4 ms·

> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think

by tasuki 6y ago

> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. But no one is entitled to anything.

colejohnson66 6y ago
> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?
- CodeWriter23 6y ago
  No. The point of AB5 was to make freelancing illegal and capture independent contractors and reduce their choices for employment to be union or non-union employees. The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater. AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars. Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that. AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe. One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.
  - JumpCrisscross 6y ago
    > The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) The lawmakers who wrote and voted for AB5 all had strong union connections. I support private-sector unions. But don’t forget: unions are high-margin and effective get-out-the-vote operations. The exempted professions have one thing in common: they aren’t union. The covered professions are either already unionised or a target market for conglomerate unions like the AFL-CIO.
    - CodeWriter23 6y ago
      Though I've never been in a Union, I have historically supported my friends who are. But once they came after my job, well, now I am pro-right to work.
- SmokeyHamster 6y ago
  That's the point. People deserve to be paid what they agree to be paid. The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    So minimum wage shouldn’t be a thing? The problem with this thinking is that some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make. And without minimum wage, for example, companies would do a race to the bottom and people worse off would have to accept it. And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.
    - tasuki 6y ago
      I'm all for minimum wage, but also this is a problem: > some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make Some people can't choose because they're in a desperate situation. And some people are in a desperate situation because they made many wrong choices. It's not easy to distinguish between the two. And it's certainly non-binary, but rather a spectrum. I think there can be a large difference between the two extremes of the spectrum.
  - coldcode 6y ago
    In a true market the pay for a worker with no special skills will trend towards 0. Uber drivers cannot decide what to charge, Uber does. How much an Uber driver makes is entirely up to Uber, and Uber is losing money on every ride so in the long run they have to either increase the price or pay the driver less. My (large) employer pays for my health insurance in the US which has to be added to what we charge. Uber has to pay nothing for any benefits and can cut the wages to just barely enough to not die. From an economic standpoint Uber should go out of business but it does not since it is getting almost free labor and just raises money to make a profit. I see no way this is a market that makes any sense.
- kofejnik 6y ago
  > paid what they deserve how does one know what they actually deserve? Is there a number tattooed on their left arm, or something like that?
dannyw 6y ago
All regulation and 'labor protection' does is accelerate the investment and transition into an AI anyway.
- ZoomerCretin 6y ago
  Exactly. This is why we need to repeal unnecessary government overreaches like the minimum wage and the 13th amendment.
  - colejohnson66 6y ago
    I’m having trouble seeing how a Constitutional Amendment is government overreach. All amendments are voted on by the citizens, not just Congress.
    - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
      https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law
modzu 6y ago
i think all they mean by entitled is entitled by the law. if uber is burning 4 billion a year and cant turn a profit, its ok for them to take on slaves?
s_dev 6y ago
>I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? For the same reason a minimum wage exists. >But no one is entitled to anything. Workers are entitled to a minimum wage should they seek/accept a job.
claudiawerner 6y ago
>But no one is entitled to anything. This statement is derived from a particular understanding of the individual, society, and the state, and is by no means universally taken as true among all political philosophers. In fact, even many economists aren't sold on this idea. As it turns out, if I subscribe to a philosophy in which people are entitled to various things, as a matter of distributive justice, then you can be sure I'll vote for it.
- tasuki 6y ago
  You're right. Perhaps my gripe was with that particular statement, it just seemed like unhelpful attitude. If you start from "I subscribe to a philosophy" and from there reach the conclusion "hence people are entitled to xyz", that's quite different than starting from "I'm entitled to xyz".

by tasuki 6y ago

colejohnson66 6y ago

> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?

