7 ms·

I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and s

I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and systems to adhere to this law - which takes time.

vkou 6y ago
It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
- chrisco255 6y ago
  Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?
  - untog 6y ago
    Isn’t that a glaring strawman argument?
  - Loughla 6y ago
    That's not what the OP said, though. You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. OP said that THIS law wasn't too much, not that over-regulation doesn't exist. Please reply to the opinion that this law isn't too much. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
    - twblalock 6y ago
      > You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. Reductio ad absurdam is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. "It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model." is an argument that could be used to defend any law. It defends the concept of law itself, rather than the specific law we are discussing. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out and ask where the line should be drawn.
      - ardy42 6y ago
        > Reductio ad absurdam [sic] is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. Reductio ad absurdum does not mean "exaggerate to absurdity," which is what the GGP actually did: >>>> It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model. >>> Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through? If you want to label this kind of argument, the correct term is straw man. It doesn't address what vkou said, but rather sets up an exaggeration that is easier to attack and dismiss. Loughla was entirely correct in his criticism.
  - dangus 6y ago
    All of this is beside the point. Uber has been breaking the law and refusing to comply. It doesn’t matter if the law is good or bad. That debate already happened. California’s elected representatives debated and passed the law. Californians by proxy want this law. If they don’t want it anymore or want it to change based on feedback they’ll make their voice heard and that may happen. Uber and Lyft didn’t exist not that long ago and they don’t just have the right to exist if their business model can’t work within labor laws. And personally, I think it can work just fine - they’re just crying and complaining that they won’t get to hit their growth targets because they’ll have to charge the real price instead of the subsidized one.
- ak217 6y ago
  AB5 has not achieved its intended effect and has had a number of unintended consequences, including collateral damage in industries such as freelance journalism and other contract jobs where "full-time" employment results in the employer going bankrupt. Being familiar with some of these industries, I estimate that AB5 has led to a net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement in CA, again without achieving its stated aims. As an example, AB5 further stresses small local newspapers/news sites, which are a key vehicle for public accountability and civic engagement. A likely outcome now is that Uber/Lyft will carve out an exemption for taxi drivers (like a few other industries with effective lobbying operations have already done) while distressed small employers continue to suffer from AB5's effects. I think it's quite fair to call AB5 a bad law.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    I have mixed feelings about gig work generally, but then I'm not at all sure a lot of part-time employment in retail isn't even worse given the way scheduling is done. And, clearly, AB5 has been, as you say, damaging to freelance journalism and other white-collar fields where, in practice, a freelancer does a lot of their work for one or two clients.
  - ianmobbs 6y ago
    This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"
    - zaroth 6y ago
      It’s not akin to that at all, because child labor laws concern minors and this law concerns adults. Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?
    - twblalock 6y ago
      Not really. AB5 hurts a lot of small businesses that weren't doing anything wrong. It's a classic case of unintended consequences.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- twblalock 6y ago
  The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if that was true, a new law would not have been needed. The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
  - ramshorns 6y ago
    Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?
    - macspoofing 6y ago
      No they haven't. That's the point. This 'misclassification' only came in via this new law.
      - ramshorns 6y ago
        A court ruling isn't a new law, it's an interpretation of an existing one. But okay, I hadn't heard about AB5 which is from last year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...
  - ardy42 6y ago
    > The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws.... > The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal. You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed. Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.
- umanwizard 6y ago
  OK, if that's true, then what's the problem with them stopping business in California? According to your logic, everyone wins.
  - slipheen 6y ago
    In my view, that's exactly right. They should either treat their drivers like FT employees, pivot to a new (legal) service, or shut down entirely (and disband the company). If they can't treat their drivers decently and follow the law, they shouldn't exist.
    - ghaff 6y ago
      Are you arguing that there should be no such thing as a part-time employee? Either work 40 hours per week with full benefits or stay home? That seems... weird.
- stale2002 6y ago
  Well then I guess there is not a problem with them suspending operations in california then, right?

