12 ms·
Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs
- bhupy 7y agoPretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.
- thrower123 7y agoI mean, if I had to lay bets, I'd give astronomically better odds of California passing a dumb, counterproductive law than a difficult technological innovation.
- arcticbull 7y agoCalifornia is kinda the undisputed king of both.
- w-j-w 7y ago> out of work You don't sincerely believe that stuff will stop being delivered if this law passes, do you?
- wil421 7y agoWhat Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say 2000? Some of the old companies have like HP and Intel certainly made certain office work redundant and to an extent Oracle. What does HN think?
- a3n 7y agoThey're working on it. As a trucker, I have no problem with automation. No one has the right to any specific job or career.
- wil421 7y agoSo no companies with viable products. Drone trucks that follow a real driver are more realistic than fully automated trucks. Everything I’ve seen from Tesla to GM’s cruise to the German luxury brands is just driver assist tech not self driving. Im asking about any company since 2000 or mid 1990s that has put people out of jobs. Netflix nope, Alphabet nope, Facebook never. Salesforce maybe some jobs. Here’s the SV 150 list.[1] Intel and HP killed paper pushing jobs that could be automated by computers. Adobe probably killed a lot of art departments. [1] https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/01/sv150-2017-ranking-of-silicon-valleys-top-150-public-tech-companies/ https://www.mercurynews.com/2017/05/01/sv150-2017-ranking-of...
- jogjayr 7y ago> Netflix Blockbuster employees' jobs?
- wil421 7y agoHa! I just said to my wife, don’t forget Netflix started as mail order DVDs and successfully pivoted to streaming. At Blockbuster’s height they employed 85k. The majority were high schoolers in my area.
- a3n 7y ago> Drone trucks that follow a real driver are more realistic than fully automated trucks. So the following trucks don't need the drivers that would drive them today. Things change. Not always the way we predict. I do expect much to be automated, not just trucking, because about everything else that is streamlinable seems to have been done, and companies or executives don't seem to be able to survive unless they find some way to cut costs. Status quo is not good enough. Automation is Checkov's gun on the wall. It will go off.
- aaronblohowiak 7y agoFacebook absolutely helped put local newspapers out of business.
- deleted 7y ago[deleted]
- ars 7y agoFarmers? Farms have become very automated, you need less people to do the same work.
- wil421 7y ago> What Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say 2000? Push it back to the mid 1990s and answer the same question.
- thephyber 7y ago> that would put truckers out of work s/would/could/ It's still hypothetical at this point.
- kissickas 7y agoWell, now we know what Yang will be talking about in the debate next week.
- stjohnswarts 7y agoYang is basically a foot note in history at this point.
- graeme 7y agoThis element of the law is an odd standard: > performing work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business That bans subcontracting, no? It's a common, long established practice in a lot of industries.
- dangrossman 7y agoIt doesn't ban anything, it just says that certain types of people working in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.
- baggy_trough 7y agoYes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y agoIt's better than no benefits created by predictably tight-fisted California business.
- baggy_trough 7y agoThat's true for some, but not those that are going to be losing their job.
- omgwtfbyobbq 7y agoSome people may lose their jobs, but with the unemployment rate at the lowest it's been in 40 years, they should be able to find other jobs, hopefully with benefits. https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/californias-unemployment-rate-record-low https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-11-15/california... https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur-400c.pdf https://www.labormarketinfo.edd.ca.gov/file/lfmonth/countyur...
- 7y ago
- d0ntt4z3m3br0 7y agoUsed Roadie to ship some furniture this year to few customers. Much easier than dealing with LTL carriers and the customers liked it much more. Be interesting if they can stay around..
- crooked-v 7y agoThe loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. > Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business. > and the right to set their own schedules I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws, wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the contracting company's fault.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago>The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done. >I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business. Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleets will in steal be hauled by Swift, Schneider and the like. Those are the kinds of companies that have enough people to absorb these new laws with little cost other than shuffling drivers and trucks around to comply. Owner/operator and small fleet is where truckers go after they've put in their time working for the bottom of the barrel driving sweatshops (the big dry van companies). Removing those small operators is basically removing the part of the industry that sucks the least to work in. This is basically the trucking equivalent of replacing the independent sandwich shops with Subway and saying it's no big deal because meals are still getting served. Sure it may be an improvement for some people but the rigidity that comes with working for a big company (yes I know it's a franchise but the franchise tightly controls each location so bear with me here) be bad lot of the people formerly working for the small shops. >I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws, wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the contracting company's fault. This doesn't remove the federal electronic logs mandate and DOT working hours rules. Edit: improved restaurant analogy.
