20 ms·

CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead, Comedians Lost Work

152 points by supernova87a 6y ago

rogerkirkness 6y ago
Government always fails to think in second order consequences, let alone third-order consequences.
- aaron-santos 6y ago
  Not just governments.
  - microcolonel 6y ago
    When intel has a crap idea, you don't ruin every freelancer's life.
- formercoder 6y ago
  So true. I cannot fathom how governments don’t think about how corporations, which are rational actors with clear goals, will respond to regulations. This Uber thing is simple and boils down to only one question: can Uber operate in an npv positive fashion with drivers on w2s? If yes, they will, if no, they’ll leave.
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - manquer 6y ago
    Politicians are no different, they also act rationally . Who donates most to their election campaigns , what policies will get them more votes pretty much drives every decision. Voters do not necessarily vote for what is actually beneficial to them. They vote for what they think is beneficial.A fact exploited by republicans so well to reduce taxes on the rich and still get popular support since atleast Regan. There is also the trianny of the majority in any democrarcy while a lot worse in direct it also exists in representative versions. California with all ballot propositions has more direct flavour than other states. Interests of the minority are hard to proctect. Ultimately it boils down to education and media. Democrarcy depends on these two pillars heavily. While the role of media is discussed often, the role of education is not talked about enough. More educated the average voter is , it is harder to make them vote against their interest. There was a reason only landed gentry voted in Rome, while such restrictions is not the right solution, the concerns on the ability to vote after being well informed is still valid You can easily draw a strong correlation between states( and countries) which are not people friendly (low tax/ lax labour , environment regulations) to their education level.
    - formercoder 6y ago
      Great point thanks for articulating.
- montagg 6y ago
  What large organizations do this consistently?
- readams 6y ago
  This serves as a useful definition of progressive politics: What you get it you make policy considering only first order effects.
redis_mlc 6y ago
FYI: when the $600 mandatory filing for 1099-MISC's is reduced to $0, a similar effect will hammer the small business and freelance market nationwide since a lot of clients limit the total number of vendors they will do paperwork for. There have been proposals to do so, but none have advanced yet. One milestone is 250 1099-MISC filings, which triggers electronic filing. The unexpected consequence of law and rule changes like these are to create massive monopolies, with no small business market, becoming more European-like. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779 https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-vs-1099-k-states-close-tax-reporting-gap/ https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-vs-109...
neonate 6y ago
https://archive.is/e8tAx https://archive.is/e8tAx
bpodgursky 6y ago
The CA law was to get Uber drivers into the Teamsters. Anything else was collateral damage.
torstenvl 6y ago
The immense second- and third- order consequences of legislation are why I oppose term limits. Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts.
- DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
  > Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts. Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. Given that crappy politics can happen with and without term limits, I get suspicious when anyone claims enacting or removing limits would solve problems.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. The idea that people that are experts in none of the relevant domains can effectively synthesize the advice of experts in economics, labor relations, law, and other relevant domains to legislative effectively even on the first-order (much less second- and third-order) effects of policy is amusing. Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions?
    - manquer 6y ago
      Corporate Management is somewhat similar ? You don't necessarily get managers or CEOs who have no expertise of biz under them. The idea in theory being they need to always manage many areas they don't understand very well it does not make that much of difference if they don't understand all the areas provided they can manage well. Infact having expertise in any one area may influence your decisions where you are more comfortable with, rather than what is required .
    - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
      > Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions? From personal experience: I've interviewed at (and received offers from) companies that wanted to hire SWEs without any experience in their specialist area (be it graphics, avionics, hardware control, etc) because they wanted people "who could bring new ideas" or "who won't be encumbered by old-school thinking". Though the implication is that those new-hires would grow-into an expert role over time, rather than never being an expert at all.
bbischof 6y ago
I bet they’re not laughing now.
awb 6y ago
Honestly this is the worst part of contracting, when two consenting parties can't work together. If I prefer the gig economy and contract work to full-time employment, CA gets in the way. It's been much more challenging trying to get long-term contract work as companies are afraid of me being classified as an employee and then owing the state (or me) taxes and penalities. I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.
- marcinzm 6y ago
  >I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot. Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all get in the way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not then it's merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky issue.
  - r29vzg2 6y ago
    All? No. Some if not most? Yes. There are many cases to be made against minimum wage laws and anti-compete laws. A laws designed to affect everyone but instead has hundreds of exemptions carved out has no place existing.
    - blackflame7000 6y ago
      There should be a law banning law exemptions..of which a select few will be exempt /s
    - xnyan 6y ago
      I know this will sound needling but it’s not, but have you ever been truly poor? By that I mean, have you been in a situation where you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from and you have no belief that anything in the future is likely to change such that that you would have confidence about where your next meal will come from? I will freely admit my bias: I have been very poor before and I lean towards protections for the most vulnerable in our society at the expense that some people will have to sacrifice somewhat between Uber and their other gig.
vwat 6y ago
California barely has any foot left to shoot.
- um_ya 6y ago
  Yet, they keep finding ways to shoot. Glad I got out.
abhiyerra 6y ago
This law hurts freelancers so much especially those that want to be freelancers. If you decide you want to go down the route of LLC in California then you have to pay the yearly $800 dollar tax. To be honest I wonder if there should be three designations for modern employment: full time, contractor and gig worker.
- novok 6y ago
  TBH there shouldn't be a distinction between the two is the real issue. Everyone can get workers comp, unemployment insurance, social security and a national healthcare plan and all the kvetching about IC or Employee becomes near irrelevant.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  Woah, you have to pay $800/yr to keep an LLC in California? What for?
  - jassmith87 6y ago
    You might not make any money and then California wouldn't get any money!
    - jesselawson 6y ago
      California's FTB charges $800 minimum annually regardless of whether you made a profit or not.
  - manquer 6y ago
    Various fillings you need to do. While different states have different requirements and fees . It will not cost zero anywhere . While it looks high, if the biz cannot afford the $800 fees annually then perhaps LLC is the not the structure for it ? LLC come with many requirements for corporate governance and accounting this typically means you need accountants and lawyers and they cost lot more than $800 .
    - 6y ago
solvorn 6y ago
Peter Thiel butthurt all over HN
renewiltord 6y ago
They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without hitting anyone else but the policy is totally an "adding epicycles" style approach which is why they had to add more epicycles to exempt all those myriad occupations rather randomly.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without hitting anyone else No, they didn't. It's true that a big point of AB5 was to limit the reach of the rule from the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex which it codified by also adding a bunch of exceptions, but it was very (explicitly) not intended to be limited to ride-sharing; codifying Dynamex with additional exceptions instead of legislatively reversing it was because the legislature felt that classifying vulnerable workers as contractors was leading to abuses in an expanding range of fields, not just ride-sharing (or even just app-based gig-work.)
