would file fraudulent I-9s whether or not California cares.
    • antropofagico 7y ago
      Even though California is much more lax on immigration, undocumented immigrants that work here still work "illegally". And I-9 Audits are conducted by ICE, not California. Like SpicyLemonZest said, it sounds extremely unlikely that Uber and Lyft, being public, would risk filing fraudulent I-9s.
    • dmode 7y ago
      Why would state enforce a federal employment requirement ?
    • URSpider94 7y ago
      That is grossly untrue. Federal authorities can and do take enforcement actions in CA, they just won’t get support from the state or localities.
  • URSpider94 7y ago
    Yes, it will mean that all drivers can be verified as having work authorization in the USA.
• tylerl 7y ago
  They're calling that "Remaking the Gig Economy"? Making Uber and Lyft drivers into employees? What a sham. For 10 years I ran my own consultancy. Every new engagement was a new "job" where I could negotiate the rules of engagement however I deemed fit. Usually lasting no more than 5 days each. Every new month for 10 years I'd think: "this is it, it's over; I have no work scheduled for next month, I'm going to have to give up and get a real job." But somehow the work always rolled in, and I did really well. By the end I was billing over $300/hr, and I worked when and where I saw fit. As far as "gig workers" go, I was about as successful as you can possibly be. And yet my wife had to work a Real Job at a Real Company because I couldn't buy reasonable health insurance for any price. Any price at all. So I spun down my company and got a real job. The Gig Economy is an utter poopshow; not even at the very top is it sustainable. Making Uber's bottom-of-the-barrel jobs slightly less abysmal doesn't do crap for the Gig Economy. Driving for Uber isn't a Gig. You're not negotiating your rate on each pickup. It's a carefully managed relationship with the same company each time, who pays for your service on a recurring and predictable fee-for-work basis. It's a job. Fixing the Gig Economy means making it possible for people to make a living without the shelter of an employer. And making Uber and Lift into real employers doesn't fix it. It's not even related.
  • onion2k 7y ago
    Your post makes it sound like the gig economy is actually unworkable right now, so the right solution, at least in the short term while we don't have an answer to problem of how to make it workable, would be to make those 'jobs' actual jobs with real benefits.
    • username90 7y ago
      California loves making bandaid state fixes to federal problems, I think this is the wrong way to go. Problem: You need a full-time job at a company to get benefits such as healthcare. Californian solution: Reclassify as many as possible as full-time workers. Problem: USA immigration laws are horribly inflexible. Californian solution: Make it illegal to go after illegal immigrants. I don't think that these passive-aggressive fixes are good for USA's democracy. Either we need to split up the country into more manageable chunks and make moving between states as hard as moving between EU countries or we need to accept the intent of federal laws. Otherwise we will just end up in an ever escalating war of dumb bills to counteract the other sides dumb bills.
• xbeta 7y ago
  Workers have no choice but to get W2 status to get health care insurance, retirement compensation, etc. And they fix it by simply moving them as FT employees, because to the State of California that's the easiest thing they can do. Single-payer free healthcare for all - which is the right thing to do is too much for the State. This is just how bad the State of California is being run.
  • pcwalton 7y ago
    California already has among the most generous state-level medical benefits in the country. Here, it's hard to be in a situation in which one simultaneously can't afford insurance and doesn't qualify for Medicare or Medi-Cal (California Medicaid). Singling out California for not taking the unprecedented step of rolling out single-payer alone--which is a difficult proposition to say the least in a country that guarantees freedom of movement--is bizarre.
    • xbeta 7y ago
      I agree with you, but I have to correct myself as well. I mean compare US to other countries where national free health care is available. These are basic human rights which simply ignord by the government in the US. Workers need benefits which is understandable because they can't even go to doctors when they are sick.
    • 9HZZRfNlpR 7y ago
      Well, I would assume they offer healthcare to people who are working or are disabled and not able to work. It's not like you get healthcare in Europe for not putting anything back in the system. Freedom of movement is not a problem in this case.
      • scarejunba 7y ago
        You are full of it. Germany, for instance, (and other European nations are similar) puts so many barriers in the way of a disabled immigrant that they'll never end up a resident. You're telling me if I were disabled and could not work I could just move to Europe and live on the healthcare system? That's not at all true.
• forrestthewoods 7y ago
  Gig economy workers are neither contractors nor employees. They're something in-between. They are neither a square peg nor a round peg. They're a triangle. Forcing a triangular peg through either a round hole or a square hole is wrong. We need a new, third type of classification.
  • SpicyLemonZest 7y ago
    I have to agree. The rideshare companies have given a lot of self-serving commentary, but they made one very good point: if the legislature believes on principle that everyone deserves the benefits and protections of being an employee, how come they wrote so many carveouts? It really seems like an implicit admission that the ABC test isn't quite right.
• droidno9 7y ago
  For those of you who want to read the bill: https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x.... The pertinent part of the bill: 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. (C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. Of course, there's a bunch of exceptions for various professions toward the end.
  • pieix 7y ago
    Thank you for posting the exact wording of the bill. Which of these three clauses are not satisfied by drivers for a ridesharing company?
