6 ms·

California companies wrote their own gig worker law. Now no one is enforcing it

83 points by agiacalone 2y ago

yieldcrv 2y ago
AB5 is the issue and creature of the legislature, Prop 22 is a patch by unrelated corporate parties seeking an exemption who got citizens to pass it Its a confusing distortion and mess to a labor market that really needs a third categorization Classifying independent contractors as employees just so you can extend corporate health insurance to them is lazy and patronizing, not to rehash an old debate but not everyone is a victim or aspires to be an employee. and now this mess about how to enforce labor violations on Prop 22 gig workers? repeal AB5 in its entirety and come up with something more holistic
- bsder 2y ago
  Prop 22 was passed by Lyft and Uber blackmailing a whole bunch of people at the height of Covid whose only income at the time was ridesharing. Those people are now gone, ridesharing is the race to the bottom that everybody predicted, but now we're stuck with a shitty proposition. And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. AB5 wasn't great, but it would have been amended and updated because California actually has a functional legislature. Instead, Prop 22 froze the process in amber and now everybody gets the garbage fallout. Blast Prop 22 into atoms, and AB5 can be adjusted properly. In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. But, hey, as long as you have a couple billion in cash, you get to make your own laws. Ain't "disruption" grand?
  - starik36 2y ago
    > California actually has a functional legislature You must be new here. There are homeless literally everywhere in LA and somehow "California actually has a functional legislature". A small example of dysfunction. You are living in a fantasy world. AB5 was a massively blunt tool that overreached and messed with businesses and individuals that had zero to do with ride sharing. Prop 22 undid small portion of it, where in reality, the law needs to be repealed in its entirety and rethought with an eye to future and potential unintended fallout.
    - badprose 2y ago
      I don't see how having homeless people everywhere in LA and SF is related to whether they have a functional legislature. Is there some law that California could pass to solve homelessness and they're just too dysfunctional to do so?
      - starik36 2y ago
        If the legislature focused on passing thoughtful laws and not feel good nonsense designed to appease their base, we might get somewhere. But specifically to homelessness, obviously no easy solutions since the problem has been allowed to go from bad to worse and more. But how about enforcing existing laws. The governor made a big deal about enforcing the law about clearing out the homeless from under the freeway bridges and some other public places, where it was getting out of hand. The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back. This is a specific example of feel good nonsense with zero follow through. But the main problem is the endless funding for the homeless problem. In LA alone, the state has spent $6.5 billion in the last 10 years (number has been increasing over the years). This means, every year there is roughly $650 million to be doled out between businesses, local governments, activists, etc... Given that more homelessness results in more money to all these organizations, you would be hard pressed to ask them to actually solve the problem that feeds them. This problem is on the legislature.
        consumer451 2y ago
        Can you give an example of a set of laws that would solve homelessness?
        mullingitover 2y ago
        Short term emergency solution: Take the massive amount money that's being used in a wildly inefficient manner on token permanent supportive housing projects and instead shelter 100% of people on the street. Treat it as an emergency on par with Covid and target 90 days to get everyone off the street. Enforce bans on street camping 100% after shelter is guaranteed statewide. Long term: Amend the state constitution to defang the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Commission with regard to new housing development - Amend the state constitution to punitively remove local zoning privileges for 10 years on the first offense, permanently on the second, for any region that fails to have its housing element plan approved.
  - vsuperpower2021 2y ago
    Who could they possibly have blackmailed? Voters wanted it, because like you said, there were flyers and popups everywhere and people just vote for whatever has the biggest advertising budget. That's democracy for you.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. It’s even more fascinating that said amendment only exempted gig economy works, which AB5 was crafted to specifically reign in - whole codifying a surprise 2018 court ruling for easier compliance. Its still worth nothing that the legislature itself has also exempted many other trades since then. And the 9th circuit just ruled that this doesnt violate the 14th amendment to exclude them. So AB5, AB2257, Prop 22 are all constitutional and in force. I would like to see push notifications role in political outcomes more regulated. I would like to see the 2018 case overturned if thats whats necessary to re-evaluate what AB5 aimed. The same simple majority of California citizens can do that.
    - diebeforei485 2y ago
      > Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. How is it different from sending texts? Texts are also very cheap: https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/
      - yieldcrv 2y ago
        Push notifications partially use your own server and apps stand out more than a spammy sms