- fzeroracer 7y agoIndependent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees. Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. Ultimately this sounds like they wanted to get away with offloading the risks of trucking to the individual rather than deal with it at a business level.
- xiaodai 7y agoAs predicted by Andrew Yang. Read "War on normal people"
- chillacy 7y agoI don't recall a prediction of laws against this in The War on Normal People. He does mention the changing nature of jobs (most newly created jobs are gig or contract) in the past few years though, and what that means for worker stability (healthcare, etc).
- sedeki 7y agoI am curious about what federal law they are referring to and what it says? I am not an expert nor a US citizen.
- thephyber 7y agoIf I am correct, I think it's the Interstate Commerce Clause[1] of the US Constitution. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (note that the wiki article is the "Commerce Clause", but it mentions the "Interstate Commerce Clause")
- thephyber 7y agoTechnical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law? TFA states: > The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex. implements a legal ruling sounds suspiciously like "the court says that the previous state of law was ambiguous/incongruent and the legislature must pass a law to address it". Can anyone shed light on whether I am on base or not? [1] https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...
- dragonwriter 7y ago> Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law? The new law codified the Dynamex ruling but also added some new industry-specific exceptions; outside of those exceptions they are essentially the same.
- joshklein 7y agoThis article is about a suit from The California Trucking Association, a trade group and industry lobbyist representing corporate management, not truckers. You can learn about them on their website if you're curious. The only source providing a statement in the body of this article is the association's head lobbyist. Background sources seem to include a politician and an academic institute. No truckers. I don't have any comment about the suit or the law, but I do think this is fine opportunity to discuss the nature of propaganda.
- favorited 7y agoThank you! The Teamsters union (and locals), which actually represent truckers, supported AB5.
- stickfigure 7y agoAh yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents.
- hn_throwaway_99 7y ago> Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents. Not to overstate the obvious, but that's pretty much the entire point of unions: by working collectively, individuals aren't directly competing against each other, forcing management to pay higher wages, with the goal being that the wages paid are higher than any individual could make if the union didn't exist.
- denkmoon 7y agoThus avoiding a race to the bottom where truckers drive all day just to feed themselves and our insatiable desire for free shipping.
- wavepruner 7y agoBy preventing large numbers of people from working at all. Joining unions is impossible for many. I once lost a job because the union insisted that I be let go rather than let me join. It was not a performance issue.
- nemo44x 7y agoYou’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll spend if they can’t cut a deal. Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single party state.
- shams93 7y agoBetween Jerry Brown and Pat Brown one single family has ruled the state as governor for over 40 years combined.
- thephyber 7y ago> over 40 years combined Are you counting in base10? I count[1] 6 terms of 4 years each = 24 years. 67% off. Not bad for government work. If your argument is a Democrat in the governorship, since 1942 it's (R=47, D=30). Since 1958 it's (R=31, D=30). Republicans are at least equally to blame for California's governorship. In practice, the governor is largely about qualities of a single person. The legislature is heavily skewed D/blue because that's how density votes in the US. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_California https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Californi...
- thephyber 7y ago> Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system Can you explain your thinking here? From my reading, the law she wrote/sponsored was largely aligned with the Supreme Court of California interpretation of the Dynamex case.
- nemo44x 7y agoShe says that they are “delaying justice” by taking their grievance to “the courts”. I read it as a condemnation of the courts as an obstacle to her view of what justice is. Any law maker should embrace a court challenge to their law. Suggesting the courts are an obstacle to their constituent’s is bad precedent.
- raintrees 7y agoIn our small town in very Northern California along the coast, the local paper, which is struggling to survive, having just been bought out of receivership, has decided to start delivering the paper via USPS to avoid this law's ramifications with the paper delivery router people. So more jobs lost, thanks to legislation to protect a certain group of people. Hazlitt would have recommended examining the law's merits prior to passage to see if it 1) Benefited only a group of people, not the whole, and 2) Did not help the whole in the long run (paraphrased).
- greglindahl 7y agoJobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?
- lwf 7y agoIncreasing mail volume by one newspaper per household will not result in a comparable increase in mail carriers -- they're making the trips anyways.
- asdff 7y agoBetter for the environment and traffic to not have two vans roll up to your house a day.
- so_tobeclear 7y agoUh, he's taking about a paper route. Like a paper boy. Remember that video game, riding your bike up the diagonal street? So yeah, those jobs in that small town will end the same way they've ended in every town, with mail carriers