    • droidno9 7y ago
      The burden of proof would be on Uber and Lyft to show: (B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. This would be a hard sell because Uber and Lyft are in the business of providing transportation to people. They may argue that they're only providing the platform that enables drivers to provide rides, but considering the amount of evidence that says otherwise, I'd like to see their lawyer making that argument with a straight face.
      • mlthoughts2018 7y ago
        Also (A) would probably be a big issue, since Uber, Lyft etc. actually do interfere fairly directly with exactly how a driver provides service, even giving them a constantly-updating rating from detailed feedback collected from riders, and manipulating rides sent to drivers to influence what time of day / parts of town they end up working in to satisfy macro level shifts in demand that the larger organization observes. It takes serious mental gymnastics to say a driver is not simply an employee of the company, in terms of operational workflow. Drivers aren’t going off and figuring out everything (or even hardly anything) about giving rides at their own discretion, or even just with minor intervention from a central dispatch. The whole thing is constantly controlled in lock step by the central dispatch, and Uber, Lyft, etc., employ data scientists and other experts specifically to make it more centrally coordinated based on data. Frankly the only thing the driver controls is the financial risk of the car itself and clocking in / clocking out overall (though this is also manipulated with incentives).
• DeonPenny 7y ago
  Well, RIP to the Gig economy hopefully robots get here soon. Cause I can't see the market surviving this.
  • ilaksh 7y ago
    I am also enthusiastic about robots and doubtful about "the market surviving this". But what happens to people when the robots have all of the jobs? People think it's not going to affect them because their job is special. It's just a matter of a few years difference, everyone's job will be affected. Even computer programming. Why am I so sure about this? Because there is a very large research effort going on aimed at AGI and they _are_ making progress. And the potential rewards are enormous. And the hardware capability is available now.
    • michaelmrose 7y ago
      An understanding of rocketry didn't grant us the immediate route to land on the moon without also overcoming substantial obstacles. Given that we don't really understand cognition I would suspect that we don't have enough info to even estimate when we might achieve AGI. A few years is probably hopelessly optimistic.
      • dsirola 7y ago
        People can't even align divs properly. I would say AGI is further away than most people think.
    • DeonPenny 7y ago
      Whats with the obsession with jobs. Like healthcare you can easily figure out ways that more than basic necessity are taken care of. Is it really important that we give drivers arbitrary work?
      • ilaksh 7y ago
        I wasn't trying to say that jobs were necessarily important. Just pointing out that most could be affected, not just "easy" ones. I think it is possible that we will need a new paradigm for society, since jobs are a core aspect of the current one.
• kart23 7y ago
  So what's actually going to happen? I'm still confused. Ridesharing drivers will now be paid wages, not based on the time that they have a passenger? Will the ridesharing service have to pay for the cars and their maintenance? From the article, it seem the only effect is that drivers are going to be scheduled in advance, and flexibility is going to be decreased.
  • jmull 7y ago
    > only effect is that drivers are going to be scheduled in advance That’s a claim the ride-sharing companies are making but the law doesn’t require that. They could do that, but they could also let drivers take a shift at a moment’s notice. In that scenario, though, there may not be a shift available when a driver wants one. The ride sharing company will have to pay at least minimum wage so they probably won’t offer a shift when demand is low. Perhaps that won’t be a huge difference in effect in terms of a driver getting work since the limiting factor is demand, regardless. There are significant effects besides scheduling, though. Drivers will have to get basic benefits like minimum wage, unemployment benefits, etc. there are a lot of labor laws that make a distinction, so there will be a lot of changes from that perspective. In terms of vehicles, I would think drivers would be able to continue using their own vehicles, but would need to be paid for that somehow. The typical way to do that is a per mile amount which covers everything, fuel, wear, depreciation, etc.
  • jcims 7y ago
    Also does this mean that there will be limits on how many drivers are allowed in a locale?
• Mizza 7y ago
  Can anybody here with proper experience break down the "ABC" test for me? It seems to me like the "C" part (that the work is "part of a company’s regular business") applies to literally any company who would hire a freelancer to work on their product or service.
  • dmode 7y ago
    Just read through the text of the bill, looks like the work you describe is explicitly exempted from the bill https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
    • UK-Al05 7y ago
      When you have to exempt the majority of professions then it's just bill targeting specific companies which in my opinion is wrong.
      • dmode 7y ago
        The principle behind exemptions are those that already make far more than minimum wages, but I agree with your overall point
    • 0xffff2 7y ago
      Can you point out exactly where you think this is exempted? Particularly, my reading is that a software company cannot contract out software development tasks under this bill.
  • droidno9 7y ago
    There are exceptions for certain "professional services" providers if certain factors are satisfied. Curiously enough, software developer isn't one of the exceptions. (c) (1) Subdivision (a) and the holding in Dynamex do not apply to a contract for “professional services” as defined below, and instead the determination of whether the individual is an employee or independent contractor shall be governed by Borello if the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following factors are satisfied: (A) The individual maintains a business location, which may include the individual’s residence, that is separate from the hiring entity. Nothing in this subdivision prohibits an individual from choosing to perform services at the location of the hiring entity. (B) If work is performed more than six months after the effective date of this section, the individual has a business license, in addition to any required professional licenses or permits for the individual to practice in their profession. (C) The individual has the ability to set or negotiate their own rates for the services performed. (D) Outside of project completion dates and reasonable business hours, the individual has the ability to set the individual’s own hours. (E) The individual is customarily engaged in the same type of work performed under contract with another hiring entity or holds themselves out to other potential customers as available to perform the same type of work. (F) The individual customarily and regularly exercises discretion and independent judgment in the performance of the services. "Professional services" include: (i) Marketing (ii) Administrator of human resources (iii) Travel agent services (iv) Graphic design (v) Grant writer (vi) Fine artist (vii) [IRS enrolled agent] (viii) Payment processing agent (ix) [Certain still photographer or photojournalist ... ] (x) [Certain freelance writer, editor, or newspaper cartoonist ... ] (xi) [Certain licensed esthetician, licensed electrologist, licensed manicurist, licensed barber, or licensed cosmetologist ... ] [And even more exceptions for real estate agents, repo people, etc.,.]
