14 ms·

I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft fr

by dmode 6y ago

I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all. A much better bill could have written that could have created a healthcare and unemployment fund of gig economy workers by taxing Gig companies, without trying box everyone into the employment model

mLuby 6y ago
> A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all. Exemptions are a leading indicator of ineptness or corruption.
AgloeDreams 6y ago
'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits. The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature) I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment. The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- bergstromm466 6y ago
  > 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. Great summary for this scary situation. > I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat. "In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings". Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]" [..] "The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem. The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country. The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat
bassman9000 6y ago
Shameless plug of my own post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783
- dmode 6y ago
  What has your posts got to do with anything ? Are you saying that the massive success of LA, SF, and CA economies are due to Democratic politicians ?
  - bassman9000 6y ago
    Mostly despite Democratic politicians, not thanks to. And degrading fast, as we can see in cases like this, or the more than evident net outflow.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
It's also forcing me into an $800 a year LLC I don't want for software contracts. :-/
- jameslk 6y ago
  The LLC won't protect the company you're working with from AB5. You would need to form an S-Corp and put yourself on payroll with benefits, or work through a staffing agency on W2, or become the company's employee, or move out of CA. In other words, your only options are to become an employee of a company or leave CA. Of course, its probably not in your best interest to mention this to the company you want to work with since they'll probably just choose to work with someone outside of CA instead. Just be glad their legal counsel (if they have any) doesn't know enough about this law to cause you more headaches.
  - mixmastamyk 6y ago
    I don't know enough either to be honest. They are a US govt contracting company on the east coast. A… staffing company as you put it. They are small and not prepared for CA employees, I'm the only one.
henryfjordan 6y ago
AB5 was an absolute cop-out by the CA Legislature. They should have defined a third class of workers with protections somewhere in between Contractors and Employees. But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for <$10/hr [1]. I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage. Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up with that third way once forced to, but there's a lot of momentum behind a popular vote. No US legislature has proven themselves particularly effective in the last few years. Let's not leave people out to dry while hoping some politicians will do their jobs. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hourly-expenses https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hou...
- Game_Ender 6y ago
  > I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage. On the wage issue are you talking about the specifics of how prop 22 defines the earnings floor for drivers [0]? It definitely sets a standard even. It pays some for expenses ($0.30/mile) and the 120% minimum wage while on a ride covers a bit of time spent driving between rides. I could see though how if you have high expenses and don't get many rides you will not earn the minimum wage. 0 - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)#What_else_would_the_ballot_measure_change.3F https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
  - henryfjordan 6y ago
    I didn't realize that Prop 22 added some additional protections for drivers, thank you for bringing those up! I thought it was just send drivers straight back to the basic independent contractor rules. I don't love that Uber/Lyft basically drafted Prop 22. There are features like only paying Engaged Time and not pinning the extra per-mile rate to the IRS standard (which is $0.57 per mile in 2020) which you can tell benefit them. That being said, my argument about removing wage protections is certainly dampened by the new earnings floors.
- 6y ago
AlexandrB 6y ago
> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.
- manigandham 6y ago
  They're not employees. What rights are missing? Do you have an issue with contractors in other industries? Why or why not?
  - alpha_squared 6y ago
    > They're not employees. Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
    - manigandham 6y ago
      Their client is Uber. They have complete control to work for them or not. No different than tech support hired on contract. They don't develop relationships with customers, they work for the company that contracted them. Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications. Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort. 1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
- 6y ago
ww520 6y ago
Can we get a list of the AB5 legislative backers?

by dmode 6y ago

mLuby 6y ago

> A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all. Exemptions are a leading indicator of ineptness or corruption.

