14 ms·

US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

218 points by gostsamo 4y ago

CSMastermind 4y ago
https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF ^ Actual court ruling which is linked in the article itself. I find the article's headline misleading. The court ruled that a proposition that was passed by voters in California which classified these drivers as contractors was mostly constitutional and would be allowed to have the effect of law, noting that California's legislative branch was free to change the law if they had the requisite votes to do so. It wasn't the court, but California voters, which decided these workers are contractors. The court simply ruled that this is something voters are allowed to decide (and that lawmakers can change if they so choose).
- akira2501 4y ago
  Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose. Propositions amend the constitution of California. They can modify it, but they have to honor the rule itself and cannot simply remove it or abrogate it through this alteration. > Legislature can amend Proposition 22’s provisions with a statute passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses, so long as the statute is “consistent with, and furthers the purpose of,” the initiative and the Legislature complies with certain procedural requirements
  - NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
    > Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose... They can modify it, You know here all this time I thought that "modify" is a synonym of "change". So can lawmakers modify it or can they not modify it?
    - karmasimida 4y ago
      I read modifying it requires like super super majority like over 80% of approval from senate legislature, effectively it couldnt be done So it is yes and no i guess, in theory yes, in practice better forget about it. This is state constitution, it isnt meant to be modified as someone pleases
      - SllX 4y ago
        Our State Constitution is modified frequently at the ballot box. This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution because it was designed specifically to be extremely difficult verging on impossible to amend but not technically impossible to amend as part of its text; and voters approved it with a far lower threshold than it would take for the legislature to modify it.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution No, its not. The Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature.) This law can be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature), or it can be amended within certain bounds by a 7/8 vote of each house of the State Legislature without a vote of the people. It is, strictly, easier to amend than any part of the State Constitution.
        SllX 4y ago
        On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re for whatever it is, they’re for it, and if they’re against it, they’re against it. The mechanics matter to a minority of us.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. Perhaps, but the comparison isn’t “7/8 of the legislature vs. a bare majority of the people” it is “7/8 of the legislature or a bare majority of the people vs. a bare majority of the people”. It is absolutely not harder to amend Prop 22 than the State Constitution, or a normal initiative statute. It is easier. Perhaps only so slightly easier as to make no substantial difference, but your claim is that it is harder, and that is completely wrong. Even if it is not substantially easier, it is also not at all harder.
    - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
      change and modify some times have different meanings in legal systems and can apply to versioning of the laws (don't know if that is the case here) as an example you might say Law X section 7 says Uber drivers are contractors. In some systems a change would be to remove this provision or to say the opposite. a modification might be to add: The definition of contractor will follow the amended definition of contractor as in Law Y Section 9 - subsection Uber contractors.
      - oneplane 4y ago
        So in essence, the law system uses different rules for language and applies it to everyone, but almost everyone uses language in a people way, not in a legal way. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
        bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        In essence every complicated field has specialized jargon that differs from the common usage, also I'm not sure if this is the case in California legal system, I was just pointing out that some systems differentiate between what it means to change and modify - generally when discussions are made between experts in that system.
        scld 4y ago
        In many engineering contexts, modify and change would mean two distinct things. Of course, it's context dependent but: - "Modify" this part on the widget: Please alter this part to function correctly. - "Change" this part on the widget: Please replace this part with a new part so that the widget functions correctly. e.g. if I modified a cover, it probably means I drilled an extra hole or something to make it fit.....if I changed the cover, it probably means that I found a new cover that had the right hole.
  - Dalewyn 4y ago
    The one and only job of lawmakers is to create or change laws as they so choose. Obviously lawmakers must still abide by laws in effect*, but they can absolutely change those laws if they have sufficient votes to do so. Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers, nothing is off-limits with enough votes. * Some countries suspend enforcement of laws within the physical space of legislative chambers. As an example, I understand over in Japan it's perfectly legal for a Diet member to murder someone in the Japanese Diet's legislative chamber because laws prohibiting murder aren't in effect in there. IANAL so I could be misled by urban legends.
    - bmelton 4y ago
      > Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers This really depends on how loosely you define "lawmakers." The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as 'lawmakers' but I guess could colloquially be sort of. There's of course the constitutional convention path, but that's even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of "lawmaker."
      - SllX 4y ago
        3/4 of the States and each and every State makes its laws and approves (or not) amendments through their own legislatures which are by definition lawmakers. Congress isn’t the only legitimate legislature in the United States.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as ‘lawmakers’ but I guess could colloquially be sort of. No, state legislators (and it is 3/4 of state legislatures that need to ratify) are absolutely, 100%, lawmakers. If one wants to differentiate federal from state lawmakers to refer specifically to either one, the appropriate adjective is used along with "lawmakers", but "lawmkers", without qualification, definitely encompasses both. > there’s of course the constitutional convention path, but that’s even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of “lawmaker.” No, again, the convention is an alternative to Congress for proposing amendments, but they are still ratified by state legislatures, comprised of state legislators, who are exactly within the usual definition of “lawmkers” without further qualification. (And do so exactly as much as when the exact same group ratifies amendments proposed by the other mechanism, not “even less kind-of-sort-of”.)
  - arlort 4y ago
    > passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses Holy mother of supermajorities ... What's the procedure for reversing a ballot measure? Can only be done via a different ballot measure?
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - tayo42 4y ago
      thats why i almost always vote no on these now. its too hard to undo if there is unintended consequences or the vote was bought by some large company.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      Yes, the people have primacy over the representative bodies, so usually a ballot measure can only be modified by a subsequent ballot measure. This one makes a special allowance for unilateral amendment, within certain bounds, by the legislature as well as being modifiable by a ballot measure (which can either be proposed by petition or by a simple majority of the legislature), and is therefore strictly (if only slightly) easier to modify than a normal ballot measure.
    - renewiltord 4y ago
      The purpose of these things is to overrule the representative legislature when it doesn't match the opinions of the people (who are the real legislators who have delegated power to the representatives). It would be foolish to permit your agents to overrule the principals. It is the sensible thing to do.
    - pianoben 4y ago
      Yeah, it's a high bar to clear, but they didn't have to include that in the proposition. If they hadn't, then legislature would be entirely unable to modify it. Think about that before getting all fired up about 7/8 - most ballot initiatives completely exempt themselves from legislative amendment. That's the default.
