3 ms·

The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at so

The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at some other job and they are being duped into taking the gig work. I just don’t think that’s true. I think gig workers are mostly the same people that already don’t have good job with benefits prospects and whether they’re working for Uber or Walmart or a real taxi company would be in the same place. So the argument that we must do this quick thing that continues to prop up a bad and failing system as opposed to doing something else that moves the needle on improving the system seems like false urgency. You also don’t need to change the whole system, just one part of it. I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state. Instead we seem more focused on trying to make gig jobs work more like “real jobs” and that to me actively harms people who benefit from having gig jobs be available. And we know there’s demand for that sort of work, so why try and throw it out just because we’re too lazy to make real changes

slg 4y ago
>The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at some other job and they are being duped into taking the gig work I don't know where this assumption is coming from. I support this type of law because I think people deserve benefits. >I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state. It would take someone who pays a lot more attention to California politics than me to fully explain this. All I can do is say that one was made a law and one wasn't. From this layman's perspective, it seems like the one that was made a law was easier to make a law. And for the record, I would support your proposed law too, because I think people deserve benefits.
- JamesBarney 4y ago
  Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule. How many places can you work with a completely flexible schedule, a handful, most of which is gig-work. Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. These people now have to find other work or be unemployed. Fundamentally you're benefiting full time drivers at expense of part-time drivers. I think this is a bad trade-off because people who can work 40 hours on a schedule have lots of other employment options where as part-time drivers who can't commit to a schedule in advance has far fewer options.
  - slg 4y ago
    >Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule. And what if that single parent has a 10-year-old, should we allow that parent to send the kid to work in a coal mine? Your argument is effectively the same one used against all labor protections. You can't take the existence of people willing to do a job as evidence that those people are fine with the conditions of that job. It ignores that our system coerces people into work. So yes, any law which makes it more expensive to employ someone will cause some jobs to disappear. That alone isn't a reason to avoid labor laws. >Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
    - tpmoney 4y ago
      > This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices. You’re assigning moral judgment on a purely numbers question. My health insurance costs my company ~20k per year over the cost of my salary. Which means at a bare minimum, just to pay for the coverage my employment must either generate 20k in additional revenue or free that 20k up from some other place. No amount of legislation will change this fact and if a job can’t generate that money then, it wont just magically be provided because “people deserve benefits” it just simply wont exist. This is why companies have scheduling and time commitment requirements, because there is overhead in each additional employee and you can’t make that overhead go away just because you make a law saying more overhead must be paid. So your options are either you legislate jobs out of existence in some attempt to force third parties to pay for what people “deserve” or you skip the middle man and give people what they “deserve” and leave what people “earn” out of the equation. In my mind if you truly believe people “deserve” these things, then trying to force someone else to provide it is a wastefully inefficient way of getting it to them. We don’t do this with anything else people “deserve”. People deserve to have food, we don’t mandate that employers buy their food for them. People deserve a place to live, we don’t mandate that employers buy them homes. People deserve clean water, we don’t mandate that employers distribute bottled water to their employees. If people deserve health care or unemployment insurance or social security or whatever then stop mandating other people do it. Provide it to the people and raise the taxes to cover it.

slg 4y ago

>The problem with this argument for me is is seems to rest on the assumption that all of these gig workers would somehow otherwise be eligible for benefits at some other job and they are being duped into taking the gig work I don't know where this assumption is coming from. I support this type of law because I think people deserve benefits. >I find it hard to believe that in a state like California it was easier to get support for “all contract employees are now w2 employees, except for this long list of arbitrary exclusions” (which may or may not actually result in those employees getting benefits) than it would have been for “all people who earn at least 70% of their income from 1099 income are now eligible for MediCal and/or subsidized market place plans and unemployment insurance.” Heck if you really wanted to “stick it to” the gig jobs you could even add a new tax to cover this on any company that employs more than 50 (or some other number) or more 1099 employees in the state. It would take someone who pays a lot more attention to California politics than me to fully explain this. All I can do is say that one was made a law and one wasn't. From this layman's perspective, it seems like the one that was made a law was easier to make a law. And for the record, I would support your proposed law too, because I think people deserve benefits.

JamesBarney 4y ago
Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule. How many places can you work with a completely flexible schedule, a handful, most of which is gig-work. Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. These people now have to find other work or be unemployed. Fundamentally you're benefiting full time drivers at expense of part-time drivers. I think this is a bad trade-off because people who can work 40 hours on a schedule have lots of other employment options where as part-time drivers who can't commit to a schedule in advance has far fewer options.
- slg 4y ago
  >Imagine someone who has bipolar, rheumatoid arthritis, being a single parent or any other complication that means you can't commit to a 40 hour schedule. And what if that single parent has a 10-year-old, should we allow that parent to send the kid to work in a coal mine? Your argument is effectively the same one used against all labor protections. You can't take the existence of people willing to do a job as evidence that those people are fine with the conditions of that job. It ignores that our system coerces people into work. So yes, any law which makes it more expensive to employ someone will cause some jobs to disappear. That alone isn't a reason to avoid labor laws. >Now because of making all these employees w-2 they require their employees to put in 40 hours a week, and work on a specified schedule. This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices.
  - tpmoney 4y ago
    > This is a choice by the company. It isn't a requirement of the regulation. I'm not sure why 100% of the blame goes to the regulation and not the company that is actively adopting antiworker practices in response to legislation preventing them from continuing their previous antiworker practices. You’re assigning moral judgment on a purely numbers question. My health insurance costs my company ~20k per year over the cost of my salary. Which means at a bare minimum, just to pay for the coverage my employment must either generate 20k in additional revenue or free that 20k up from some other place. No amount of legislation will change this fact and if a job can’t generate that money then, it wont just magically be provided because “people deserve benefits” it just simply wont exist. This is why companies have scheduling and time commitment requirements, because there is overhead in each additional employee and you can’t make that overhead go away just because you make a law saying more overhead must be paid. So your options are either you legislate jobs out of existence in some attempt to force third parties to pay for what people “deserve” or you skip the middle man and give people what they “deserve” and leave what people “earn” out of the equation. In my mind if you truly believe people “deserve” these things, then trying to force someone else to provide it is a wastefully inefficient way of getting it to them. We don’t do this with anything else people “deserve”. People deserve to have food, we don’t mandate that employers buy their food for them. People deserve a place to live, we don’t mandate that employers buy them homes. People deserve clean water, we don’t mandate that employers distribute bottled water to their employees. If people deserve health care or unemployment insurance or social security or whatever then stop mandating other people do it. Provide it to the people and raise the taxes to cover it.