3 ms·

“I never thought the government would take work away from me arbitrarily” (AB5)

8 points by rsj_hn 7y ago

eesmith 7y ago
> I have friends who barely get to see their children, stuck at the office 12 hours a day so their family can have a good life. I don’t want that. WTF? How do people put up with such conditions?! Unionize, push labor laws through for a real and effective 8 hour (or 6 hour!) day, get equal and paid parental leave for both parents, etc. Otherwise you are at the whim of your employer .. or in this case, your client's lawyers. And, switch to nationalized (or federalized) single payer health care. Among other things, it would make it easier to hire recently graduated students or those with chronic illness without taking on the insurance burden.
- smabie 7y ago
  I would never work at a job in which I did not have the legal option to work more than X hours.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    That means that you are not a trucker, or airline pilot, or member of another field where you work is so dangerous that the law restricts your working time because working while tired will greatly increase the chance of you killing others. But that's not the point. The Twitter thread was about people who had to work 12 hours per day in a job they didn't like, in order to support their family. Which isn't what you describe. In any case, you know that prohibition isn't the only answer, yes? What would you do if the law said you had to be paid time-and-a-half for 40-50 hours per week, double-time for 50-70 hours per week, triple-time for 70-90 hours, quintuple-time for 90-110 hours, and octuple-time for 110 or more hours? With a minimum wage of, say, $20/hour? Would you still not work at that job?
    - smabie 7y ago
      What are you saying? I work 12 plus hours a day, every day, barring maybe weekends. If the law said I must be paid double or triple or whatever per hour of over time (which is kind of a nebulous idea since I run my own shop), then I guess I’d work 24/7. Reading your comment, I feel a little confused. Are you advocating against working overtime or for it? I’m not critical of what you’re saying, I’m just confused. I might be being dense, but reading the first paragraph you seem to be understanding (if not agreeing with) me, while the subsequent paragraphs seem to make no sense. Did you perchance respond to the wrong comment? If not, could you expound? Thanks!
      - eesmith 7y ago
        The author of the Tweet thread said that he freelances because he doesn't want to be like friends of his "who barely get to see their children, stuck at the office 12 hours a day so their family can have a good life." My comment meant to point out that perhaps the underlying issue is that people are being overworked as regular employees, and there are larger structural issues here than the details of some recent change in CA state law. I do not know, and the author of these tweets does not describe, the structural reasons which prevent him from getting a part-time job for at least equal benefits as being a freelancer. Are you working 84+ hours a week and seeing less than you want of your children because you feel like you need to work the equivalent of two jobs in order to have a good life for your family? Because if so, why aren't you able to work only a 40 hour week and still make a good living? If not, how is your personal story related to the thread?

8 points by rsj_hn 7y ago

> I have friends who barely get to see their children, stuck at the office 12 hours a day so their family can have a good life. I don’t want that. WTF? How do people put up with such conditions?! Unionize, push labor laws through for a real and effective 8 hour (or 6 hour!) day, get equal and paid parental leave for both parents, etc. Otherwise you are at the whim of your employer .. or in this case, your client's lawyers. And, switch to nationalized (or federalized) single payer health care. Among other things, it would make it easier to hire recently graduated students or those with chronic illness without taking on the insurance burden.

smabie 7y ago
I would never work at a job in which I did not have the legal option to work more than X hours.
- eesmith 7y ago
  That means that you are not a trucker, or airline pilot, or member of another field where you work is so dangerous that the law restricts your working time because working while tired will greatly increase the chance of you killing others. But that's not the point. The Twitter thread was about people who had to work 12 hours per day in a job they didn't like, in order to support their family. Which isn't what you describe. In any case, you know that prohibition isn't the only answer, yes? What would you do if the law said you had to be paid time-and-a-half for 40-50 hours per week, double-time for 50-70 hours per week, triple-time for 70-90 hours, quintuple-time for 90-110 hours, and octuple-time for 110 or more hours? With a minimum wage of, say, $20/hour? Would you still not work at that job?
  - smabie 7y ago
    What are you saying? I work 12 plus hours a day, every day, barring maybe weekends. If the law said I must be paid double or triple or whatever per hour of over time (which is kind of a nebulous idea since I run my own shop), then I guess I’d work 24/7. Reading your comment, I feel a little confused. Are you advocating against working overtime or for it? I’m not critical of what you’re saying, I’m just confused. I might be being dense, but reading the first paragraph you seem to be understanding (if not agreeing with) me, while the subsequent paragraphs seem to make no sense. Did you perchance respond to the wrong comment? If not, could you expound? Thanks!
    - eesmith 7y ago
      The author of the Tweet thread said that he freelances because he doesn't want to be like friends of his "who barely get to see their children, stuck at the office 12 hours a day so their family can have a good life." My comment meant to point out that perhaps the underlying issue is that people are being overworked as regular employees, and there are larger structural issues here than the details of some recent change in CA state law. I do not know, and the author of these tweets does not describe, the structural reasons which prevent him from getting a part-time job for at least equal benefits as being a freelancer. Are you working 84+ hours a week and seeing less than you want of your children because you feel like you need to work the equivalent of two jobs in order to have a good life for your family? Because if so, why aren't you able to work only a 40 hour week and still make a good living? If not, how is your personal story related to the thread?