vkou 6y ago

It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.

chrisco255 6y ago
Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?
- untog 6y ago
  Isn’t that a glaring strawman argument?
- Loughla 6y ago
  That's not what the OP said, though. You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. OP said that THIS law wasn't too much, not that over-regulation doesn't exist. Please reply to the opinion that this law isn't too much. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
  - twblalock 6y ago
    > You can't just carry an argument to its complete extreme - that's not how it works. Reductio ad absurdam is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. "It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model." is an argument that could be used to defend any law. It defends the concept of law itself, rather than the specific law we are discussing. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out and ask where the line should be drawn.
    - ardy42 6y ago
      > Reductio ad absurdam [sic] is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it. Reductio ad absurdum does not mean "exaggerate to absurdity," which is what the GGP actually did: >>>> It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model. >>> Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through? If you want to label this kind of argument, the correct term is straw man. It doesn't address what vkou said, but rather sets up an exaggeration that is easier to attack and dismiss. Loughla was entirely correct in his criticism.
- dangus 6y ago
  All of this is beside the point. Uber has been breaking the law and refusing to comply. It doesn’t matter if the law is good or bad. That debate already happened. California’s elected representatives debated and passed the law. Californians by proxy want this law. If they don’t want it anymore or want it to change based on feedback they’ll make their voice heard and that may happen. Uber and Lyft didn’t exist not that long ago and they don’t just have the right to exist if their business model can’t work within labor laws. And personally, I think it can work just fine - they’re just crying and complaining that they won’t get to hit their growth targets because they’ll have to charge the real price instead of the subsidized one.
ak217 6y ago
AB5 has not achieved its intended effect and has had a number of unintended consequences, including collateral damage in industries such as freelance journalism and other contract jobs where "full-time" employment results in the employer going bankrupt. Being familiar with some of these industries, I estimate that AB5 has led to a net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement in CA, again without achieving its stated aims. As an example, AB5 further stresses small local newspapers/news sites, which are a key vehicle for public accountability and civic engagement. A likely outcome now is that Uber/Lyft will carve out an exemption for taxi drivers (like a few other industries with effective lobbying operations have already done) while distressed small employers continue to suffer from AB5's effects. I think it's quite fair to call AB5 a bad law.
- ghaff 6y ago
  I have mixed feelings about gig work generally, but then I'm not at all sure a lot of part-time employment in retail isn't even worse given the way scheduling is done. And, clearly, AB5 has been, as you say, damaging to freelance journalism and other white-collar fields where, in practice, a freelancer does a lot of their work for one or two clients.
- ianmobbs 6y ago
  This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"
  - zaroth 6y ago
    It’s not akin to that at all, because child labor laws concern minors and this law concerns adults. Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?
  - twblalock 6y ago
    Not really. AB5 hurts a lot of small businesses that weren't doing anything wrong. It's a classic case of unintended consequences.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
twblalock 6y ago
The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if that was true, a new law would not have been needed. The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
- ramshorns 6y ago
  Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?
  - macspoofing 6y ago
    No they haven't. That's the point. This 'misclassification' only came in via this new law.
    - ramshorns 6y ago
      A court ruling isn't a new law, it's an interpretation of an existing one. But okay, I hadn't heard about AB5 which is from last year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...
- ardy42 6y ago
  > The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws.... > The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal. You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed. Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.
umanwizard 6y ago
OK, if that's true, then what's the problem with them stopping business in California? According to your logic, everyone wins.
- slipheen 6y ago
  In my view, that's exactly right. They should either treat their drivers like FT employees, pivot to a new (legal) service, or shut down entirely (and disband the company). If they can't treat their drivers decently and follow the law, they shouldn't exist.
  - ghaff 6y ago
    Are you arguing that there should be no such thing as a part-time employee? Either work 40 hours per week with full benefits or stay home? That seems... weird.
stale2002 6y ago
Well then I guess there is not a problem with them suspending operations in california then, right?