      - 4y ago
  - yonran 4y ago
    Correction: 2020 Proposition 22 was an initiative statute that modified the Business and Professions Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=10.5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...), not the California Constitution. And the clause that allowed amendments with 7/8 supermajority exists to make it easier to amend than if the clause did not exist, since by default initiatives can’t be modified by the legislature at all (Constitution Article II Sec 10(c) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%2010.&article=II https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...)! It is common to choose a threshold above the known opposition (my earlier comment with more examples https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306), and 7/8 is above the 73% that voted for AB5 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...).
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    > Propositions amend the constitution of California. Initiate Constitutional Amendments do, Initiative Statutes do not. Prop 22 was an initiative statute, and as such did not amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the legislative power resides in the people first and is delegated by them to the legislature to the extent that they have not themselves exercised it, an initiative statute, while subordinate to the State Constitution, cannot usually be altered by the legislature (the legislature can propose changes, but they must be passed by the people.) But, OTOH, Prop 22, as you note, contains a provision allowing a legislative hypermajority to amend it, and so can, in fact, be altered by the legislature unilaterally. On the gripping hand, though, those unilateral alterations that the legislature can make are explicitly limited, and do not include making app-based drivers regular employees rather than contractors.
- uoaei 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - SllX 4y ago
    > At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getting the entire job done, so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      > In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that might be technically true in the absolutist way, bad things are still bad, even if it followed all the technicalities. If we play "the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws" and it ends up making it mandatory for everyone to cut off their thumbs, do you really think the population would just go "oh well" and grab some pruners?
      - sokoloff 4y ago
        No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)
      - SllX 4y ago
        We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.
- diceduckmonk 4y ago
  > I find the article's headline misleading. I see Uber stock is up 6% pre-market. That suggests to me investors thinks Uber's liabilities are reduced as a result of this ruling.
  - jvanderbot 4y ago
    The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own. Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.
    - MrDunham 4y ago
      So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing. It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it. Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight for something like that with the only real goal to boost their profits well another special interest fights against it to save theirs. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process.
      - brvsft 4y ago
        > hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.
        wcarron 4y ago
        So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate
        PhasmaFelis 4y ago
        Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.
thejackgoode 4y ago
Hope eventually it’ll be it’s own category. Contractors are not generally incentivized by UX patterns, gamification and bonus systems to work more.
- Eumenes 4y ago
  Navigating the bureaucracy of a corporation as a consultant certainly seems like gamification
unfairly4820 4y ago
California Labor Union Leader: "Our system is broken. It would be an understatement to say we are disappointed by this decision allowing companies to buy their way out of our state’s labor laws" Uber Executive: "Our system is working. We’re pleased that the court respected the will of the people by upholding a voter-approved law.”
- wilg 4y ago
  Is there some reason to suspect that there was corruption involved with this ruling? Or is this just general fearmongering?
  - bagels 4y ago
    The buying was the money spent to ferociously promote prop 22, not paying off judges.
- LastNevadan 4y ago
  Breaking news: people with skin in the game talk their book. Full story at eleven!
- sebzim4500 4y ago
  Worth noting that the vast majority of the actual drivers agree wtih the Uber Executive here.
  - josho 4y ago
    I imagine drivers prefer this because they saw the alternative was going back to being screwed over by the taxi companies. At least this way when they get screwed over by Uber they have a bit more say in when and how it’s being done and while that may be bad it is an improvement over what they had before. The reality is these drivers need some kind of guild or union because as it stands they are being taken advantage.
yieldcrv 4y ago
Isn't this debate largely a false dilemma? Its obvious to me that an additional category is prudent, or that people besides employees should have access to subsidized health care premiums and some form of paid sick leave. that doesnt have to come from the employer and that doesnt have to mean that worker flexibility is curbed. contractors can already do retirement benefits plans such as the 401k plan, running your own is far more flexible than an employee’s version its lazy to “solve” these gaps by reclassifying workers as employees it is also ridiculous that only giant corporations can lobby the people to get its own exemption passed to restore contractor status, other groups should have this power too. maybe an agency could put up comment periods for specific industries, removing this need from the legislature or proposition process round hole, square peg
- midoridensha 4y ago
  >or that people besides employees should have access to subsidized health care premiums and some form of paid sick leave. Or perhaps there should be a national health insurance that all citizens could have by default? Oh wait, this is the United States, so that'll never happen.
- doktorhladnjak 4y ago
  The UK has a “worker” [0] classification between employee and true independent contractor. It provides protections like minimum wage and time off while preserving freedom about when and how someone works. It seems like it would fit this case well, but I doubt it will ever happen. Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. [0] https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
  - 3np 4y ago
    I initially found the choice of the word "worker" in the headline curious but with this context it makes sense coming from the BBC. Thanks.
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    > Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. What stops them unionising?
sourcecodeplz 4y ago
In Europe, you can't drive for Uber or deliver food without a standard work contract which includes: healthcare, pension, payroll and income taxes. Drivers here PAY private companies a weekly amount in order to work for Uber et all (to have that contract). Uber et all work with these companies only, not individuals.
- alchemist1e9 4y ago
  How does the prevalence and costs of Uber and food delivery in European cities compare to US cities? I don’t know myself, just wondering how this difference effects the end consumer.
  - furyg3 4y ago
    Here in Amsterdam, the only drivers that are allowed to drive for Uber are licensed taxi drivers. They tried using scabs here but the city ended that pretty quickly.
  - teetertater 4y ago
    Uber exists in Vienna but I've never found a reason to use it. Public transport is amazing, and the only time I would need a car (to the airport at night), taxis are cheaper
  - concordDance 4y ago
    User costs the same as old taxis where I live and there's no reason to use it.
    - rekoil 4y ago
      Well the apps are better, but that's about it for incentives to use Uber/Bolt.
  - a012 4y ago
    My view from a few times in Europe is, public transport is preferred during the day, but if you want to go out late in the evening ride sharing and/or taxi are way more convenient because there would be limited train/bus working.
TulliusCicero 4y ago
Gig workers aren't quite contractors and aren't quite employees. Maybe need a third class of worker.
- xyst 4y ago
  “Hustler” economy
  - nxm 4y ago
    Better than unemployed all together
    - josho 4y ago
      [flagged]
- chii 4y ago
  But what properties and laws would apply to this class of worker?
  - kwhitefoot 4y ago