  - varenc 6y ago
    For others, this is the Dynamex case that started this off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...
  - SamReidHughes 6y ago
    AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full labor code and unemployment insurance code.
    - dragonwriter 6y ago
      > AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full labor code and unemployment insurance code. That's true. A big point was limiting it's reach as to working arrangements. Another was to harmonize the employee vs. contractor distinction indifferent areas of employment law, since it's really inconvenient for business if it's different for each of those areas.
vore 6y ago
I find a lot of the lines that come out of ride-sharing companies just absurd: > A Lyft spokeswoman said: “If the legislature had done its job and made policy that actually protected drivers, the ballot initiative wouldn’t have been necessary.” This reads like "if you twisted our arm in a way we would have preferred (in approximately 0 preferred ways), then we wouldn't be pulling out our political spin machine against you to continue exploiting drivers." Comedians and yoga studios should not be caught in this crossfire at all, but it's clear that these ride-sharing companies are acting in extremely bad will, and the system lets them get away with it.
- bestnameever 6y ago
  I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against the ride-sharing companies. The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians and yoga studios getting caught in the crossfire. They are the ones that passed the regulation.
  - Daishiman 6y ago
    The pre existing bias borne out of the morally challenged Uber executives who have time and time again broken laws by outright ignoring labor laws in many places on the world? Yeah I wonder why...
    - bestnameever 6y ago
      the why does not matter as much as acknowledging that you may be drawing faulty conclusions based on a bias.
      - dundarious 6y ago
        You seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN) discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin. Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith, but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.
brian_cunnie 6y ago
I can't read the article (paywall), but I can say that two of my friends who drove for Uber don't anymore, and they say it's because it's too hard to make money. I'd like every job to have a living wage.
- el_don_almighty 6y ago
  And I want a drinking fountain that shoots out Johnny Walker blue...
  - jethro_tell 6y ago
    Why does a living wage for anyone that wants to work seem like a selfish pipedream to you?
    - tasubotadas 6y ago
      Is that a rhetorical question or can't you really see that not every occupation can earn a living wage?
      - jethro_tell 6y ago
        Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? There is a demand for cab drivers, why should they spend 40-50 hours a week meeting that demand and then be denied a living wage? As long as we need someone to do that job, we should compensate them for putting in the effort.
        tasubotadas 6y ago
        >Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? Because they do not create enough economic value to earn that?
  - freeone3000 6y ago
    Well, we have the money for it. I'm not sure that this is the best investment of our resources, versus providing for food, shelter, and healthcare for everyone.
33MHz-i486 6y ago
Youtube should be forced to pay people minimum wage for their videos Etsy should be forced to pay minimum wage to their makers
- bestnameever 6y ago
  That would turn them both into closed platforms. Bad idea IMO.
- kittiepryde 6y ago
  I think in that situation, YouTube would take adshare to 0%. YouTube then is just a place to upload videos and make them public. No expectation of turning a profit. For a premium fee you pay YouTube, you could get some of that adshare, and now they're a paid service.
- viraptor 6y ago
  People don't work for YouTube or Etsy. (Apart for the relatively low number where there exist YouTube partnership contracts)
ktal 6y ago
The root cause of all of this is the abysmal safety net in the US. If vitally important things like healthcare, unemployment and disability weren't tied to your employment, then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place because companies couldn't weasel their way out of paying for it by calling employees "contractors".
- t-writescode 6y ago
  This. 100% this. The real thing we should be championing isn't forcing companies like Uber to pay for healthcare because health care is so important. If healthcare is so important, which it is, our taxes should be paying for it, yes, even (edit: for) the people that don't have work.
  - heavyset_go 6y ago
    Until that safety net exists, it's important that people are provided with health insurance by whatever means are necessary and available. Right now, the system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers. Champion the safety net, but also recognize that people need healthcare right now.
    - awb 6y ago
      > Right now, the system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers. Anyone who's self employed (like contractors) already purchases their own health insurance directly.
      - CPLX 6y ago
        Or, doesn’t.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      There is nothing stopping California from increasing corporate taxes and providing health care to everyone in the state. Why go through the Rube Golberg solution?
viraptor 6y ago
> If forced to reclassify their drivers as employees, the companies say their businesses—already unprofitable—would be completely upended. Now this is comedy. "Not only are we unprofitable while abusing cheap labour, we need extra state protection to preserve this state!" I'm for getting rid of companies in that state. (Although uber could easily run more lean instead) Maybe the lack of transport would force commuting improvements in other ways.
- dicomdan 6y ago
  What state protection is Uber asking for in this case?
  - nextaccountic 6y ago
    Protection from this judicial decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._... The AB5 is meant to codify it in the law. > The Court then reached the principle holding of the case, interpreting the “suffer or permit” standard in the wage order context. The Court held that the hiring entity bears the burden of “establish[ing] that a worker is an independent contractor” and thus, “not intended to be included within the wage order’s coverage.”[46] The Court went on hold that in order for the entity to meet this burden, it must establish each of three factors, in what is called the “ABC test”: > (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.[47]
Lammy 6y ago
My first thought when reading this article was "I wonder how much Uber paid for this?"
radley 6y ago
Uhm, wasn't it fixed a week ago? Comedians (and others) can work independently again... https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-signs-law-exempting-more-occupations-from-controversial-assembly-bill-5/ https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-sig...
- mixmastamyk 6y ago
  Why are software contractors never discussed, outside of HN?
- jessaustin 6y ago
  It isn't clear that stuffing lots of people into comedy clubs is the best thing for us to do right now.
mixmastamyk 6y ago
It's also risking a lucrative software contract I have now working remotely in DC. I was very lucky to find it after being unemployed for quite a while. Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in exactly the way they'd like. I can only cross my fingers and hope the referendum in November changes things. Not sure if the article mentions it but it also put live musicians out of work as well, until they added an exception. Where is the software industry on this?
- musingsole 6y ago
  > Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in exactly the way they'd like. Does that thought surprise you? I thought California making a nominally well intentioned but horribly enacted policy and then creating all sorts of loopholes for the things the THEY like was the state's SOP.
- masonic 6y ago
  the referendum It's an Initiative Statute, not a Referendum. It rewrites statute law beyond what AB 5 did.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> Why would I pay an uneducated, inexperienced person to sweep floors $20 per hour? I’ll do it myself first. Because you don't want to do it or you don't have the time. If I could pay someone 1 cent per hour to wipe my ass crack I would do it, is it a problem that I must instead wipe my own ass crack? The answer is literally there in your post, these jobs aren't worth having. Imagine posting this yelling "think of the people who will no longer be able to wipe others' ass cracks!". Ok....
