3 ms·

> 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 pai

> 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?

> 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?