• manigandham 7y ago
  This is more about the state collecting more taxes than actually helping workers, especially with ride-sharing drivers used as bait. People can already be full-time drivers if they wanted. Those jobs have existed for a century. In reality, the vast majority of Uber/lyft drivers already have a FT job and drive for secondary income with the time and location of their choosing. Retirees, students, fixed income, disabled, and many others who are just supporting their families. Shifting them to employee status will cut many supporting incomes while adding a few more driving jobs with strict conditions, basic benefits and bare minimum hours. Many more will suffer than gain (if any). Another case of California having some of the worst politics in the nation. For those downvoting, I would like to know what exactly you disagree with here.
  • YokoZar 7y ago
    Could you explain how taxes are involved? What about reclassification causes the state to see more taxes raised?
    • manigandham 7y ago
      Employees cost more for the company in terms of taxes paid, along with all the required benefits, minimum wages and making sure there's enough inelastic supply to meet the demand.
      • URSpider94 7y ago
        There is no state payroll tax, so California has literally nothing to gain in terms of taxation whether drivers are employees or contractors. Even at the Federal level, the taxes net out the same. For employees, your employer pays half of your social security contribution, but as a contractor, you have to pay the employers half on your taxes. The only thing I can come up with is unemployment insurance, which contractors don’t pay, but they also can’t collect unemployment. If I’m missing something, please clarify.
        • rsj_hn 7y ago
• scarejunba 7y ago
  Why so many carve-outs? The law should apply to all industries. Exploitation in some cannot be allowed simply because it's been going on longer.
• Keverw 7y ago
  I wonder if this is doing more harm than good... Some people want to do these types of gigs for extra income, but now if your an employee then probably companies will want you to be on a schedule and a minimum number of hours. I forget where but seen a story where someone was told by one of their clients that they were letting them go because of this new law. Happened to be their biggest client too, but they were doing remote work and lived in California... So now I guess some companies might want to let go of people from California and contract with residents of Texas or any other state instead. Kinda reminds me of when states started changing their sales tax nexus laws, I was doing affiliate marketing but didn't have any success as still starting out. But my state changed their law to try to collect from remote sellers and changed it to count affiliate sales too. So I got a notice kicking me out of the program on a short notice... If I had built up landing pages and traffic, I'd be left holding the bag... or adjust them to aim at another company but would have been a huge setback. You could go from making a comfy living online to making zero. I know gurus tell people to build up multiple streams of income, but in this case, all companies could do the same. Look at affiliate sales from the state, look at compliance costs... If making enough sales to justify then comply or just ban residents of the said state from the program and move on. So by trying to tax companies, they could have ended up hurting their residents instead. So by trying to get sales tax, they ended up with neither, losing out on both sales tax along with the income tax on the commissions since companies just decided to pull out completely from letting those residents be affiliates, so they were longer eligible to earned any commissions. "We regret to inform you that Nexus state tax regulations in Ohio were just passed July 1st of this year. Unfortunately, we are unable to work with any Ohio based affiliates, due to the Nexus Tax Laws currently under enforcement in the state." This was back in 2015. I think more than a few states changed their laws on this, I believe they are referred to as a cookie nexus. and some programs have a minimum threshold to cash out too. So I guess they can kick you out and keep your money... Lucky I didn't have any in my account as was recently dabbling in this area. So kinda sad that you could lose out on income just because of the state you are domiciled in. Wouldn't surprise me if other companies outside of California is going to end contracts with people just because they live in California. Kinda feels like discrimination in a way. However maybe setting up a corporation instead of being a sole proprietorship that could be a workaround. Don't deal with California individuals, deal with California companies instead even if it's just only a company size of 1. So ride sharing apps could require drivers to set up an LLC and pay that instead of paying them directly maybe. But then California has high taxes and franchise fees already, so maybe it's just not worth it. There's already a mass exodus from California, so wouldn't surprise me if this makes even more people question if they should leave the state also. Move somewhere cheaper and get to keep your clients too if you are a freelancer.
• fergie 7y ago
  How do we get past the NYT paywall these days? Incognito mode no longer seems to do the trick?
  • michaelmrose 7y ago
    I think you need to open an incognito tab then perform a web search for the articles title.
  • mirimir 7y ago
    I can read OK in Firefox if I hit reader view fast enough.
  • akvadrako 7y ago
    You can use container tabs on Firefox or something similar in Chrome.
  • wokemillennial 7y ago
    Or you could, you know, pay for the news that you want to consume. "How do I get past the Uber paywall these days?" See how absurd that sounds? Pay for the products and services that you consume.