    The general rule in Europe is that "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we treat it like a duck." That is employment and tax authorities don't care what your and your employer call yourselves but they do care about the conditions under which you work. In the UK, for instance, if you are a contractor you can send someone else in your stead to do the work, if you are an employee you obviously can't. So that alone can distinguish between real contractors and actual employees. I'm not a lawyer so take all this with the necessary quantities of salt.
    - deleted 4y ago
      [deleted]
    - throwawaythrow1 4y ago
      IR35 is a ridiculous law. "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we treat it like a duck." I can walk and quack rather convincingly like a duck, but I'm not a duck and any casual observer would agree. The metaphor provided puts the emphasis on the behaviour of the individual, whereas the behaviour of the hirer/employer is rarely considered... For example, can the contractor be promoted? Can they be given a disciplinary procedure with Union representation? If the contractor has an accident, does the insurance of the company pay for it or does the insurance of the contractor pay for it? Does the contractor have protections from bullying and discrimination?
bell-cot 4y ago
Daydream: "In an unrelated move, the Governor of California announced that, in order to reinforce the independence of the Judiciary - 'one of the sacred foundation stones of our democracy' - all Judges in California would henceforth be reclassified as contractors. Governor Newsom admitted that there would be some short-term administrative costs in making this change, but insisted that the longer-term cost savings would more than make up for..."
user3939382 4y ago
Our government, and large swaths of the media, is owned by banks and corporations. The vestiges of the pre-industrial democracy we had persist as a sham to keep the electorate’s consent for and compliance with this system. Uber and Lyft are not people and shouldn’t have been permitted to spend $1 on this campaign nor towards the campaign of any politician. Unfortunately it won’t be until bread is $30/loaf that the public will wake up to what’s going on.
- marcinzm 4y ago
  >pre-industrial democracy You have a very rose tinted view of how democracy was in the past or who actually made decisions.
  - user3939382 4y ago
    It wasn't perfect but it existed. Calling it rose-colored is to downplay how bad it's gotten. The complex of multinational corporations and their lobby groups that run our government today didn't exist then, the e.g. railroad companies are no comparison.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      It existed - if you were a White man. Nice work if you can get it.
    - mrguyorama 4y ago
      My brother in christ, this country LITERALLY started as a bunch of rich white dudes stirring shit up to get essentially their own self designed government where only wealthy white dudes could have a say and black people were not even allowed to be considered people. The fact that a couple of them had some ideals and there were handwavy references to those ideals does not change that America was not a democracy for a very long time, with reasonable arguments that it still isn't
    - marcinzm 4y ago
      The US was founded by a bunch of rich white men who mostly inherited their wealth and literally owned other human beings. A lot of the government structures were explicitly designed to prevent the masses from having too much of a direct voice as they couldn't be "trusted." Electoral college to override a "bad" popular vote (not that most states did popular votes), senators not chosen by direct election, etc. edit: Not to mention the US had an actual horrible bloody civil war fought by forcefully drafted soldiers due to conflicts over government processes. Truly a staller example of democratic decision making right there.
ChicagoDave 4y ago
Everyone seems to forget or disregard the fact that these lawsuits are paid for by the taxi industry. Even when they dig up a few Uber drivers, it’s all a sham. 70% of surveyed rideshare drivers prefer to be independent contractors. If there was a serious majority for employment, Uber and Lyft simply wouldn’t exist.
- mdorazio 4y ago
  Surveyed by whom and how was the question asked?
  - Spivak 4y ago
    [flagged]
    - jdminhbg 4y ago
      It’s possible that Uber and Lyft drivers are simply not dumb enough to believe that the legislature is going to magically conjure a 401k match and PTO for their 10 hour/week driving side gig.
      - cool_dude85 4y ago
        In other countries, working at McDonalds you get pension time (better, I'd say, than any 401k match) and more weeks of PTO than most Americans do. These rights were "magically conjured" either by the legislature or labor action.
        jdminhbg 4y ago
        You can get that at fast food places or corporate coffee chains in the US as well. What you can’t get is PTO for working 10 hours a week whenever you feel like it.
        Spivak 4y ago
mydriasis 4y ago
What does this mean for the average Uber or Lyft driver? How does their quality of life or employment change as a result, generally? I'm not well-acquainted with this kind of stuff.
- throwawaymaths 4y ago
  Used to be a Lyft driver:. By changing status, it would be possible for Lyft/Uber to restrict drivers from being on the other platform simultaneously. This means probably a takehome drop of 20~30%. The truly egregious one though is FedEx/Amazon drivers, who (IIRC) are "contractors" and forced to use branded vehicles, wear uniforms, and have their driving monitored like crazy. They are definitely employees, and are ruining it for Lyft drivers.
  - mydriasis 4y ago
    Yuck, that all sounds terrible!
ar9av 4y ago
But their pay directly scales with the amount being charged to the customer. Let's say that I am a driver classified as an employee. I give a one hour ride at 8PM and the customer is charged $100 - I will make my hourly wage (let's say $18). Now, let's say I give that same ride at 8AM during rush hour. Uber surge is 3x and the customer is charged $300 - I still make $18 for that trip. Uber and Lyft drivers now pay a percentage back to the platform but their profit or loss is directly tied to customer payment amounts.
- bena 4y ago
  Now let's say that the pay structure isn't a flat dollars for hours. It's entirely possible to have a base of $18/hr with a commission based on the value of the ride once it's over a certain amount. Lots of places do similar things.
BurningFrog 4y ago
The reality is that gig workers fit in neither of the legacy regulatory categories ("employee" or "contractor"). I expect we'll spend a few destructive decades thrashing around before legal systems have adapted to this invention.
- jedberg 4y ago
  This right here is the key that is missing. We need a new category of worker that's 1/2 way between, OR we need to have universal healthcare and a better social safety net. The main argument here is if the company has to provide benefits, sick leave, etc. If benefits were provided for everyone by default, it wouldn't matter.
  - tadfisher 4y ago
    Here's an idea: outlaw employer-provided health plans.
    - hellojesus 4y ago
      This would solve so much. Almost unreasonably so. It pains me to have to disallow companies from making a private transaction, but it seems to be it would benefit everyone much more than universal Healthcare.
- chrisbolt 4y ago
  If they’re not an employee, how are they not a contractor? What third thing is missing?
  - stonogo 4y ago
    Contractors with an app
  - BurningFrog 4y ago
    Probably the biggest novelty is that they work whenever they want. A gig worker can work 0 or 80 hours a week, and not ask for permission either way.
xwdv 4y ago
Good for the drivers, good for the customers, good for Uber, bad for the heavily entrenched taxi industries.
- mrguyorama 4y ago
  Ah yes, clearly the very local and independent (from each other) taxi companies were the big evil corporations instead of (checks notes) the giant multinational funded by literal blood money from oil barons that openly flouted laws and had an internal team dedicated to writing systems to mislead law enforcement.
singeezie 4y ago
My brother and I are both Uber drivers. and i am totaling fighting him at the dinner table cuz…. for me, being contractor brings me so much needed things likeflexible hours and able to get surge extra pay, and write off things, so just no other way. But brother really wanted full time hours w/ health insurance and most importantly if injured or let go, he gets compensation and unemployment. TO EaCH his own!!!
- Jochim 4y ago
  Maybe it's different where you are but I'm not aware of any restrictions on the flexibility of working hours or pay when you're classified as an employee. The substantial difference is you'd accrue holiday pay pro-rata and be able to take statutory sick leave.
  - throwaway56960 4y ago
    Employees in Europe have to have fixed amount of hours in predictable schedule. There's no way it could be the same. It definitely would outclass many workers who would like to earn side income.

