4 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 s

by 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
      Once again, everything said here applies to the minimum wage too. The minimum wage kills jobs. A position that provides $5 of value per hour can exist if you pay people $4, but it can't exist in the US because we have a minimum wage above $5. As you say, that is a pure numbers question and I have no problem with the math. I would have a moral objection if someone proposed that we abolish the minimum wage to fight unemployment because I think a job should provide for a certain quality of life in a developed nation. Jobs that can't provide that quality of life shouldn't exist. The motivation behind the minimum wage is so people can supposedly afford all those things that you highlighted as things people "deserve". The reason employees "deserve" to get benefits from their employer and not housing is because we as a society have decided that an employer's role is to provide things like health insurance and not housing. That decision is mostly arbitrary in hindsight, but it is the system in which we live. I would be happy if we decided to change that and disconnect health insurance from employment, but that is a harder fight than just mandating employers provide it. You are making perfect the enemy of the good in this situation. When the difference between the two is millions of people continuing to suffer for years if not decades, we should go for the quick good over the hypothetical long delayed perfection.

by slg 4y ago

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
    Once again, everything said here applies to the minimum wage too. The minimum wage kills jobs. A position that provides $5 of value per hour can exist if you pay people $4, but it can't exist in the US because we have a minimum wage above $5. As you say, that is a pure numbers question and I have no problem with the math. I would have a moral objection if someone proposed that we abolish the minimum wage to fight unemployment because I think a job should provide for a certain quality of life in a developed nation. Jobs that can't provide that quality of life shouldn't exist. The motivation behind the minimum wage is so people can supposedly afford all those things that you highlighted as things people "deserve". The reason employees "deserve" to get benefits from their employer and not housing is because we as a society have decided that an employer's role is to provide things like health insurance and not housing. That decision is mostly arbitrary in hindsight, but it is the system in which we live. I would be happy if we decided to change that and disconnect health insurance from employment, but that is a harder fight than just mandating employers provide it. You are making perfect the enemy of the good in this situation. When the difference between the two is millions of people continuing to suffer for years if not decades, we should go for the quick good over the hypothetical long delayed perfection.