• kmjg88nvf8 7y ago
  "Ride-hailing drivers hailed the bill’s passage." - I wonder how happy they will be when their job simply goes away because of that bill. It's terribly misguided and anti-freedom. I think it is a problem if companies like Uber are not honest with their employees, like neglecting to mention that their cars may break down and require maintenance, which should be factored into the income. But that is about honest information sharing, not forced employment. Nevertheless, people should be free to do contract work and negotiate contracts on their own terms.
  • uasm 7y ago
    > "I wonder how happy they will be when their job simply goes away because of that bill." Taxis are... not "going away". They may get more expensive. Taxi companies are simply going to make a comeback. Uber was making it easier/cheaper for passangers - it did very little for the drivers themselves.
    • romanovcode 7y ago
      Uber is not Taxi. OP point is still correct. Taxi companies are coming back but Uber drivers get fired.
      • uasm 7y ago
        > "Uber is not Taxi. OP point is still correct. Taxi companies are coming back but Uber drivers get fired" They can't be "fired", since they were never properly hired in the first place! They were never regarded as employees. That's exactly what this legislation is setting out to change!
        • kmjg88nvf8 7y ago
          It doesn't matter how you call it - they will be unable to earn extra money by driving, that is the issue. If they relied on that money to make ends meet, they may not be happy anymore.
• jameslk 7y ago
  Can't Uber and Lyft get around this by requiring their contractors to register their own companies? E.g. a SMLLC might be sufficient.
  • dagw 7y ago
    Even if that would work from a legal perspective, I suspect that it would be enough of a practical hurdle to greatly decrease the number of people willing to drive for Uber/Lyft.
    • kmjg88nvf8 7y ago
      If these people don't need the money, then I guess it is no problem.
    • shpongled 7y ago
      Especially in a state like California, where you have to pay an $800 franchise tax each year to keep an LLC registered, regardless of if it has any income.
  • justinc8687 7y ago
    For most legal purposes, a SMLLC isn't considered different than an independent contractor. For example, unless you file a Form 2553 to be taxed as an S Corporation or a Form 8832 to be taxed as a C Corporation, you just file a Schedule C on your 1040, the same as if you didn't have an LLC.
• stevespang 7y ago
  Cost to get a ride will go up 30%, this will be passed onto to riders . . .
• sampo 7y ago
  Will this affect freelance journalists?
  • wokemillennial 7y ago
    God, I hope so. If I see the term "full-time freelance position" in a job description one more time I am going to lose my shit.
• monkbroc 7y ago
  Is there any reason to believe the ride sharing companies won't reorganize their drivers using a similar model to what Amazon uses for their delivery drivers: contract to external firms that employ drivers so the parent entity is absolved of responsibility? https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-drivers-accidents.html https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/05/us/amazon-delivery-driver...
  • lr 7y ago
    Then that makes them too much (or exactly like) a taxi outfit, which would not go down too well.
  • DanielBMarkham 7y ago
    This is an important point, as many times these laws claim to do one thing and end up doing another. Does this fix a problem? Or does it keep the old problem, just in a new configuration, and add barriers to entry for new participants?
    • Nasrudith 7y ago
      I think the answer may be "yes" effectively if it leads to establishing companies of contractors but not without side effects in themselves - like most regulations really. If gig economies lead to working with companies instead of individuals that would lead to two distinct branches. * A self established one would give more regulatory surface for things like training and background check requirements. Not as easy to sign up before any added regulations. Constituents would get more of a pure cut. The barriers to entry would make their labor slightly more valuable. * A traditional company which hires employees. They would have a middleman to make signing up easier but likely less flexibility - which doesn't matter as much to fulltimers anyway. It likely result in a less flexible market with more barriers to entry but it would solve some problems and act as a framework to add more solutions and problems for better or worse. It could be abused to create cartels again or responsibly handle externalities without unduly privileging - it depends on how the tool is used. Second order effects are likely a labor pool that cannot rise and fall as quickly which would stabilize prices for the labor supply and turn instability into a company liability as they may be left with a choice of paying for idle labor for availability and meeting demand for sure or risking being unable to fulfill demand. That said I wouldn't be surprised if widespread roll out of these sorts of laws caused a gig economy bubble to burst - especially given how many are doing a VC dumping strategy of losing money on transactions. I don't really have strong feelings as to what would be the best nor consider myself above an amateur commentator.
• lr 7y ago
  “Some of the companies are not done fighting the bill. Uber, Lyft and DoorDash have pledged to spend $90 million to support a ballot initiative that would essentially exempt them from the legislation.” And how may people who drive for these companies are not citizens and cannot vote?
  • kryogen1c 7y ago
    I would guess very few, since driving requires a smartphone, a license, a vehicle, and a bank account. Its possible to work around these, of course, but the numbers must be small.
    • asteli 7y ago
      ? You can easily get all those things as a non-citizen resident. Do you mean undocumented immigrants or something?
      • apta 7y ago
        The poster seems to be talking about illegal immigrants.
    • hypersoar 7y ago
      These are all obtainable without citizenship. There are clearly a lot of immigrants driving for Uber.
  • magashna 7y ago
    If they pledged that money to pay their employees properly, wouldn't it be a wash?