- ColanR 6y ago
  > these jobs aren't worth having Are you making that decision for yourself, or for others? Offer the job, and see if there's takers. If there aren't, then you'll actually know that the job isn't worth having.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it... Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?! WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so... Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my brutha!
    - ColanR 6y ago
      > I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it... Are you suggesting that "someone, somewhere" chose to do something that intentionally made them worse off than they were before?
      - RandoHolmes 6y ago
        I'd like to buy "what is stockholm's syndrome for 500 alex!". https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome The better question. Are you implying this doesn't exist and therefore the woman in question is guilty? I mean, not that this has anything to do with the overarching point, but.... you're so wrong that you're wrong even when you're wrong. enter: BUT I'M GOING TO DEFINE FREEWILL SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STOCKHOLME SYNDROME... yeah ok.... That certainly makes you ... biased.
RandoHolmes 6y ago
> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage. Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion. The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it. I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.
- whiddershins 6y ago
  You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials. Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.
  - jacobush 6y ago
    I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance. It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.
  - callmeal 6y ago
    >You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone? Firestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...
RandoHolmes 6y ago
I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then it all washes out in the end and we don't have to whine about putting the burden of society on private companies!
- amadeuspagel 6y ago
  > I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... > Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then it all washes out in the end and we don't have to whine about putting the burden of society on private companies! That's not going to work. This isn't about "higher expenses" but about destroying Uber's business model. Uber cannot afford to pay healthcare for everyone who may or may not do a few drives every month. Maybe you could just pretend that Uber paying lots of taxes is already paying for many social services? Which, come to think of, shouldn't require any pretense.
  - RandoHolmes 6y ago
    When you can imagine a slave owner making the same argument ('it invalidates my business model!'), said argument kind of becomes a positive. I mean that seriously. If your business model can't exist without the exploitation of humans. maaaaaaybe it shouldn't exist, morally.
    - scarface74 6y ago
      Yes because people choosing to work based on their own free will is the equivalent of kidnapping people from another country and if you try to escape once here, they are chased by dogs, shot, hung, whipped, kids taking away at birth and sold. If you don’t believe that a company shouldn’t exist unless it can do so profitably. That means almost none of the companies that YC invests in should exists. If a country has a health care system that is tied to your employment status, just maybe we need a sane health care system.
      - 6y ago
liveoneggs 6y ago
How do comedians fall in the ABC test? they can work multiple clubs, venues are not exclusively doing a single thing, and the venue doesn't control the jokes they tell. Musicians are quite similar as far as I can tell.
FeeJai 6y ago
The law of unintended consequences will always beat human made rules and regulations. Quote from Wikipedia: > More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.
- Aerroon 6y ago
  How many of these unintended consequences were actually unintended? How often were they something people knew about, told others about it, but were still ignored?
- graeme 6y ago
  What you saw is true, but this law isn’t that. The plain language of the law banned most contractors. You can find some stuff in my comment history where I talked about this months before it was enacted. California’s behaviour is More equivalent to wanting to kill a fly on someone using a hammer. I wouldn’t call it a typical unintended consequences situation.
graeme 6y ago
Many comments are treating these results as unforeseeable consequences. But the law pretty obviously banned most contracting. You can read the conditions here. Unless the worker meets all of them, they are an employee. Part A is a pretty normal contractor condition. But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one already. How would you get established in a trade? Part C says you’re an employee if you’re not already so established. ———— Effective January 1, 2020, hiring entities are required to classify workers as employees unless they meet all conditions of the ABC test: 1. The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. 2. The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. 3. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm
- maxsilver 6y ago
  > But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting should ever have been legal in the first place -- the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible. > Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one already. Is that what it actually does? Reading it, does not seem to communicate that. It seems to be saying, "if you are a contractor, you have to actually be a contractor, and not just filling out contractor-like legal paperwork because your employer forced you to" Uber and Lyft drivers are not actual businesses, they are employees of Uber and Lyft, picking up piecework employment, and Uber and Lyft are abusing a legal loophole to not pay them fairly. But if you run "Acme Transportation LLC" and own a vehicle that you use as your own Limo Shuttle service, you would fulfill Part C, even if it's your first day of business. Uber and Lyft want everyone to pretend those two groups of people are the exact same. But they aren't the same, and I've not heard any good reason why the rest of us should pretend likewise.
  - 6y ago
supernova87a 6y ago
It seems to me that although the law was claimed to be a win for all workers (at least in its intention, and pitch to the public), its effect is to favor certain workers over others. And what I see is that "old-line" workers in industries already familiar with / set up to have employees are the main beneficiaries. Newer industries that have not yet figured out how to cost-efficiently have employees are the losers. Hotel cleaning staff versus part-time rideshare drivers. It seems to be about protecting "old" labor versus new labor, within the truth of labor in general being more unstable recently. I don't think I like this approach. Particularly more so because I don't see why in principle some specific contractors got callouts as exceptions, but not others [1]: -- insurance agent -- physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian -- lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant -- securities broker-dealer or investment adviser (^ clearly these contractors have been exploited long enough and need assistance (/s) ) -- direct sales salesperson -- commercial fisherman working on an American vessel (^ if there was a group of workers working in more dangerous and low paying and uncertain conditions, you would think they would be included) -- those providing professional services, such as: marketing, HR, travel agents, graphic design, grant writer, fine artist (^ Grant writer??) -- accountant, payment processor, photographer, freelance journalist, writer, real estate agent, repossession agent Why do all these industries get a pass? What about the dozens of jobs that didn't make the list? And I can clearly imagine that with these definitions locked in stone, it favors old over new that has no such title. I take this as evidence that this is a heavy exercise in picking and choosing which workers. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
zalkota 6y ago
Companies will simply leave California.
andrewfong 6y ago
Independent of whether the law is a good idea generally speaking, there's a pretty simple patch the legislature could make that keeps the intent alive. Just exempt the first N contractors a business hires. Let's say, a thousand. Most businesses won't hire 1000+ comedians, musicians, etc. But the massive network effect of 1000s of drivers on a platform is core to how a gig app like Uber works.

