5 ms·

Those people also aren’t helped by having their employment taken away by this legislation. I have a friend with health issues that mean that he’s only able to

Those people also aren’t helped by having their employment taken away by this legislation. I have a friend with health issues that mean that he’s only able to work some of the time, and can’t predict when. Gig economy jobs are the first time that he’s been able to earn any income beyond his disability check. I hope this bill that tries to enforce the “normal” full-time employment relationship doesn’t deprive him of that.

deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
tantalor 7y ago
This person already has a full time job.
- susijdjdjxa 7y ago
  Many of the freelancers impacted by this bill do not have a full time job, and this bill won’t give them that, it will just take what they have away.
  - watwatinthewat 7y ago
    It would have been met with less scepticism and maybe some genuine concern if one of those "many" had written the article instead.
    - susijdjdjxa 7y ago
      People affected by this bill are all over Twitter talking about it. Where is your skepticism? You don’t believe that there are freelancers in California that don’t have full-time jobs?
taurath 7y ago
I agree that people in that situation should be able to work some of the time. Just the same as teenagers, part time workers and legit "extra income" people. This is always the argument against, say, raising the minimum wage, or providing more workplace protections. Its a lie - you can absolutely fix this situation. No law is gonna be perfect, but having a situation where the "main" job provides actual days off and health insurance is a good thing. If disability is the main job, and you get benefits through that, nothing should stop you from doing part time. But, you shouldn't allow your friend who already gets a disability check to dictate that everyone being abused by a second class labor system shouldn't have rights too. I would RATHER your friend who is already taken care of lose their gig economy job if people who have to work 3 jobs instead only have to work 2. I'm sorry, thats better overall for society, to me. You can argue the tradeoffs, and maybe have people on disability be able to work 20 irregular hours without losing disability. But you're depriving people of time off to be sick, time to be with their families, and health insurance so your friend can get slightly more self-actualized while he's actively getting a check every month? I'm being somewhat trite here but, in my mind its not even a comparison.
- susijdjdjxa 7y ago
  My problem with policies that require employers to give benefits to part time workers is that they massively increase the marginal cost of labor. There should be a smooth curve relating hours worked to compensation provided. Increasing the minimum wage raises the entire curve, preserving a uniform relationship. Benefits for gig workers radically distorts the curve, which will probably cause a bunch of economic activity to cease entirely. This seems likely to harm everyone involved (laborers, consumers). I claim it’s good for society that Uber can pay otherwise idle workers to use their otherwise idle cars to drive drunk people home when the bars close, even if that activity is only profitable for 10 hours a week. The right way for the government to provide benefits is for it to provide benefits, not to shoehorn those benefits into an unrelated labor market transaction.
  - taurath 7y ago
    I agree entirely. It’s pro business to not foist necessities like healthcare on business owners. Unfortunately we have a patriarchal semi-feudal system where the most well off are expected to dole out benefits as the market demands or they can manipulate the market to not demand.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

tantalor 7y ago

This person already has a full time job.

susijdjdjxa 7y ago
Many of the freelancers impacted by this bill do not have a full time job, and this bill won’t give them that, it will just take what they have away.
- watwatinthewat 7y ago
  It would have been met with less scepticism and maybe some genuine concern if one of those "many" had written the article instead.
  - susijdjdjxa 7y ago
    People affected by this bill are all over Twitter talking about it. Where is your skepticism? You don’t believe that there are freelancers in California that don’t have full-time jobs?

taurath 7y ago

I agree that people in that situation should be able to work some of the time. Just the same as teenagers, part time workers and legit "extra income" people. This is always the argument against, say, raising the minimum wage, or providing more workplace protections. Its a lie - you can absolutely fix this situation. No law is gonna be perfect, but having a situation where the "main" job provides actual days off and health insurance is a good thing. If disability is the main job, and you get benefits through that, nothing should stop you from doing part time. But, you shouldn't allow your friend who already gets a disability check to dictate that everyone being abused by a second class labor system shouldn't have rights too. I would RATHER your friend who is already taken care of lose their gig economy job if people who have to work 3 jobs instead only have to work 2. I'm sorry, thats better overall for society, to me. You can argue the tradeoffs, and maybe have people on disability be able to work 20 irregular hours without losing disability. But you're depriving people of time off to be sick, time to be with their families, and health insurance so your friend can get slightly more self-actualized while he's actively getting a check every month? I'm being somewhat trite here but, in my mind its not even a comparison.

susijdjdjxa 7y ago
My problem with policies that require employers to give benefits to part time workers is that they massively increase the marginal cost of labor. There should be a smooth curve relating hours worked to compensation provided. Increasing the minimum wage raises the entire curve, preserving a uniform relationship. Benefits for gig workers radically distorts the curve, which will probably cause a bunch of economic activity to cease entirely. This seems likely to harm everyone involved (laborers, consumers). I claim it’s good for society that Uber can pay otherwise idle workers to use their otherwise idle cars to drive drunk people home when the bars close, even if that activity is only profitable for 10 hours a week. The right way for the government to provide benefits is for it to provide benefits, not to shoehorn those benefits into an unrelated labor market transaction.
- taurath 7y ago
  I agree entirely. It’s pro business to not foist necessities like healthcare on business owners. Unfortunately we have a patriarchal semi-feudal system where the most well off are expected to dole out benefits as the market demands or they can manipulate the market to not demand.