    • hfdehfddhs 7y ago
      $90 million is peanuts compared to the potential cost of this bill. That's why lobbying and buying propaganda works.
• perseusprime11 7y ago
  What if I don't want to be an employee?
  • bluntfang 7y ago
    Can you talk more about why someone wouldn't want it?
    • perseusprime11 7y ago
      I want to be an independent contractor without getting tied to a company. At least, this was the best part for me in the gig economy where I can drive Uber and rent on Airbnb and make money doing multiple gigs. I don't want to be an employee of either Uber or AirBnb.
      • bluntfang 7y ago
        What specifically is the problem with being an employee? I want to understand your position more. I don't understand the drawbacks of "being tied to an employer". >this was the best part for me in the gig economy where I can drive Uber and rent on Airbnb and make money doing multiple gigs. What about being a contractor makes this possible? Many people work multiple jobs by being a direct employer of the company? Also how does rental properties come into this?
• t34543 7y ago
  I don’t think this is about gig worker wages at all. It’s about tax revenue. California has always been a scumbag state.
• whiddershins 7y ago
  All these people making Uber money on the side ... the whole thing was possible in part due to the low friction in (and also complete disregard for) the regulatory environment. I’m in NYC and honestly can’t figure out how to legally hire a studio assistant for a few hours a week without being at risk for any of a number of lawsuit vectors. So I just coil my own cables. And I don’t mentor people who want to learn some things about the music industry. Not a crippling loss for me, but I miss the relationship building, I miss passing on things I’ve learned, I miss the creative back and forth, being turned on to new stuff ... and frankly my studio is a mess. I’m not sure why we can’t figure out a way to protect workers without making everything a legal minefield. One effect of this sort of legislation is it gets harder and harder to be a small player. The big companies always figure out how to deal with the rules. It’s sad.
  • dustinmoris 7y ago
    What do you expect from your studio assistant that you think might put you at risk of a number of lawsuits? Honestly, if you want to hire someone to do some work a few hours a week then you are basically hiring a part time employee. There's nothing dangerous around doing this and it's certainly not a minefield if you treat them with the respect that any employee deserves.
    • neltnerb 7y ago
      Well, other than the minor hassle that they need to know how to issue a W2 and get enrolled for workers comp insurance and pay their estimated taxes for them. None are super hard, but they are barriers for people who aren't used to hiring people, which is the case for I think a lot of self-employed people. I only finally bothered to learn how to do it all last year when I needed some extra help with projects for my consulting company. Prior to that I just paid a contract CFO to deal with it because it's what you don't know you don't know that gets you sued. So either it's expensive to hire a CFO just for that, or expensive in your time to learn it all when your main goal is to actually get work done that produces revenue.
      • 7y ago
• VladimirIvanov 7y ago
  So what happens to Thumbtack's business model now?
• mcntall 7y ago
  We are looking at more wire tapes being built in California. It makes one wonder whether Cali would implode if Silicon Valley had a rapid decline
  • mdorazio 7y ago
    Fun fact: Silicon valley isn't even near the top of the list in GDP-contributing industries for California [1]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#Sectors https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Economy_of_California#Sectors
• jswizzy 7y ago
  I wonder how this effects companies like Google which contract out most of their workforce.
  • hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
    I believe most of those contracted workers are still W2 employees, just at other companies.
• a9a 7y ago
  This seems like terrible legislation. Yes, part time gig workers are exposed to harms that employees don’t face (i.e. lack of health insurance). But the ability to work flexibly and between lots of companies has huge upside for them and for firms. Why not tax companies who use these workers and put the tax revenue toward a special health insurance / social safety net specifically for gig workers? Mitigates many of the downsides and preserves flexibility.
  • asdf21 7y ago
    Welcome to California, politics here is full of great intentions and awful execution.
    • deleted 7y ago
      [deleted]
  • CriticalCathed 7y ago
    >But the ability to work flexibly and between lots of companies They still have this ability
  • sandstrom 7y ago
    Sounds like your describing the social safety system in Europe
    • a9a 7y ago
      Sure—that seems like it can in certain instances be a great system. In general I think a fair/free labor market means individuals should have as many options as possible, including a government backstop, to leverage when negotiating with firms who want to buy their time.
• johnrob 7y ago
  The Uber layoffs announced yesterday now seem to be strategically timed. If we assume the standard 3 month severance offered by big companies, the layoffs would free up cash at the end of 2019 - right when they’d need it for the increase in CA drivers benefits.
  • gorbachev 7y ago
    They were already announced some time ago and are related to the catastrophic quarterly earnings for the last quarter.
• Imashshoryuken 7y ago
  I have spent 6 months building a gig econ app that now is around 5 million valuation. I can assure you it is not easy. If the government doesn't want 1099 workers because technology has made them viable at scale then we need to throw gig econ apps some help with W2 workers. Even changing I9 documentation would be a massive improvement.
  • cj 7y ago
    > Even changing I9 documentation would be a massive improvement. Is there something difficult about completing Form I-9? In my experience, it's one of the easiest steps of the hiring process to complete. Even if the employee is remote, you could have them send you a picture of their driver's license + passport which isn't too hard to do. What would you want changed about it? Direct link to Form I-9: https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-9-paper-version.pdf https://www.uscis.gov/system/files_force/files/form/i-9-pape...