218 points by gostsamo 4y ago

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF ^ Actual court ruling which is linked in the article itself. I find the article's headline misleading. The court ruled that a proposition that was passed by voters in California which classified these drivers as contractors was mostly constitutional and would be allowed to have the effect of law, noting that California's legislative branch was free to change the law if they had the requisite votes to do so. It wasn't the court, but California voters, which decided these workers are contractors. The court simply ruled that this is something voters are allowed to decide (and that lawmakers can change if they so choose).

akira2501 4y ago
Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose. Propositions amend the constitution of California. They can modify it, but they have to honor the rule itself and cannot simply remove it or abrogate it through this alteration. > Legislature can amend Proposition 22’s provisions with a statute passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses, so long as the statute is “consistent with, and furthers the purpose of,” the initiative and the Legislature complies with certain procedural requirements
- NoZebra120vClip 4y ago
  > Lawmakers cannot change if they so choose... They can modify it, You know here all this time I thought that "modify" is a synonym of "change". So can lawmakers modify it or can they not modify it?
  - karmasimida 4y ago
    I read modifying it requires like super super majority like over 80% of approval from senate legislature, effectively it couldnt be done So it is yes and no i guess, in theory yes, in practice better forget about it. This is state constitution, it isnt meant to be modified as someone pleases
    - SllX 4y ago
      Our State Constitution is modified frequently at the ballot box. This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution because it was designed specifically to be extremely difficult verging on impossible to amend but not technically impossible to amend as part of its text; and voters approved it with a far lower threshold than it would take for the legislature to modify it.
      - dragonwriter 4y ago
        > This one amendment to the law is just more difficult to amend than all the rest of the Constitution No, its not. The Constitution can only be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature.) This law can be amended by a vote of the people (either by initiative or proposed by the legislature), or it can be amended within certain bounds by a 7/8 vote of each house of the State Legislature without a vote of the people. It is, strictly, easier to amend than any part of the State Constitution.
        SllX 4y ago
        On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re for whatever it is, they’re for it, and if they’re against it, they’re against it. The mechanics matter to a minority of us.
        dragonwriter 4y ago
        > On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. Perhaps, but the comparison isn’t “7/8 of the legislature vs. a bare majority of the people” it is “7/8 of the legislature or a bare majority of the people vs. a bare majority of the people”. It is absolutely not harder to amend Prop 22 than the State Constitution, or a normal initiative statute. It is easier. Perhaps only so slightly easier as to make no substantial difference, but your claim is that it is harder, and that is completely wrong. Even if it is not substantially easier, it is also not at all harder.
  - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
    change and modify some times have different meanings in legal systems and can apply to versioning of the laws (don't know if that is the case here) as an example you might say Law X section 7 says Uber drivers are contractors. In some systems a change would be to remove this provision or to say the opposite. a modification might be to add: The definition of contractor will follow the amended definition of contractor as in Law Y Section 9 - subsection Uber contractors.
    - oneplane 4y ago
      So in essence, the law system uses different rules for language and applies it to everyone, but almost everyone uses language in a people way, not in a legal way. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.
      - bryanrasmussen 4y ago
        In essence every complicated field has specialized jargon that differs from the common usage, also I'm not sure if this is the case in California legal system, I was just pointing out that some systems differentiate between what it means to change and modify - generally when discussions are made between experts in that system.
      - scld 4y ago
        In many engineering contexts, modify and change would mean two distinct things. Of course, it's context dependent but: - "Modify" this part on the widget: Please alter this part to function correctly. - "Change" this part on the widget: Please replace this part with a new part so that the widget functions correctly. e.g. if I modified a cover, it probably means I drilled an extra hole or something to make it fit.....if I changed the cover, it probably means that I found a new cover that had the right hole.
- Dalewyn 4y ago
  The one and only job of lawmakers is to create or change laws as they so choose. Obviously lawmakers must still abide by laws in effect*, but they can absolutely change those laws if they have sufficient votes to do so. Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers, nothing is off-limits with enough votes. * Some countries suspend enforcement of laws within the physical space of legislative chambers. As an example, I understand over in Japan it's perfectly legal for a Diet member to murder someone in the Japanese Diet's legislative chamber because laws prohibiting murder aren't in effect in there. IANAL so I could be misled by urban legends.
  - bmelton 4y ago
    > Even the US Federal Constitution can be changed by lawmakers This really depends on how loosely you define "lawmakers." The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as 'lawmakers' but I guess could colloquially be sort of. There's of course the constitutional convention path, but that's even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of "lawmaker."
    - SllX 4y ago
      3/4 of the States and each and every State makes its laws and approves (or not) amendments through their own legislatures which are by definition lawmakers. Congress isn’t the only legitimate legislature in the United States.
    - dragonwriter 4y ago
      > The federal legislature cannot amend the Constitution by itself, as it requires a 2/3 supermajority of the House and Senate, 3/4 supermajority by the states, which are not what one would traditionally refer to as ‘lawmakers’ but I guess could colloquially be sort of. No, state legislators (and it is 3/4 of state legislatures that need to ratify) are absolutely, 100%, lawmakers. If one wants to differentiate federal from state lawmakers to refer specifically to either one, the appropriate adjective is used along with "lawmakers", but "lawmkers", without qualification, definitely encompasses both. > there’s of course the constitutional convention path, but that’s even less kind-of-sort-of fitting any normal definition of “lawmaker.” No, again, the convention is an alternative to Congress for proposing amendments, but they are still ratified by state legislatures, comprised of state legislators, who are exactly within the usual definition of “lawmkers” without further qualification. (And do so exactly as much as when the exact same group ratifies amendments proposed by the other mechanism, not “even less kind-of-sort-of”.)
