3 ms·

I agree, lobbyists are out of control and would love to take money out of politics. However, Biden admin is trying to take California's AB5 national. This is o

I agree, lobbyists are out of control and would love to take money out of politics. However, Biden admin is trying to take California's AB5 national. This is obvious. Its the same people pushing for it. Alot of people, across all political opinion and backgrounds, oppose these labor laws. To me, this is less about gig work and unionization, and more about independent contractor freedom. Big government doesn't like self employment. The union piece is just a bone the politicians will throw to repay some favors. I'm worried that one day, all workers will have to be classified as w-2, which is a boon to corporate interests, and the feds. This is why I oppose this, because it'll set some new precedent. Its already happened in places like Australia, where their federal government brokered a deal between Uber and a large union. I imagine the architects behind this idea have a very similar plan in mind. Look at police and teacher unions in the US - total disaster. Those have very close ties to the government, as will this. This isn't some grassroots unionization effort. I view this gig worker classification as an extension of that, given the federal governments zeal for this issue. https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber-strikes-landmark-deal-on-gig-economy-employment-standards/411429 https://www.hcamag.com/au/specialisation/employment-law/uber...

dangus 4y ago
I think your view of the situation is certainly a valid way to look at it, I'd just disagree that the end state of taking AB5 or a similar law national is going to result in this this worst-case-scenario situation that you describe. For one thing, AB5 has since had a "cleanup law" passed to help alleviate unintended consequences. I think it's also more than fair to say that Uber and Lyft abuse the rules on independent contracting, and I think there's a very decent argument that their entire business model isn't viable in the first place without below-minimum wage compensation (after expenses). If shuttling people around the long distances of the suburbs for casual frequent trips was economically viable, taxi and livery companies would have already offered the service long before Uber and Lyft thought of the idea. Uber and Lyft are both exiting California, and to that I say: unviable businesses don't have the right to exist, and while you can say it's a net negative for the poorest workers, that's kind of like saying that banning child labor is bad for poor families. An enforceable minimum wage is the tool used to force companies to properly compensate their workers in industries where the labor supply is always be greater than the labor demand, and in my view Uber and Lyft completely skirted that by dumping all the risk and downside onto their "contractors," who were never given the same negotiation and job selection rights that a normal contractor has. They were given a switch to go on or off shift and that's about it. When it comes to things that happen in Australia and the issues you bring up with teacher and police unions, I think you're tying together separate issues that are not related. The status of Uber in Australia is not related to the status of Uber in the United States, and it's not at all related to labor law in the United States. It's a different country. The union status of teachers and police isn't at all related to any independent contractors in the USA. To my knowledge, AB5 didn't lead to the creation of any new unions or a mass shift to W-2 employment.
- Ferrotin 4y ago
  AB5 as pertains to Uber drivers was reversed by a ballot proposition. Its effect on independent truckers is just getting started.

dangus 4y ago

I think your view of the situation is certainly a valid way to look at it, I'd just disagree that the end state of taking AB5 or a similar law national is going to result in this this worst-case-scenario situation that you describe. For one thing, AB5 has since had a "cleanup law" passed to help alleviate unintended consequences. I think it's also more than fair to say that Uber and Lyft abuse the rules on independent contracting, and I think there's a very decent argument that their entire business model isn't viable in the first place without below-minimum wage compensation (after expenses). If shuttling people around the long distances of the suburbs for casual frequent trips was economically viable, taxi and livery companies would have already offered the service long before Uber and Lyft thought of the idea. Uber and Lyft are both exiting California, and to that I say: unviable businesses don't have the right to exist, and while you can say it's a net negative for the poorest workers, that's kind of like saying that banning child labor is bad for poor families. An enforceable minimum wage is the tool used to force companies to properly compensate their workers in industries where the labor supply is always be greater than the labor demand, and in my view Uber and Lyft completely skirted that by dumping all the risk and downside onto their "contractors," who were never given the same negotiation and job selection rights that a normal contractor has. They were given a switch to go on or off shift and that's about it. When it comes to things that happen in Australia and the issues you bring up with teacher and police unions, I think you're tying together separate issues that are not related. The status of Uber in Australia is not related to the status of Uber in the United States, and it's not at all related to labor law in the United States. It's a different country. The union status of teachers and police isn't at all related to any independent contractors in the USA. To my knowledge, AB5 didn't lead to the creation of any new unions or a mass shift to W-2 employment.

Ferrotin 4y ago
AB5 as pertains to Uber drivers was reversed by a ballot proposition. Its effect on independent truckers is just getting started.