• macinjosh 7y ago
  California industry revolutionizes businesses, California government ruins them.
• dfilppi 7y ago
  Another beauty from the California politburo.
• MentallyRetired 7y ago
  How will this affect platforms such as amazon or redbubble?
• djrogers 7y ago
  It seems to me that an evolution of the current Uber/Lyft model would allow for the gig-economy to continue. Today Uber/Lyft being the exclusive determinants of both cost of rides and pay for drivers, which leads to 'prividing rides' being their core business. If NewCo were to build an app/platform that allowed drivers to bid on rides in real time (perhaps with driver determined presets for price floors, distance, etc), while skimming a percentage off for NewCo, then drivers would clearly be NewCo's customers and not employees. Under this model, NewCo could also sell insurance to their customers (the drivers), lease them vehicles, etc. all without 'directing' them, or running any risk of them being classed as employees. Perhaps this will be an unintended consequence to this legislation, but the ultimate outcome of this would likely be worse for many drivers, as open & competitive bidding for rides would likely drive down prices. Look at eBay and Amazon - lowest seller sells most.
  • ben_jones 7y ago
    This would be terrible for a large number of Uber riders. Want to go across the Bay Bridge? $100. Airport? $100. Want to get picked up after a night of drinking? $100. Want to get picked up in a poor neighborhood? Not happening. All the problems associated with taxis: poor service, scams, racism, extortive pricing, will return.
    • mdorazio 7y ago
      I don't see how this follows. A marketplace Uber would basically have drivers setting price per mile or price per distance rates within their acceptable geography and probably a rider score variable. Riders would enter a destination and either be presented with driver options (including ratings) or be paired with the lowest bidding driver. Payments, ratings, dispatch, etc. would all still be handled by Uber, as would disputes. You'd end up pretty close to today's Uber experience, just with more expensive rides (not subsidized, so likely pretty close to current taxi rates in most places) and probably an extra step in the hailing process for riders.
    • djrogers 7y ago
      That's not how competition works...
• privateSFacct 7y ago
  I'm generally a fan of this bill I think - but I don't like bills with so many carve-outs and special exceptions - usually a sign of bad drafting or special interest influence. And can make things hard to admin. Now you have to parse whether someone is or is not part of a carevout (ie, did they exercise sufficient creativity to be in group A or not). That's just litigation heaven. Make some rules - any rules really - that can be reasonably followed by non-attorney's. This bills has pages of if's, and's and but's.
• fulldecent2 7y ago
  So... reincorporate subsidiary in Micronesia and ignore the laws from there?
  • bgilroy26 7y ago
    A car service app that the public uses has a large surface for regulatory enforcement. When NYC wants to catch illegal car service activity they have police or the taxi commission post people at the airport. Incorporation somewhere without rules only works if the space your enterprise operates in is outside the reach of the gov't as well.
• radicaldreamer 7y ago
  Can someone explain why both the Uber and Lyft stocks are up on this news?
  • aldoushuxley001 7y ago
    Makes it harder for any new competitors. This just entrenches the old guard.
  • fullshark 7y ago
    I thought this was priced in, seems like everyone expected it at least. Uber I thought was up due to layoffs.
• buboard 7y ago
  I wonder if they could please make a law so that Google's publishers are considered employees as well?
• projproj 7y ago
  Could Uber make their new employees sign non-compete agreements after the law is passed? A lot of drivers drive for both companies now. Will this restrict drivers to drive for just one company?
  • ilikehurdles 7y ago
    Not in CA
    • kec 7y ago
      Non competes preventing you from workin in industry after you leave an employer are illegal, a clause preventing you from moonlighting for a competitor during your employment is not.
    • cortesoft 7y ago
      An employer can limit you having another job while currently employeed, even in california.
• robomartin 7y ago
  This is an Atlas Shrugged moment, if I’ve ever seen one. I know Uber and Lyft would not do it because they are public companies and other reasons. Yet, it is my opinion, that they should. They should fire everyone in CA. Why? Because this is preposterous. These companies started with the premise that people could sign-up to monetize free time by driving others using their vehicles. That was the deal, the contract, if you will. Nobody forced drivers or passengers to participate in any way. The system was the very embodiment of freedom: You do as you want, when you want, if you want to. And you can also stop and not do it if it does not deliver value. This applied both to driver and passenger. This move represents the use of force on the part of government to unjustly interfere with the free market. It’s the continuation of a slippery slope in CA that will eventually cause this State’s politics to become indistinguishable from that of a third world country. This is also wrong because, as far as I know, it is the first time government uses force (because that’s what laws are) to materially change the business model of public companies. Uber and Lyft should fire everyone in CA immediately. That’s the only power they have. If they don’t move to force a repeal these politicians are going to mess with them until the end of time. If you have ever had the “pleasure” of dealing with the State Board of Equalization you know precisely what I mean. It’s hard to believe, but, yes, they are worse than the DMV. This might also mean that, by extension, it will be dicey to hire anyone in CA for gigs. Be it a graphic designer or coder, if the potential exists for trouble people will simply hire out of state out of the country. As Ross Perot famously said, paraphrasing...that huge sucking sound you hear are jobs leaving CA, if not the country. For Uber and Lyft it might mean accelerating their transition to robot cars in order to get rid of people as soon as possible.