- arlort 4y ago
  > passed by a seven-eighths majority in both houses Holy mother of supermajorities ... What's the procedure for reversing a ballot measure? Can only be done via a different ballot measure?
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - tayo42 4y ago
    thats why i almost always vote no on these now. its too hard to undo if there is unintended consequences or the vote was bought by some large company.
  - dragonwriter 4y ago
    Yes, the people have primacy over the representative bodies, so usually a ballot measure can only be modified by a subsequent ballot measure. This one makes a special allowance for unilateral amendment, within certain bounds, by the legislature as well as being modifiable by a ballot measure (which can either be proposed by petition or by a simple majority of the legislature), and is therefore strictly (if only slightly) easier to modify than a normal ballot measure.
  - renewiltord 4y ago
    The purpose of these things is to overrule the representative legislature when it doesn't match the opinions of the people (who are the real legislators who have delegated power to the representatives). It would be foolish to permit your agents to overrule the principals. It is the sensible thing to do.
  - pianoben 4y ago
    Yeah, it's a high bar to clear, but they didn't have to include that in the proposition. If they hadn't, then legislature would be entirely unable to modify it. Think about that before getting all fired up about 7/8 - most ballot initiatives completely exempt themselves from legislative amendment. That's the default.
    - 4y ago
- yonran 4y ago
  Correction: 2020 Proposition 22 was an initiative statute that modified the Business and Professions Code (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpandedbranch.xhtml?tocCode=BPC&division=3.&title=&part=&chapter=10.5.&article= https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displayexpand...), not the California Constitution. And the clause that allowed amendments with 7/8 supermajority exists to make it easier to amend than if the clause did not exist, since by default initiatives can’t be modified by the legislature at all (Constitution Article II Sec 10(c) https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySection.xhtml?lawCode=CONS&sectionNum=SEC.%2010.&article=II https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/codes_displaySectio...)! It is common to choose a threshold above the known opposition (my earlier comment with more examples https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=28259306), and 7/8 is above the 73% that voted for AB5 (https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billVotesClient.xht...).
- dragonwriter 4y ago
  > Propositions amend the constitution of California. Initiate Constitutional Amendments do, Initiative Statutes do not. Prop 22 was an initiative statute, and as such did not amend the Constitution. Nevertheless, because the legislative power resides in the people first and is delegated by them to the legislature to the extent that they have not themselves exercised it, an initiative statute, while subordinate to the State Constitution, cannot usually be altered by the legislature (the legislature can propose changes, but they must be passed by the people.) But, OTOH, Prop 22, as you note, contains a provision allowing a legislative hypermajority to amend it, and so can, in fact, be altered by the legislature unilaterally. On the gripping hand, though, those unilateral alterations that the legislature can make are explicitly limited, and do not include making app-based drivers regular employees rather than contractors.
uoaei 4y ago
[flagged]
- SllX 4y ago
  > At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? Regularly and governments live and die on their ability to advertise their policies and propagate their message in a convincing fashion. There were plenty of us that didn’t need to be advertised to to put a bullet through AB5’s heart in a manner humiliating to the Bill’s chief sponsor despite the deficiencies in Prop 22 for getting the entire job done, so do you want to tell me why my vote should be nullified other than you disagree with the outcome? In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States.
  - oneplane 4y ago
    > In whichever way campaigning influenced the outcome, the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws of California and the United States. While that might be technically true in the absolutist way, bad things are still bad, even if it followed all the technicalities. If we play "the vote was the vote and the vote followed the laws" and it ends up making it mandatory for everyone to cut off their thumbs, do you really think the population would just go "oh well" and grab some pruners?
    - sokoloff 4y ago
      No, I’d expect that people would wake up, seek and gain a stay of the law, and repeal it in the next ballot measure cycle. (For the right price, I’d literally bet my own thumb on that being the outcome.)
    - SllX 4y ago
      We’re talking about the difference between W2s and 1099s, so I feel pretty good that my vote isn’t up there with literal bodily mutilation so you can put away the straw man; and if I thought AB5’s supporters and the “No” vote had the moral high ground, I wouldn’t have voted the way I did. I would in fact have voted the complete opposite of what I did, so keep that in mind. Do you want to try a different line of argument for why my vote should be nullified? There’s no “because someone on Hacker News thought it was bad“ exception in our democracy, so I’m kind of looking for something more here.
diceduckmonk 4y ago
> I find the article's headline misleading. I see Uber stock is up 6% pre-market. That suggests to me investors thinks Uber's liabilities are reduced as a result of this ruling.
- jvanderbot 4y ago
  The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own. Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.
  - MrDunham 4y ago
    So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing. It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it. Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight for something like that with the only real goal to boost their profits well another special interest fights against it to save theirs. Meanwhile, hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process.
    - brvsft 4y ago
      > hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.
      - wcarron 4y ago
        So... parasites. Burned sounds appropriate
      - PhasmaFelis 4y ago
        Which produces as much value, in human terms, as burning them. Possibly less. I think the metaphor stands.