152 points by supernova87a 6y ago

rogerkirkness 6y ago

Government always fails to think in second order consequences, let alone third-order consequences.

aaron-santos 6y ago
Not just governments.
- microcolonel 6y ago
  When intel has a crap idea, you don't ruin every freelancer's life.
formercoder 6y ago
So true. I cannot fathom how governments don’t think about how corporations, which are rational actors with clear goals, will respond to regulations. This Uber thing is simple and boils down to only one question: can Uber operate in an npv positive fashion with drivers on w2s? If yes, they will, if no, they’ll leave.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- manquer 6y ago
  Politicians are no different, they also act rationally . Who donates most to their election campaigns , what policies will get them more votes pretty much drives every decision. Voters do not necessarily vote for what is actually beneficial to them. They vote for what they think is beneficial.A fact exploited by republicans so well to reduce taxes on the rich and still get popular support since atleast Regan. There is also the trianny of the majority in any democrarcy while a lot worse in direct it also exists in representative versions. California with all ballot propositions has more direct flavour than other states. Interests of the minority are hard to proctect. Ultimately it boils down to education and media. Democrarcy depends on these two pillars heavily. While the role of media is discussed often, the role of education is not talked about enough. More educated the average voter is , it is harder to make them vote against their interest. There was a reason only landed gentry voted in Rome, while such restrictions is not the right solution, the concerns on the ability to vote after being well informed is still valid You can easily draw a strong correlation between states( and countries) which are not people friendly (low tax/ lax labour , environment regulations) to their education level.
  - formercoder 6y ago
    Great point thanks for articulating.
montagg 6y ago
What large organizations do this consistently?
readams 6y ago
This serves as a useful definition of progressive politics: What you get it you make policy considering only first order effects.

redis_mlc 6y ago

FYI: when the $600 mandatory filing for 1099-MISC's is reduced to $0, a similar effect will hammer the small business and freelance market nationwide since a lot of clients limit the total number of vendors they will do paperwork for. There have been proposals to do so, but none have advanced yet. One milestone is 250 1099-MISC filings, which triggers electronic filing. The unexpected consequence of law and rule changes like these are to create massive monopolies, with no small business market, becoming more European-like. https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779 https://www.entrepreneur.com/article/307779 https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-vs-1099-k-states-close-tax-reporting-gap/ https://sovos.com/blog/2019/02/12/irs-forms-1099-misc-vs-109...

neonate 6y ago

https://archive.is/e8tAx https://archive.is/e8tAx

bpodgursky 6y ago

The CA law was to get Uber drivers into the Teamsters. Anything else was collateral damage.

torstenvl 6y ago

The immense second- and third- order consequences of legislation are why I oppose term limits. Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts.

DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
> Legislation should be crafted by experienced experts. Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. Given that crappy politics can happen with and without term limits, I get suspicious when anyone claims enacting or removing limits would solve problems.
- dragonwriter 6y ago
  > Ideally, the legislators themselves won't be experts, but they'll consult their experts and advisors to come to the best - or least worst - solution. The idea that people that are experts in none of the relevant domains can effectively synthesize the advice of experts in economics, labor relations, law, and other relevant domains to legislative effectively even on the first-order (much less second- and third-order) effects of policy is amusing. Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions?
  - manquer 6y ago
    Corporate Management is somewhat similar ? You don't necessarily get managers or CEOs who have no expertise of biz under them. The idea in theory being they need to always manage many areas they don't understand very well it does not make that much of difference if they don't understand all the areas provided they can manage well. Infact having expertise in any one area may influence your decisions where you are more comfortable with, rather than what is required .
  - DaiPlusPlus 6y ago
    > Is there any other area besides a legislature where you'd say that the decision makers ideally would not be experts in any of the fields related to complex decisions? From personal experience: I've interviewed at (and received offers from) companies that wanted to hire SWEs without any experience in their specialist area (be it graphics, avionics, hardware control, etc) because they wanted people "who could bring new ideas" or "who won't be encumbered by old-school thinking". Though the implication is that those new-hires would grow-into an expert role over time, rather than never being an expert at all.

bbischof 6y ago

I bet they’re not laughing now.

awb 6y ago

Honestly this is the worst part of contracting, when two consenting parties can't work together. If I prefer the gig economy and contract work to full-time employment, CA gets in the way. It's been much more challenging trying to get long-term contract work as companies are afraid of me being classified as an employee and then owing the state (or me) taxes and penalities. I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot.

marcinzm 6y ago
>I have a skill that adds value to a company. They want to pay me to do it. I agree to the price. What's the problem? According to CA, a lot. Are you arguing that all labor laws, workplace safety laws, minimum wage laws, anti-compete laws and so on should be repealed? After all, they all get in the way of two consenting parties deciding to work together. If not then it's merely a question of where the line is drawn and that's a murky issue.
- r29vzg2 6y ago
  All? No. Some if not most? Yes. There are many cases to be made against minimum wage laws and anti-compete laws. A laws designed to affect everyone but instead has hundreds of exemptions carved out has no place existing.
  - blackflame7000 6y ago
    There should be a law banning law exemptions..of which a select few will be exempt /s
  - xnyan 6y ago
    I know this will sound needling but it’s not, but have you ever been truly poor? By that I mean, have you been in a situation where you don’t know where your next meal is going to come from and you have no belief that anything in the future is likely to change such that that you would have confidence about where your next meal will come from? I will freely admit my bias: I have been very poor before and I lean towards protections for the most vulnerable in our society at the expense that some people will have to sacrifice somewhat between Uber and their other gig.

vwat 6y ago

California barely has any foot left to shoot.

um_ya 6y ago
Yet, they keep finding ways to shoot. Glad I got out.

abhiyerra 6y ago

This law hurts freelancers so much especially those that want to be freelancers. If you decide you want to go down the route of LLC in California then you have to pay the yearly $800 dollar tax. To be honest I wonder if there should be three designations for modern employment: full time, contractor and gig worker.

novok 6y ago
TBH there shouldn't be a distinction between the two is the real issue. Everyone can get workers comp, unemployment insurance, social security and a national healthcare plan and all the kvetching about IC or Employee becomes near irrelevant.
microcolonel 6y ago
Woah, you have to pay $800/yr to keep an LLC in California? What for?
- jassmith87 6y ago
  You might not make any money and then California wouldn't get any money!
  - jesselawson 6y ago
    California's FTB charges $800 minimum annually regardless of whether you made a profit or not.
- manquer 6y ago
  Various fillings you need to do. While different states have different requirements and fees . It will not cost zero anywhere . While it looks high, if the biz cannot afford the $800 fees annually then perhaps LLC is the not the structure for it ? LLC come with many requirements for corporate governance and accounting this typically means you need accountants and lawyers and they cost lot more than $800 .
  - 6y ago

solvorn 6y ago

Peter Thiel butthurt all over HN

renewiltord 6y ago

They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without hitting anyone else but the policy is totally an "adding epicycles" style approach which is why they had to add more epicycles to exempt all those myriad occupations rather randomly.