AgloeDreams 6y ago

'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits. The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature) I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment. The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
bergstromm466 6y ago
> 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. Great summary for this scary situation. > I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. There is a new word for this class of gig workers doing precarious labor that I've started using: the Precariat. "In sociology and economics, the precariat (/prɪˈkɛəriət/) is a neologism for a social class formed by people suffering from precarity, which is a condition of existence without predictability or security, affecting material or psychological welfare. The term is a portmanteau obtained by merging precarious with proletariat.[1] Unlike the proletariat class of industrial workers in the 20th century who lacked their own means of production and hence sold their labour to live, members of the precariat are only partially involved in labour and must undertake extensive "unremunerated activities that are essential if they are to retain access to jobs and to decent earnings". Classic examples of such unpaid activities include continually having to search for work (including preparing for and attending job interviews), as well as being expected to be perpetually responsive to calls for "gig" work (yet without being paid an actual wage for being "on call"). The hallmark of the precariat class is the condition of lack of job security, including intermittent employment or underemployment and the resultant precarious existence.[2] The emergence of this class has been ascribed to the entrenchment of neoliberal capitalism.[3][4]" [..] "The British economist Guy Standing has analysed the precariat as a new emerging social class in work done for the think tank Policy Network and the World Economic Forum.[6] In his 2014 book entitled A Precariat Charter he argued that all citizens have a right to socially inherited wealth.[8][9] The latest in the series is titled The Precariat: The New Dangerous Class[2][10] where he proposed basic income as a solution for addressing the problem. The analysis of the results of the Great British Class Survey of 2013, a collaboration between the BBC and researchers from several UK universities, contended there is a new model of class structure consisting of seven classes, ranging from the Elite at the top to the Precariat at the bottom.[11] The Precariat class was envisaged as "the most deprived British class of all with low levels of economic, cultural and social capital." This was contrasted with "the Technical Middle Class" in Great Britain in that instead of having disposable income but no interests, people of the new Precariat Class have all sorts of potential activities they like to engage in but cannot do any of them because they have no money, insecure lives, and are usually trapped in old industrial parts of the country. The precariat class has been emerging in societies such as Japan, where it includes over 2 million so-called "freeters".[12]" Source: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Precariat

bassman9000 6y ago

Shameless plug of my own post https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24226783

dmode 6y ago
What has your posts got to do with anything ? Are you saying that the massive success of LA, SF, and CA economies are due to Democratic politicians ?
- bassman9000 6y ago
  Mostly despite Democratic politicians, not thanks to. And degrading fast, as we can see in cases like this, or the more than evident net outflow.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

It's also forcing me into an $800 a year LLC I don't want for software contracts. :-/

jameslk 6y ago
The LLC won't protect the company you're working with from AB5. You would need to form an S-Corp and put yourself on payroll with benefits, or work through a staffing agency on W2, or become the company's employee, or move out of CA. In other words, your only options are to become an employee of a company or leave CA. Of course, its probably not in your best interest to mention this to the company you want to work with since they'll probably just choose to work with someone outside of CA instead. Just be glad their legal counsel (if they have any) doesn't know enough about this law to cause you more headaches.
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  I don't know enough either to be honest. They are a US govt contracting company on the east coast. A… staffing company as you put it. They are small and not prepared for CA employees, I'm the only one.

henryfjordan 6y ago

AB5 was an absolute cop-out by the CA Legislature. They should have defined a third class of workers with protections somewhere in between Contractors and Employees. But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for <$10/hr [1]. I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage. Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up with that third way once forced to, but there's a lot of momentum behind a popular vote. No US legislature has proven themselves particularly effective in the last few years. Let's not leave people out to dry while hoping some politicians will do their jobs. [1] https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hourly-expenses https://www.vox.com/2018/10/2/17924628/uber-drivers-make-hou...

Game_Ender 6y ago
> I don't think I can tell someone else they don't deserve to earn minimum wage. On the wage issue are you talking about the specifics of how prop 22 defines the earnings floor for drivers [0]? It definitely sets a standard even. It pays some for expenses ($0.30/mile) and the 120% minimum wage while on a ride covers a bit of time spent driving between rides. I could see though how if you have high expenses and don't get many rides you will not earn the minimum wage. 0 - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)#What_else_would_the_ballot_measure_change.3F https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
- henryfjordan 6y ago
  I didn't realize that Prop 22 added some additional protections for drivers, thank you for bringing those up! I thought it was just send drivers straight back to the basic independent contractor rules. I don't love that Uber/Lyft basically drafted Prop 22. There are features like only paying Engaged Time and not pinning the extra per-mile rate to the IRS standard (which is $0.57 per mile in 2020) which you can tell benefit them. That being said, my argument about removing wage protections is certainly dampened by the new earnings floors.
6y ago

AlexandrB 6y ago

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.

manigandham 6y ago
They're not employees. What rights are missing? Do you have an issue with contractors in other industries? Why or why not?
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  > They're not employees. Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Their client is Uber. They have complete control to work for them or not. No different than tech support hired on contract. They don't develop relationships with customers, they work for the company that contracted them. Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications. Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort. 1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
6y ago

ww520 6y ago

Can we get a list of the AB5 legislative backers?