thejackgoode 4y ago

Hope eventually it’ll be it’s own category. Contractors are not generally incentivized by UX patterns, gamification and bonus systems to work more.

Eumenes 4y ago
Navigating the bureaucracy of a corporation as a consultant certainly seems like gamification

unfairly4820 4y ago

California Labor Union Leader: "Our system is broken. It would be an understatement to say we are disappointed by this decision allowing companies to buy their way out of our state’s labor laws" Uber Executive: "Our system is working. We’re pleased that the court respected the will of the people by upholding a voter-approved law.”

wilg 4y ago
Is there some reason to suspect that there was corruption involved with this ruling? Or is this just general fearmongering?
- bagels 4y ago
  The buying was the money spent to ferociously promote prop 22, not paying off judges.
LastNevadan 4y ago
Breaking news: people with skin in the game talk their book. Full story at eleven!
sebzim4500 4y ago
Worth noting that the vast majority of the actual drivers agree wtih the Uber Executive here.
- josho 4y ago
  I imagine drivers prefer this because they saw the alternative was going back to being screwed over by the taxi companies. At least this way when they get screwed over by Uber they have a bit more say in when and how it’s being done and while that may be bad it is an improvement over what they had before. The reality is these drivers need some kind of guild or union because as it stands they are being taken advantage.