dragonwriter 6y ago
> They clearly tried to have this spear-regulate the ride-sharing guys without hitting anyone else No, they didn't. It's true that a big point of AB5 was to limit the reach of the rule from the California Supreme Court decision in Dynamex which it codified by also adding a bunch of exceptions, but it was very (explicitly) not intended to be limited to ride-sharing; codifying Dynamex with additional exceptions instead of legislatively reversing it was because the legislature felt that classifying vulnerable workers as contractors was leading to abuses in an expanding range of fields, not just ride-sharing (or even just app-based gig-work.)
- varenc 6y ago
  For others, this is the Dynamex case that started this off: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court?wprov=sfti1 https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...
- SamReidHughes 6y ago
  AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full labor code and unemployment insurance code.
  - dragonwriter 6y ago
    > AB5 extended the applicability of the ABC test from wage orders to the full labor code and unemployment insurance code. That's true. A big point was limiting it's reach as to working arrangements. Another was to harmonize the employee vs. contractor distinction indifferent areas of employment law, since it's really inconvenient for business if it's different for each of those areas.

vore 6y ago

I find a lot of the lines that come out of ride-sharing companies just absurd: > A Lyft spokeswoman said: “If the legislature had done its job and made policy that actually protected drivers, the ballot initiative wouldn’t have been necessary.” This reads like "if you twisted our arm in a way we would have preferred (in approximately 0 preferred ways), then we wouldn't be pulling out our political spin machine against you to continue exploiting drivers." Comedians and yoga studios should not be caught in this crossfire at all, but it's clear that these ride-sharing companies are acting in extremely bad will, and the system lets them get away with it.

bestnameever 6y ago
I don't know how you reach that conclusion without pre-existing bias against the ride-sharing companies. The legislature is absolutely to blame for comedians and yoga studios getting caught in the crossfire. They are the ones that passed the regulation.
- Daishiman 6y ago
  The pre existing bias borne out of the morally challenged Uber executives who have time and time again broken laws by outright ignoring labor laws in many places on the world? Yeah I wonder why...
  - bestnameever 6y ago
    the why does not matter as much as acknowledging that you may be drawing faulty conclusions based on a bias.
    - dundarious 6y ago
      You seem to be implying the bias is unreasonable, by claiming the conclusions it leads to are faulty. I think that framing is uncharitable at best. What you call bias, might be better described as contextual understanding, or awareness of other highly relevant information. Given the wealth of (prominent on HN) discourse around "ride-sharing companies acting in bad faith", there's little reason to immediately frame this argument in terms of "pre-existing bias" that must be exorcised before rational discourse can begin. Of course, reasonable people can disagree with the accusations of bad faith, but for a knowledgeable person to claim it as "bias" instead of "reasoned opinion" is extremely uncharitable, verging on sophistry.

brian_cunnie 6y ago

I can't read the article (paywall), but I can say that two of my friends who drove for Uber don't anymore, and they say it's because it's too hard to make money. I'd like every job to have a living wage.

el_don_almighty 6y ago
And I want a drinking fountain that shoots out Johnny Walker blue...
- jethro_tell 6y ago
  Why does a living wage for anyone that wants to work seem like a selfish pipedream to you?
  - tasubotadas 6y ago
    Is that a rhetorical question or can't you really see that not every occupation can earn a living wage?
    - jethro_tell 6y ago
      Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? There is a demand for cab drivers, why should they spend 40-50 hours a week meeting that demand and then be denied a living wage? As long as we need someone to do that job, we should compensate them for putting in the effort.
      - tasubotadas 6y ago
        >Why should some occupations not be eligible for a living wage? Because they do not create enough economic value to earn that?
- freeone3000 6y ago
  Well, we have the money for it. I'm not sure that this is the best investment of our resources, versus providing for food, shelter, and healthcare for everyone.

33MHz-i486 6y ago

Youtube should be forced to pay people minimum wage for their videos Etsy should be forced to pay minimum wage to their makers

bestnameever 6y ago
That would turn them both into closed platforms. Bad idea IMO.
kittiepryde 6y ago
I think in that situation, YouTube would take adshare to 0%. YouTube then is just a place to upload videos and make them public. No expectation of turning a profit. For a premium fee you pay YouTube, you could get some of that adshare, and now they're a paid service.
viraptor 6y ago
People don't work for YouTube or Etsy. (Apart for the relatively low number where there exist YouTube partnership contracts)

ktal 6y ago

The root cause of all of this is the abysmal safety net in the US. If vitally important things like healthcare, unemployment and disability weren't tied to your employment, then there wouldn't be an issue in the first place because companies couldn't weasel their way out of paying for it by calling employees "contractors".

t-writescode 6y ago
This. 100% this. The real thing we should be championing isn't forcing companies like Uber to pay for healthcare because health care is so important. If healthcare is so important, which it is, our taxes should be paying for it, yes, even (edit: for) the people that don't have work.
- heavyset_go 6y ago
  Until that safety net exists, it's important that people are provided with health insurance by whatever means are necessary and available. Right now, the system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers. Champion the safety net, but also recognize that people need healthcare right now.
  - awb 6y ago
    > Right now, the system is set up such that health insurance is provided though employers. Anyone who's self employed (like contractors) already purchases their own health insurance directly.
    - CPLX 6y ago
      Or, doesn’t.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    There is nothing stopping California from increasing corporate taxes and providing health care to everyone in the state. Why go through the Rube Golberg solution?

viraptor 6y ago

> If forced to reclassify their drivers as employees, the companies say their businesses—already unprofitable—would be completely upended. Now this is comedy. "Not only are we unprofitable while abusing cheap labour, we need extra state protection to preserve this state!" I'm for getting rid of companies in that state. (Although uber could easily run more lean instead) Maybe the lack of transport would force commuting improvements in other ways.

