4 ms·

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

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.
jamiequint 7y ago
> While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. So basically all the "gig economy" companies.
- MiroF 7y ago
  Airbnb?
dahdum 7y ago
It will be an interesting case study for sure. I think we can expect fewer drivers, mandatory time slots, and capped 40 hour weeks. Prices should go up to cover all of it, and both Uber/Lyft are cheeky enough to separate that line item as a “CA Tax Recovery Fee” or some such. Probably will be better off for those making it their living, worse for those looking for extra income. It’s going to be harder on all the other businesses getting hit suddenly with this, newspapers threw a fit and got a 1 year reprieve but the rest didn’t have a bully pulpit.
- tempsy 7y ago
  30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so guessing hours would be capped at 30 max per week. I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.
  - amadeusw 7y ago
    Perhaps this will encourage tech companies to recognize access to health services as a basic human right. I look forward to day when corporations support universal health care from purely selfish grounds: if government takes care of employee's health, companies won't have to deal with it, or worry whether driver crosses the threshold of working over 30 hours a week.
    - manigandham 7y ago
      You have a right to health (as in nobody can stop you from being healthy). Healthcare is a service that others provide and can't really be a human right. A better healthcare system requires the government to do something rather than an individual corporation. In fact it's the tight coupling of healthcare to employment that makes it such a nightmare already, and companies are not against a more universal system because it would greatly reduce costs and overhead.
  - seanmcdirmid 7y ago
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
jballer 7y ago
It's an auction - they used to make great money because there were fewer drivers. If drivers walked away when pay got too low, the pay would rise to equalize with rider demand.

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.

jamiequint 7y ago

> While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. So basically all the "gig economy" companies.

MiroF 7y ago
Airbnb?

dahdum 7y ago

It will be an interesting case study for sure. I think we can expect fewer drivers, mandatory time slots, and capped 40 hour weeks. Prices should go up to cover all of it, and both Uber/Lyft are cheeky enough to separate that line item as a “CA Tax Recovery Fee” or some such. Probably will be better off for those making it their living, worse for those looking for extra income. It’s going to be harder on all the other businesses getting hit suddenly with this, newspapers threw a fit and got a 1 year reprieve but the rest didn’t have a bully pulpit.

tempsy 7y ago
30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so guessing hours would be capped at 30 max per week. I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.
- amadeusw 7y ago
  Perhaps this will encourage tech companies to recognize access to health services as a basic human right. I look forward to day when corporations support universal health care from purely selfish grounds: if government takes care of employee's health, companies won't have to deal with it, or worry whether driver crosses the threshold of working over 30 hours a week.
  - manigandham 7y ago
    You have a right to health (as in nobody can stop you from being healthy). Healthcare is a service that others provide and can't really be a human right. A better healthcare system requires the government to do something rather than an individual corporation. In fact it's the tight coupling of healthcare to employment that makes it such a nightmare already, and companies are not against a more universal system because it would greatly reduce costs and overhead.
- seanmcdirmid 7y ago

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

jballer 7y ago

It's an auction - they used to make great money because there were fewer drivers. If drivers walked away when pay got too low, the pay would rise to equalize with rider demand.