yieldcrv 4y ago

Isn't this debate largely a false dilemma? Its obvious to me that an additional category is prudent, or that people besides employees should have access to subsidized health care premiums and some form of paid sick leave. that doesnt have to come from the employer and that doesnt have to mean that worker flexibility is curbed. contractors can already do retirement benefits plans such as the 401k plan, running your own is far more flexible than an employee’s version its lazy to “solve” these gaps by reclassifying workers as employees it is also ridiculous that only giant corporations can lobby the people to get its own exemption passed to restore contractor status, other groups should have this power too. maybe an agency could put up comment periods for specific industries, removing this need from the legislature or proposition process round hole, square peg

midoridensha 4y ago
>or that people besides employees should have access to subsidized health care premiums and some form of paid sick leave. Or perhaps there should be a national health insurance that all citizens could have by default? Oh wait, this is the United States, so that'll never happen.
doktorhladnjak 4y ago
The UK has a “worker” [0] classification between employee and true independent contractor. It provides protections like minimum wage and time off while preserving freedom about when and how someone works. It seems like it would fit this case well, but I doubt it will ever happen. Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. [0] https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker https://www.gov.uk/employment-status/worker
- 3np 4y ago
  I initially found the choice of the word "worker" in the headline curious but with this context it makes sense coming from the BBC. Thanks.
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  > Unions are the major force pushing for gig workers to be classified as employees because they’d be able to unionize. What stops them unionising?

sourcecodeplz 4y ago

In Europe, you can't drive for Uber or deliver food without a standard work contract which includes: healthcare, pension, payroll and income taxes. Drivers here PAY private companies a weekly amount in order to work for Uber et all (to have that contract). Uber et all work with these companies only, not individuals.

alchemist1e9 4y ago
How does the prevalence and costs of Uber and food delivery in European cities compare to US cities? I don’t know myself, just wondering how this difference effects the end consumer.
- furyg3 4y ago
  Here in Amsterdam, the only drivers that are allowed to drive for Uber are licensed taxi drivers. They tried using scabs here but the city ended that pretty quickly.
- teetertater 4y ago
  Uber exists in Vienna but I've never found a reason to use it. Public transport is amazing, and the only time I would need a car (to the airport at night), taxis are cheaper
- concordDance 4y ago
  User costs the same as old taxis where I live and there's no reason to use it.
  - rekoil 4y ago
    Well the apps are better, but that's about it for incentives to use Uber/Bolt.
- a012 4y ago
  My view from a few times in Europe is, public transport is preferred during the day, but if you want to go out late in the evening ride sharing and/or taxi are way more convenient because there would be limited train/bus working.

TulliusCicero 4y ago

Gig workers aren't quite contractors and aren't quite employees. Maybe need a third class of worker.

xyst 4y ago
“Hustler” economy
- nxm 4y ago
  Better than unemployed all together
  - josho 4y ago
    [flagged]
chii 4y ago
But what properties and laws would apply to this class of worker?
- kwhitefoot 4y ago
  The general rule in Europe is that "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we treat it like a duck." That is employment and tax authorities don't care what your and your employer call yourselves but they do care about the conditions under which you work. In the UK, for instance, if you are a contractor you can send someone else in your stead to do the work, if you are an employee you obviously can't. So that alone can distinguish between real contractors and actual employees. I'm not a lawyer so take all this with the necessary quantities of salt.
  - deleted 4y ago
    [deleted]
  - throwawaythrow1 4y ago
    IR35 is a ridiculous law. "If it walks like a duck, and quacks like a duck, then we treat it like a duck." I can walk and quack rather convincingly like a duck, but I'm not a duck and any casual observer would agree. The metaphor provided puts the emphasis on the behaviour of the individual, whereas the behaviour of the hirer/employer is rarely considered... For example, can the contractor be promoted? Can they be given a disciplinary procedure with Union representation? If the contractor has an accident, does the insurance of the company pay for it or does the insurance of the contractor pay for it? Does the contractor have protections from bullying and discrimination?

bell-cot 4y ago

Daydream: "In an unrelated move, the Governor of California announced that, in order to reinforce the independence of the Judiciary - 'one of the sacred foundation stones of our democracy' - all Judges in California would henceforth be reclassified as contractors. Governor Newsom admitted that there would be some short-term administrative costs in making this change, but insisted that the longer-term cost savings would more than make up for..."

user3939382 4y ago

Our government, and large swaths of the media, is owned by banks and corporations. The vestiges of the pre-industrial democracy we had persist as a sham to keep the electorate’s consent for and compliance with this system. Uber and Lyft are not people and shouldn’t have been permitted to spend $1 on this campaign nor towards the campaign of any politician. Unfortunately it won’t be until bread is $30/loaf that the public will wake up to what’s going on.

marcinzm 4y ago
>pre-industrial democracy You have a very rose tinted view of how democracy was in the past or who actually made decisions.
- user3939382 4y ago
  It wasn't perfect but it existed. Calling it rose-colored is to downplay how bad it's gotten. The complex of multinational corporations and their lobby groups that run our government today didn't exist then, the e.g. railroad companies are no comparison.
  - cool_dude85 4y ago
    It existed - if you were a White man. Nice work if you can get it.
  - mrguyorama 4y ago
    My brother in christ, this country LITERALLY started as a bunch of rich white dudes stirring shit up to get essentially their own self designed government where only wealthy white dudes could have a say and black people were not even allowed to be considered people. The fact that a couple of them had some ideals and there were handwavy references to those ideals does not change that America was not a democracy for a very long time, with reasonable arguments that it still isn't
  - marcinzm 4y ago
    The US was founded by a bunch of rich white men who mostly inherited their wealth and literally owned other human beings. A lot of the government structures were explicitly designed to prevent the masses from having too much of a direct voice as they couldn't be "trusted." Electoral college to override a "bad" popular vote (not that most states did popular votes), senators not chosen by direct election, etc. edit: Not to mention the US had an actual horrible bloody civil war fought by forcefully drafted soldiers due to conflicts over government processes. Truly a staller example of democratic decision making right there.