dicomdan 6y ago
What state protection is Uber asking for in this case?
- nextaccountic 6y ago
  Protection from this judicial decision: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._v._Superior_Court https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._... The AB5 is meant to codify it in the law. > The Court then reached the principle holding of the case, interpreting the “suffer or permit” standard in the wage order context. The Court held that the hiring entity bears the burden of “establish[ing] that a worker is an independent contractor” and thus, “not intended to be included within the wage order’s coverage.”[46] The Court went on hold that in order for the entity to meet this burden, it must establish each of three factors, in what is called the “ABC test”: > (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (B) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business; and (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.[47]

Lammy 6y ago

My first thought when reading this article was "I wonder how much Uber paid for this?"

radley 6y ago

Uhm, wasn't it fixed a week ago? Comedians (and others) can work independently again... https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-signs-law-exempting-more-occupations-from-controversial-assembly-bill-5/ https://timesofsandiego.com/politics/2020/09/05/governor-sig...

mixmastamyk 6y ago
Why are software contractors never discussed, outside of HN?
jessaustin 6y ago
It isn't clear that stuffing lots of people into comedy clubs is the best thing for us to do right now.

mixmastamyk 6y ago

It's also risking a lucrative software contract I have now working remotely in DC. I was very lucky to find it after being unemployed for quite a while. Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in exactly the way they'd like. I can only cross my fingers and hope the referendum in November changes things. Not sure if the article mentions it but it also put live musicians out of work as well, until they added an exception. Where is the software industry on this?

musingsole 6y ago
> Apparently California would rather see me homeless than gainfully employed in exactly the way they'd like. Does that thought surprise you? I thought California making a nominally well intentioned but horribly enacted policy and then creating all sorts of loopholes for the things the THEY like was the state's SOP.
masonic 6y ago
the referendum It's an Initiative Statute, not a Referendum. It rewrites statute law beyond what AB 5 did.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

> Why would I pay an uneducated, inexperienced person to sweep floors $20 per hour? I’ll do it myself first. Because you don't want to do it or you don't have the time. If I could pay someone 1 cent per hour to wipe my ass crack I would do it, is it a problem that I must instead wipe my own ass crack? The answer is literally there in your post, these jobs aren't worth having. Imagine posting this yelling "think of the people who will no longer be able to wipe others' ass cracks!". Ok....

ColanR 6y ago
> these jobs aren't worth having Are you making that decision for yourself, or for others? Offer the job, and see if there's takers. If there aren't, then you'll actually know that the job isn't worth having.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it... Wait, what's that!?!? Are you saying it's acceptable for society to make decisions for those who don't have the leverage to protect themselves?!?! WHAT?!?!? Say it aint so Mr Magoo, say it aint so... Cause I hurd if you ever make a decision for another human being you're immoral, making all parents immoral. That's just how this shit wurks my brutha!
  - ColanR 6y ago
    > I guess slavery is worth having since someone, somewhere, "chose" to do it... Are you suggesting that "someone, somewhere" chose to do something that intentionally made them worse off than they were before?
    - RandoHolmes 6y ago
      I'd like to buy "what is stockholm's syndrome for 500 alex!". https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome https://www.britannica.com/science/Stockholm-syndrome The better question. Are you implying this doesn't exist and therefore the woman in question is guilty? I mean, not that this has anything to do with the overarching point, but.... you're so wrong that you're wrong even when you're wrong. enter: BUT I'M GOING TO DEFINE FREEWILL SO IT DOESN'T INCLUDE STOCKHOLME SYNDROME... yeah ok.... That certainly makes you ... biased.

RandoHolmes 6y ago

> Safety standards could be addressed by insurability, and this is really a very separate concept from wage. Sorry, but no. And I'm going to judge you for having that opinion. The idea that it's acceptable for a human being to lose their sight (or legs or arms or ...) and suffer the quality of life problems that result from it as long as they're covered by insurance is horrendous and I judge you for it. I don't even care if you come back and tell me you've changed your mind based upon this post. The fact that you needed your mind changed makes you a monster.

whiddershins 6y ago
You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. Again, my example is UL ratings of building materials. Your response is over the top, and I am quite worried about you talking to me this way, it feels like a threat.
- jacobush 6y ago
  I don’t know. Too me it seems flimsy to rely on insurance alone. It feels like the economic incentives could fluctuate such that there would be opportunity to skimp or exploit insurance. It feels like you might want to add criminal liability if you distort insurance, in which case you may as well make it illegal outright to jeopardise people’s health.
- callmeal 6y ago
  >You literally misunderstand fundamentally what I wrote. Unsafe workplaces would not be able to get insurance, therefore wouldn’t exist, hence very safe workplaces. That is just not true. I think it's convenient how everyone forgets the kinds of calculations US corporations make: breaking the law/killing people/not having insurance is cheaper and more profitable than the alternative. Remember the Ford Pinto? Ok, that was probably too long ago. How about Firestone? Firestone: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_controversy https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Firestone_and_Ford_tire_contro...

