2 ms·
Is the intent here really to destroy? Is it really the case compliance with the law is only possible for employers like Walmart, The Gap, and thousands of other
by runako 6y ago
Is the intent here really to destroy? Is it really the case compliance with the law is only possible for employers like Walmart, The Gap, and thousands of other small firms in California? I'm very in favor of gig work, but the notion that the only option left is to stop work rather than hire folks as employees seems obviously facile. Notably, there's no exemption for the many other companies that operate passenger transport in the state.
Your last sentence is interesting because the entire point of a labor law like this one is to bring jobs under the remit of labor protections so that "people's jobs should be better" is something that can even be addressed.
- closeparen 6y agoThe argument I remember is: a) The gig economy is viscerally disgusting. b) Its existence will trigger a “race to the bottom” that threatens all workers. c) Gig work is not very important to casual gig workers, so taking it away would not harm them. d) Taking away gig work will prompt gig workers to find real jobs which are better for them, anyway. Low margin employers like Walmart and Amazon ruthlessly squeeze efficiency from their employees to ensure productivity > cost for every shift. The could not do otherwise - such are the economics of a low margin business. The gig economy offers the option of working “inefficiently,” and some people value that enough to trade off compensation for it. Maybe the gig economy companies could operate like Walmart, but the point is people are choosing gig work over Walmart for a reason.