  • dmode 7y ago
    Thank god you are not running any companies. Uber and Lyft's 25% of their revenues come from California. They will not exist without California.
    • robomartin 7y ago
      Quite to the contrary my friend. I have been running businesses my entire life. You must have missed the part where I said they won’t do it. In business there’s often a huge gap between what you should do for a higher cause and the reality of staying in business. A simple example of this are car companies. I guarantee you all of them want to go electric. I also guarantee you they know they would go out of business if they rushed into it right now. In the Uber/Lyft case the greater good is to take a stance that favors free markets. However, as you correctly point out, this would come with potentially severe consequences. My guess is they might take it to the courts. Long term, they’ll move to self-driving cars. In the end the outcome for drivers will be worse. Which is what often happens when government sticks it’s paws into a market. Same will happen to the rental market in CA.
• aabajian 7y ago
  How does this affect AirBnb hosts?
  • saisundar 7y ago
    Would Airbnb even be under scrutiny with regards to this bill? Airbnb is a marketplace, where the hosts can set their own rates, with minimal intervention from the platform. This is not the case with Uber/Lyft though.
• frostyj 7y ago
  I can't believe those drivers are that short sighted. They would be just gone if L4 autonomous driving becomes a thing, and they are definitely pushing those companies to there much faster now.
• woah 7y ago
  This is an extremely heavy handed law which would be destructive to large parts of the economy by making many people’s livelihoods illegal. The drafters of the law knew this, which is why 90% of the text of the law is carve-outs for various professions. But forcing people to live their lives through loopholes never works well. For example, they have this carve out for high skilled professions: > (3) An individual who holds an active license from the State of California and is practicing one of the following recognized professions: lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant. Sorry, software engineers. An accountant or an architect might be allowed to take on lucrative contracts, but since the state of California doesn’t have a special piece of paper for your job, they’re not going to allow you to work in the way you choose. Edit: I myself am a software developer who has enjoyed working contracts in the past and would like the option to do so again.
  • Spivak 7y ago
    They're not carving out high-skill professions. You'll notice that doctors aren't on that list. They're carving out professions that are already under special regulatory regimes that affect how they're able to sell their work. In part because people/businesses are required by law to contract with people who hold these licenses. Like you cannot build a building without a licensed architect and civil engineer. There would be an uproar if you couldn't renovate your office without hiring an architect an an employee. Edit: Looks like the final version is way different than this quote. The final list of exemptions are: - physicians and surgeons - insurance brokers - securities brokers - direct sales under specific (previously existing) conditions. So looks like they didn't really care about professional services after all but carved out industries where you look like an employee but operate a tiny little business inside another one.
    • woah 7y ago
      Doctors are exempted in a section immediately above the one I quoted.
      • Spivak 7y ago
        I stand corrected except that your quote doesn't seem to be from the law as it was passed. Looks like the final changes to the code exempt doctors, insurance brokers, securities brokers, and sales people under certain conditions. Far less of a carve-out than I was expecting.
• ylhert 7y ago
  From the bill: (c) The misclassification of workers as independent contractors has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class and the rise in income inequality. It really irks me that they can posit this in legislation without supporting data. It seems like a dubious claim, at best.
  • pembrook 7y ago
    The misclassification of health insurance as a service employers should provide instead of government has been a significant factor in the erosion of the middle class. I can throw out random assertions as well.
• HALtheWise 7y ago
  I have seen very many cars with both Uber and Lyft stickers on their windshield, is that still going to be allowed under the new regime?
• memmcgee 7y ago
  People seem to think this is going to hurt workers, but it was gig economy workers who pushed for this law. Workers know their own conditions better than you do.
  • s_y_n_t_a_x 7y ago
    That doesn't mean they know the law or can think through the consequences. Kind of a like a genie wish situation.
  • colechristensen 7y ago
    People often vote against their own interests and the fact that there were gig economy workers pushing for this does not mean they as a group want it. Gig economy workers are not a whole. Some of them really do just want a bit of extra income on the side. That is very incompatible with this new law.
• diehunde 7y ago
  I would like to read more comments from actual drivers from this apps instead of people saying things they think about them and their lives.
  • Krasnol 7y ago
    You're in the wrong spot. Here you can find only people who would never find themselves in a position where they have to "freelance" on such a low wage level where the law is really important. The top comment is some guy whining that his studio has not been cleaned recently while the rest fears for their exploit business ideas...Welcome to the digital bourgeoisie.
• humble_engineer 7y ago
  The absolute nerve of Uber trying to lobby an exemption for themselves. Just absolutely despicable.
• azinman2 7y ago
  One thing that worries me with this is the effects on the otherwise jobless, especially those on government assistance that are effectively otherwise unemployable. Lyft/Uber is a godsend for this demographic.
• tathougies 7y ago
  As if Uber or Lyft even care. They almost certainly foresaw this (who couldn't), which is why they have taken the typical response to government over-regulation -- automation. The end goal is a self driving car, and the resulting concentration of wealth. Once again, we can blame so-called 'progressive' policies for furthering the enriching of the rich and the continued subjugation of the poor and middle classes who are denied yet another income stream.
