8 ms·

Why can't we have a new worker classification that allows gig workers to have both the flexibility the job entails + better benefits/protections?

weyland108 6y ago
I think that’s what is proposed in prop 22. Maybe it could be argued it needs to do more ... but seems like a step towards it.
raziel2701 6y ago
Better yet would be to have universal healthcare to decouple access to healthcare from being employed.
- kaesar14 6y ago
  100% this. This wouldn't be a political fight if people weren't worried about not being taken care of when they or a family member gets sick or hurt.
- goodluckchuck 6y ago
  Health insurance and healthcare are very far from the same thing. In my work I am constantly dealing with people who have "great" insurance, but who are going without medical attention. Sometimes claims are denied. Others spent all their money buying the insurance and now can't afford their co-pay (when they would have been able to easily afford the treatment if not for the cost of the insurance). More often, the system works just as its designed. There's no official denials. No refusals. Just a Kafkaesque runaround that inconveniences and delays treatment so that people get less of it, at a lower quality, and a lower cost for the insurer. Of course, there's a lot of people who make good livings off the insurance industry (myself included). So there's a lot of vested interests trying to prevent people from being able (or accustomed) to buy medical care with cash, credit, etc. They should simply decouple health insurance from employment by taxing it as income.
rodiger 6y ago
Seems like that's what Lyft was hoping would be sufficient compromise. Per the release: "We’ve spent hundreds of hours meeting with policymakers and labor leaders to craft an alternative proposal for drivers that includes a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance, without the negative consequences."
tedivm 6y ago
That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides. That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an argument about benefits and protections, but Lyft and Uber are trying to pretend otherwise.
- kaesar14 6y ago
  Everything I look up says AB5 makes rideshare drivers wholesale employees with the obligations and benefits that carries. Can you explain what you mean?
- manigandham 6y ago
  That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment. The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.
  - Majromax 6y ago
    > The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?
    - manigandham 6y ago
      That's a predetermined shift. Your only option is to accept it or not. Not work when and where and however long you want.
    - tedivm 6y ago
numpad0 6y ago
Because there’s no problems with “part time jobs” classification, other than that employers are required to observe laws and protect workers?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
chongli 6y ago
Because benefits (healthcare) are so costly that the rideshare business model becomes nonviable. To that, some might claim that no business model deserves to exist if it cannot provide all of these benefits. I think that’s misguided. The very idea that health benefits are tied to employment is the real problem. In Canada they aren’t and thus it’s far more reasonable to work as a ride share driver here. If we could go even further and add pharmacare, dental, and even basic income to the services provided by the government, then we could get rid of minimum wage laws as well. When people are truly free to walk away from any job, then the market will decide the appropriate wage. Any job offering truly unacceptable wages at that point becomes a ripe target for automation.
stefan_ 6y ago
Because none of that is needed and you just fell for a Uber lie that equates your 9 to 5 with "this is what all employment must look like, by law"?

weyland108 6y ago

I think that’s what is proposed in prop 22. Maybe it could be argued it needs to do more ... but seems like a step towards it.

raziel2701 6y ago

Better yet would be to have universal healthcare to decouple access to healthcare from being employed.

kaesar14 6y ago
100% this. This wouldn't be a political fight if people weren't worried about not being taken care of when they or a family member gets sick or hurt.
goodluckchuck 6y ago
Health insurance and healthcare are very far from the same thing. In my work I am constantly dealing with people who have "great" insurance, but who are going without medical attention. Sometimes claims are denied. Others spent all their money buying the insurance and now can't afford their co-pay (when they would have been able to easily afford the treatment if not for the cost of the insurance). More often, the system works just as its designed. There's no official denials. No refusals. Just a Kafkaesque runaround that inconveniences and delays treatment so that people get less of it, at a lower quality, and a lower cost for the insurer. Of course, there's a lot of people who make good livings off the insurance industry (myself included). So there's a lot of vested interests trying to prevent people from being able (or accustomed) to buy medical care with cash, credit, etc. They should simply decouple health insurance from employment by taxing it as income.

rodiger 6y ago

Seems like that's what Lyft was hoping would be sufficient compromise. Per the release: "We’ve spent hundreds of hours meeting with policymakers and labor leaders to craft an alternative proposal for drivers that includes a minimum earnings guarantee, mileage reimbursement, a health care subsidy, and occupational accident insurance, without the negative consequences."

tedivm 6y ago

That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides. That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an argument about benefits and protections, but Lyft and Uber are trying to pretend otherwise.

kaesar14 6y ago
Everything I look up says AB5 makes rideshare drivers wholesale employees with the obligations and benefits that carries. Can you explain what you mean?
manigandham 6y ago
That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment. The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.
- Majromax 6y ago
  > The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?
  - manigandham 6y ago
    That's a predetermined shift. Your only option is to accept it or not. Not work when and where and however long you want.
  - tedivm 6y ago

numpad0 6y ago

Because there’s no problems with “part time jobs” classification, other than that employers are required to observe laws and protect workers?

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]

chongli 6y ago

Because benefits (healthcare) are so costly that the rideshare business model becomes nonviable. To that, some might claim that no business model deserves to exist if it cannot provide all of these benefits. I think that’s misguided. The very idea that health benefits are tied to employment is the real problem. In Canada they aren’t and thus it’s far more reasonable to work as a ride share driver here. If we could go even further and add pharmacare, dental, and even basic income to the services provided by the government, then we could get rid of minimum wage laws as well. When people are truly free to walk away from any job, then the market will decide the appropriate wage. Any job offering truly unacceptable wages at that point becomes a ripe target for automation.

stefan_ 6y ago

Because none of that is needed and you just fell for a Uber lie that equates your 9 to 5 with "this is what all employment must look like, by law"?