ChicagoDave 4y ago

Everyone seems to forget or disregard the fact that these lawsuits are paid for by the taxi industry. Even when they dig up a few Uber drivers, it’s all a sham. 70% of surveyed rideshare drivers prefer to be independent contractors. If there was a serious majority for employment, Uber and Lyft simply wouldn’t exist.

mdorazio 4y ago
Surveyed by whom and how was the question asked?
- Spivak 4y ago
  [flagged]
  - jdminhbg 4y ago
    It’s possible that Uber and Lyft drivers are simply not dumb enough to believe that the legislature is going to magically conjure a 401k match and PTO for their 10 hour/week driving side gig.
    - cool_dude85 4y ago
      In other countries, working at McDonalds you get pension time (better, I'd say, than any 401k match) and more weeks of PTO than most Americans do. These rights were "magically conjured" either by the legislature or labor action.
      - jdminhbg 4y ago
        You can get that at fast food places or corporate coffee chains in the US as well. What you can’t get is PTO for working 10 hours a week whenever you feel like it.
        Spivak 4y ago

mydriasis 4y ago

What does this mean for the average Uber or Lyft driver? How does their quality of life or employment change as a result, generally? I'm not well-acquainted with this kind of stuff.

throwawaymaths 4y ago
Used to be a Lyft driver:. By changing status, it would be possible for Lyft/Uber to restrict drivers from being on the other platform simultaneously. This means probably a takehome drop of 20~30%. The truly egregious one though is FedEx/Amazon drivers, who (IIRC) are "contractors" and forced to use branded vehicles, wear uniforms, and have their driving monitored like crazy. They are definitely employees, and are ruining it for Lyft drivers.
- mydriasis 4y ago
  Yuck, that all sounds terrible!

ar9av 4y ago

But their pay directly scales with the amount being charged to the customer. Let's say that I am a driver classified as an employee. I give a one hour ride at 8PM and the customer is charged $100 - I will make my hourly wage (let's say $18). Now, let's say I give that same ride at 8AM during rush hour. Uber surge is 3x and the customer is charged $300 - I still make $18 for that trip. Uber and Lyft drivers now pay a percentage back to the platform but their profit or loss is directly tied to customer payment amounts.

bena 4y ago
Now let's say that the pay structure isn't a flat dollars for hours. It's entirely possible to have a base of $18/hr with a commission based on the value of the ride once it's over a certain amount. Lots of places do similar things.

BurningFrog 4y ago

The reality is that gig workers fit in neither of the legacy regulatory categories ("employee" or "contractor"). I expect we'll spend a few destructive decades thrashing around before legal systems have adapted to this invention.

jedberg 4y ago
This right here is the key that is missing. We need a new category of worker that's 1/2 way between, OR we need to have universal healthcare and a better social safety net. The main argument here is if the company has to provide benefits, sick leave, etc. If benefits were provided for everyone by default, it wouldn't matter.
- tadfisher 4y ago
  Here's an idea: outlaw employer-provided health plans.
  - hellojesus 4y ago
    This would solve so much. Almost unreasonably so. It pains me to have to disallow companies from making a private transaction, but it seems to be it would benefit everyone much more than universal Healthcare.
chrisbolt 4y ago
If they’re not an employee, how are they not a contractor? What third thing is missing?
- stonogo 4y ago
  Contractors with an app
- BurningFrog 4y ago
  Probably the biggest novelty is that they work whenever they want. A gig worker can work 0 or 80 hours a week, and not ask for permission either way.

xwdv 4y ago

Good for the drivers, good for the customers, good for Uber, bad for the heavily entrenched taxi industries.

mrguyorama 4y ago
Ah yes, clearly the very local and independent (from each other) taxi companies were the big evil corporations instead of (checks notes) the giant multinational funded by literal blood money from oil barons that openly flouted laws and had an internal team dedicated to writing systems to mislead law enforcement.

singeezie 4y ago

My brother and I are both Uber drivers. and i am totaling fighting him at the dinner table cuz…. for me, being contractor brings me so much needed things likeflexible hours and able to get surge extra pay, and write off things, so just no other way. But brother really wanted full time hours w/ health insurance and most importantly if injured or let go, he gets compensation and unemployment. TO EaCH his own!!!

Jochim 4y ago
Maybe it's different where you are but I'm not aware of any restrictions on the flexibility of working hours or pay when you're classified as an employee. The substantial difference is you'd accrue holiday pay pro-rata and be able to take statutory sick leave.
- throwaway56960 4y ago
  Employees in Europe have to have fixed amount of hours in predictable schedule. There's no way it could be the same. It definitely would outclass many workers who would like to earn side income.