RandoHolmes 6y ago

I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then it all washes out in the end and we don't have to whine about putting the burden of society on private companies!

amadeuspagel 6y ago
> I can see it now, the CEO walks into the corporate meeting with an epiphany... > Guys, lets just pretend that our higher expenses _ARE A CORPORATE TAX_. Then it all washes out in the end and we don't have to whine about putting the burden of society on private companies! That's not going to work. This isn't about "higher expenses" but about destroying Uber's business model. Uber cannot afford to pay healthcare for everyone who may or may not do a few drives every month. Maybe you could just pretend that Uber paying lots of taxes is already paying for many social services? Which, come to think of, shouldn't require any pretense.
- RandoHolmes 6y ago
  When you can imagine a slave owner making the same argument ('it invalidates my business model!'), said argument kind of becomes a positive. I mean that seriously. If your business model can't exist without the exploitation of humans. maaaaaaybe it shouldn't exist, morally.
  - scarface74 6y ago
    Yes because people choosing to work based on their own free will is the equivalent of kidnapping people from another country and if you try to escape once here, they are chased by dogs, shot, hung, whipped, kids taking away at birth and sold. If you don’t believe that a company shouldn’t exist unless it can do so profitably. That means almost none of the companies that YC invests in should exists. If a country has a health care system that is tied to your employment status, just maybe we need a sane health care system.
    - 6y ago

liveoneggs 6y ago

How do comedians fall in the ABC test? they can work multiple clubs, venues are not exclusively doing a single thing, and the venue doesn't control the jokes they tell. Musicians are quite similar as far as I can tell.

FeeJai 6y ago

The law of unintended consequences will always beat human made rules and regulations. Quote from Wikipedia: > More recently, the law of unintended consequences has come to be used as an adage or idiomatic warning that an intervention in a complex system tends to create unanticipated and often undesirable outcomes.

Aerroon 6y ago
How many of these unintended consequences were actually unintended? How often were they something people knew about, told others about it, but were still ignored?
graeme 6y ago
What you saw is true, but this law isn’t that. The plain language of the law banned most contractors. You can find some stuff in my comment history where I talked about this months before it was enacted. California’s behaviour is More equivalent to wanting to kill a fly on someone using a hammer. I wouldn’t call it a typical unintended consequences situation.

graeme 6y ago

Many comments are treating these results as unforeseeable consequences. But the law pretty obviously banned most contracting. You can read the conditions here. Unless the worker meets all of them, they are an employee. Part A is a pretty normal contractor condition. But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one already. How would you get established in a trade? Part C says you’re an employee if you’re not already so established. ———— Effective January 1, 2020, hiring entities are required to classify workers as employees unless they meet all conditions of the ABC test: 1. The person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. 2. The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business. 3. The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed. https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/ab-5.htm

maxsilver 6y ago
> But Part B bans all subcontracting within an industry. I don't see the problem here. It's not obvious to me that subcontracting should ever have been legal in the first place -- the majority of the time, I've generally only seen subcontracting used to do something immoral, unethical, or irresponsible. > Part C seems to ban people from becoming new contractors if they weren’t one already. Is that what it actually does? Reading it, does not seem to communicate that. It seems to be saying, "if you are a contractor, you have to actually be a contractor, and not just filling out contractor-like legal paperwork because your employer forced you to" Uber and Lyft drivers are not actual businesses, they are employees of Uber and Lyft, picking up piecework employment, and Uber and Lyft are abusing a legal loophole to not pay them fairly. But if you run "Acme Transportation LLC" and own a vehicle that you use as your own Limo Shuttle service, you would fulfill Part C, even if it's your first day of business. Uber and Lyft want everyone to pretend those two groups of people are the exact same. But they aren't the same, and I've not heard any good reason why the rest of us should pretend likewise.
- 6y ago

supernova87a 6y ago

It seems to me that although the law was claimed to be a win for all workers (at least in its intention, and pitch to the public), its effect is to favor certain workers over others. And what I see is that "old-line" workers in industries already familiar with / set up to have employees are the main beneficiaries. Newer industries that have not yet figured out how to cost-efficiently have employees are the losers. Hotel cleaning staff versus part-time rideshare drivers. It seems to be about protecting "old" labor versus new labor, within the truth of labor in general being more unstable recently. I don't think I like this approach. Particularly more so because I don't see why in principle some specific contractors got callouts as exceptions, but not others [1]: -- insurance agent -- physician and surgeon, dentist, podiatrist, psychologist, or veterinarian -- lawyer, architect, engineer, private investigator, or accountant -- securities broker-dealer or investment adviser (^ clearly these contractors have been exploited long enough and need assistance (/s) ) -- direct sales salesperson -- commercial fisherman working on an American vessel (^ if there was a group of workers working in more dangerous and low paying and uncertain conditions, you would think they would be included) -- those providing professional services, such as: marketing, HR, travel agents, graphic design, grant writer, fine artist (^ Grant writer??) -- accountant, payment processor, photographer, freelance journalist, writer, real estate agent, repossession agent Why do all these industries get a pass? What about the dozens of jobs that didn't make the list? And I can clearly imagine that with these definitions locked in stone, it favors old over new that has no such title. I take this as evidence that this is a heavy exercise in picking and choosing which workers. [1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

zalkota 6y ago

Companies will simply leave California.

andrewfong 6y ago

Independent of whether the law is a good idea generally speaking, there's a pretty simple patch the legislature could make that keeps the intent alive. Just exempt the first N contractors a business hires. Let's say, a thousand. Most businesses won't hire 1000+ comedians, musicians, etc. But the massive network effect of 1000s of drivers on a platform is core to how a gig app like Uber works.