CodeWriter23 6y ago
No. The point of AB5 was to make freelancing illegal and capture independent contractors and reduce their choices for employment to be union or non-union employees. The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) and crushed over 400 other professions from freelance coder to hair stylist to forensic nurse to actors and stagehands receiving a stipend to perform in community theater. AB5 is strongly anti-woman, more specifically, anti-mother, as many mothers choose to be yoga or pilates instructors or work a nail salon to gain extra revenue while having the flexibility time wise to shuttle their children to school and extracurriculars. Not the least of which, people like us, if we live in California, we can’t be hired on a freelance basis to code or be cybersecurity tiger teams for tech companies because we would have a hand in the finished product. And thanks to a last minute amendment, changing “worker” to “person” (and Citizens United), we can’t even legally do it if incorporated. The FTB will come a knockin’ for the fines legislated by AB5, you can count on that. AB5 is so convoluted, attorneys have only the one choice in advising clients: don’t hire freelancers from California. Because the law is so convoluted it will be necessarily refined in the court system. And lawyers need to defend their malpractice insurance, so they can only advise their clients to play it safe. One final point. The core of AB5 is about 300 words. And thousands of words about who is exempt. What does that say about any law written in such a fashion. IMO, it means the law is specifically designed to choose winners and losers.
- JumpCrisscross 6y ago
  > The author, in addition to being generously funded by the AFL-CIO, astutely granted an exception to professions that had the means to sue the state (doctors, lawyers, realty agents) The lawmakers who wrote and voted for AB5 all had strong union connections. I support private-sector unions. But don’t forget: unions are high-margin and effective get-out-the-vote operations. The exempted professions have one thing in common: they aren’t union. The covered professions are either already unionised or a target market for conglomerate unions like the AFL-CIO.
  - CodeWriter23 6y ago
    Though I've never been in a Union, I have historically supported my friends who are. But once they came after my job, well, now I am pro-right to work.
SmokeyHamster 6y ago
That's the point. People deserve to be paid what they agree to be paid. The value of money relative to a product or service is subjective. If Bob agrees to mow a lawn for $10, Joe doesn't have the right to object and demand that Bob be paid $20. That's immoral and not how markets should work.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  So minimum wage shouldn’t be a thing? The problem with this thinking is that some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make. And without minimum wage, for example, companies would do a race to the bottom and people worse off would have to accept it. And Joe absolutely does have the right to object to it. If I see someone paying someone a $1 to mow a lawn, I can say they deserve more.
  - tasuki 6y ago
    I'm all for minimum wage, but also this is a problem: > some people are desperate and don’t think about the choices they make Some people can't choose because they're in a desperate situation. And some people are in a desperate situation because they made many wrong choices. It's not easy to distinguish between the two. And it's certainly non-binary, but rather a spectrum. I think there can be a large difference between the two extremes of the spectrum.
- coldcode 6y ago
  In a true market the pay for a worker with no special skills will trend towards 0. Uber drivers cannot decide what to charge, Uber does. How much an Uber driver makes is entirely up to Uber, and Uber is losing money on every ride so in the long run they have to either increase the price or pay the driver less. My (large) employer pays for my health insurance in the US which has to be added to what we charge. Uber has to pay nothing for any benefits and can cut the wages to just barely enough to not die. From an economic standpoint Uber should go out of business but it does not since it is getting almost free labor and just raises money to make a profit. I see no way this is a market that makes any sense.
kofejnik 6y ago
> paid what they deserve how does one know what they actually deserve? Is there a number tattooed on their left arm, or something like that?

dannyw 6y ago

All regulation and 'labor protection' does is accelerate the investment and transition into an AI anyway.

ZoomerCretin 6y ago
Exactly. This is why we need to repeal unnecessary government overreaches like the minimum wage and the 13th amendment.
- colejohnson66 6y ago
  I’m having trouble seeing how a Constitutional Amendment is government overreach. All amendments are voted on by the citizens, not just Congress.
  - ZoomerCretin 6y ago
    https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Poe%27s_law

modzu 6y ago

i think all they mean by entitled is entitled by the law. if uber is burning 4 billion a year and cant turn a profit, its ok for them to take on slaves?

s_dev 6y ago

>I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? For the same reason a minimum wage exists. >But no one is entitled to anything. Workers are entitled to a minimum wage should they seek/accept a job.

claudiawerner 6y ago

>But no one is entitled to anything. This statement is derived from a particular understanding of the individual, society, and the state, and is by no means universally taken as true among all political philosophers. In fact, even many economists aren't sold on this idea. As it turns out, if I subscribe to a philosophy in which people are entitled to various things, as a matter of distributive justice, then you can be sure I'll vote for it.

tasuki 6y ago
You're right. Perhaps my gripe was with that particular statement, it just seemed like unhelpful attitude. If you start from "I subscribe to a philosophy" and from there reach the conclusion "hence people are entitled to xyz", that's quite different than starting from "I'm entitled to xyz".