  • mrlala 7y ago
    What a bunch of bullshit. >The end goal is a self driving car, and the resulting concentration of wealth. That was the end goal no matter what regulations were put in place. You are really trying to argue the only reason for automation is because they might have to, I don't know, provide healthcare to employees and give them some time off? > which is why they have taken the typical response to government over-regulation -- automation I just cannot believe you are trying to relate the two. Automation is simply the most efficient model for everyone involved. It has virtually nothing to do with regulations. Could the fear of regulations push them a bit faster toward automation? Maybe- but your trying to argue that progressive policies are pushing the jobs out of workers is basically Trump level psycho.
    • tathougies 7y ago
      > Maybe- but your trying to argue that progressive policies are pushing the jobs out of workers is basically Trump level psycho. The policies increase the incentive to automate. Automation is unavoidable, but by raising the cost of human power, these policies speed up time to adoption (the time at which the cost to hire humans -- now higher -- meets the cost of automation -- still the same as before). Moreover, the policy requires governmental enforcement and thus money that could be better spent helping the workers themselves. For example, a better use of money would be to take the money spent on enforcing this law and instead investing it into programs to train gig economy workers for the new careers that will be opened up via automation. I'm not sure what 'Trump level psycho' means, but given the current administration's record on employment (very good), I'll take it as a compliment.
• txsoftwaredev 7y ago
  I read this as Uber/Lyft will no longer operate out of CA. And many other companies that would be required to take on this burden will leave CA as well. I'm don't see how this will benefit the citizens of CA.
  • jedberg 7y ago
    CA is one of their few profit centers. It's also 10% of the population of the USA. No business would choose to exclude CA, and CA knows this. That is why they can get away with these heavy handed regulations.
• bcheung 7y ago
  One unintended outcome of this is probably going to be age discrimination. If companies are now required to provide health care they is an incentive to hire younger workers with cheaper healthcare expenses than older people who cost more.
  • diminoten 7y ago
    California considers age to be a protected class.
    • Implicated 7y ago
      Right - but how often/easily is that enforced?
      • diminoten 7y ago
        Often and easily?
• hbarka 7y ago
  I want to be empathetic to both sides of the argument. Don’t 1099 workers have preferential tax treatments? Why would you give that up and become W2? On the other hand, health insurance is a safety net. I feel like we need a new system where one can be an entrepreneur and still be able to afford healthcare.
  • Gibbon1 7y ago
    > Don’t 1099 workers have preferential tax treatments? It's complicated but the short answer is no. A 1099 contractor can write off a bunch of expenses. But importantly an employer can also write off a bunch of expenses. (like your health insurance) On top of that an employer pays half the FICA withholding where a self employed person pays the whole thing. And also you don't get unemployment as a contractor. And you don't get paid vacation either. > I feel like we need a new system where one can be an entrepreneur and still be able to afford healthcare. A saw someone claim about 10 years ago that there are more small businesses and self employed people in Europe than the US and government funded health insurance is likely the reason.
    • hbarka 7y ago
      A self-employed person can also put more money away towards retirement and reduce taxable income this way. A W2 person cannot do as much. I would love to see data regarding the small business rate in Europe. As an American, I’m really missing out on what other developed societies are doing.
• deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
• ben_jones 7y ago
  1) Society has failed and there are no superior job opportunities, forcing people to work for objectively unlivable wages driving for Uber etc 2) There are vastly superior work and educational opportunities but many choose not to take them and instead prefer the advantages of driving for Uber (mainly flexible hours) I believe both these statements on a case by case basis are true and both need to be respected by any legislation that is passed.
  • 0xffff2 7y ago
    >There are vastly superior work and educational opportunities but many choose not to take them and instead prefer the advantages of driving for Uber (mainly flexible hours) Many are not able to choose those "vastly superior work and educational opportunities".
• Alexander473 7y ago
  Does anyone have any thoughts on wheather this bill is going to effect freelancers working through Upwork or similar sites?
• 75dvtwin 7y ago
  We are getting to a fundamental dissonance between different models of work engagement, and the cost (monetary and environment) of essential services that citizens need to rely on. Workers say 'I need to be able to choose when I work, and for how infrequently'. Government says: 'we will mandate your employee to pay for your benefits'. Workers say: 'I need to be able to afford essential services, like health care'. Government says: we will either make your employee pay for it, or we will tax the whole country to fund it. Workers say: I would like to get college education that promises, well paying jobs, and makes myself competitive with, (including, but not limited to) foreign-educated workforce. Government says: We will make tax the whole country to fund it Workers say: I would like to sustain family with children, on one salary. Government says: Nope, but will tax the whole country and fund free child care, for working parents (that's Australia). -- What's not present in these question/answers -- are solutions that make a) Work engagement simpler, and less litigious b) The health care cheaper c) The cost of education cheaper This is Instead, US is marching along to keep its burden of legalized racketeering through groundless lawsuits. Instead, the US is keeping its out of control health care costs (or apply price controls, in the hope that quality will not suffer). Instead, the US is keeping its out of control college education cost.... -- It just seems that we have tilted way from figuring out how to make things cheaper through fair competition and through advances in technology.
• edmoffo 7y ago
  They are trying to put the fast growing market of freelancers under control. I don't see it as a bad move. The market is becoming bigger every year. Eventually everybody will be freelancers. You like this videos of Yegor, he is constantly speaking about this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnDmr_H2Ks https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0gnDmr_H2Ks