        diebeforei485 2y ago
        > partially use your own server I don't see the significance of this, but you can go on Amazon's console and type in a message to send just like with SMS'es. But I don't see how this makes a difference. > and apps stand out more than a spammy sms I'm not sure this is the case. App notifications are typically stacked behind each other under a long list of notifications on the home screen, while SMS's are shown prominently in the same texting app that people use to text their friends and family. Texts are also read out by Siri automatically while using headphones or while connected to a car, which is not true of push notifications.
  - freeone3000 2y ago
    > In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. I’m going to strongly disagree here, and say speech about an upcoming ballot proposal is absolutely political speech and enjoys first-amendment protections.
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    > And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. I have never understood this argument. I know it's one of Lorena Gonzalez's talking points, but it makes no sense. The legislature and the judiciary are part of a system of checks and balances. If a court makes a decision we don't like, we pass legislation to change the statute that the court used to make its decision. Case in point: when the courts ruled that UC Berkeley are pollution (due to noise impact), we amended CEQA to say that people shall not be considered pollution: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 Instead of changing the statute upon which the court's decision was based on, what AB5 did was make it even worse than what the court ordered. There were all sorts of exemptions as hand-outs to favored political groups.
- gottorf 2y ago
  > just so you can extend corporate health insurance to them Besides, the true culprit to this is the WW2-era price controls on wages which made it so that non-wage benefits, like providing health insurance, were not taxable. In the end this has multiple undesirable effects: it tightly couples employment with health insurance coverage, which employers like as an additional barrier to the free movement of labor, and it decouples the cost of health insurance from the actual consumer, which healthcare executives like as an additional layer of obfuscation on an already complicated process. In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?), but perhaps more realistically we can stop this separate tax treatment, stop bundling healthcare with employment, and just pay people the difference. Employees can shop around for coverage independently and there will be a market force to drive those prices down.
  - yieldcrv 2y ago
    > and there will be a market force to drive those prices down unfortunately, more needs to happen for that to occur the in-vogue approach is for large market participants, like Medicare and the VA to be able to negotiate prices with insurance companies. Some very insidiously clever law restricted those state plans from being able to negotiate, not only removing a market force but creating a massive distortion to support overcharging, and this has only recently been addressed and repaired
  - randomdata 2y ago
    > In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?) In an ideal world employment wouldn't exist, so employment taxes are moot anyway. In this less than ideal world, though, discouragement is the point. Generally speaking, the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. Employment is not the ideal state. The tax works[1] to see that energy only be redirected to employment where the usage of it is so compelling that it is still worth doing over and above the tax burden. [1] Or at least tries to. In our less than ideal world implementations often fail.
    - gottorf 2y ago
roughly 2y ago
The gig work companies spent $200M pushing Prop 22, if you were curious how profitable that business model has been and how much money isn’t making its way to the people who aren’t their employees. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)#Campaign_finance https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based... If anyone had any notion at all that any part of Prop 22 was going to work out for the workers, all I can say is keep that starry-eyed naivety, because the world’s a cold place and we could use some optimists, I guess.
- mullingitover 2y ago
  It's sort of elitist to essentially say, "There was a well funded campaign for a ballot measure, and voters are too hopelessly stupid to see past it and make their own decisions." I voted for it because I thought AB4 was a badly written law and the legislature needed to be chastised. I'd vote for it again. As another commenter pointed out here, AB4 was a mess that threatened to disrupt a large number of people's livelihoods.
  - pdoege 2y ago
    Did you miss quote the OP?
    - mullingitover 2y ago
      Not quoting OP directly, just commenting on the oft-used trope ('the votes were bought!') used to attack the measure's legitimacy.
      - carapace 2y ago
        Why do you think they spent $200M?
        JKCalhoun 2y ago
        Good point. Whether $200M bought any votes, it's telling that corporate CA thought it was worth that.
deepsun 2y ago
I remember talking to a Lyft driver who was persuaded that being an employee means working fixed shifts. Nice job by Uber/Lyft to plant that idea in people's minds! https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/flexibleschedules https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/flexibleschedule...
- consumer451 2y ago
  We are all easily programmed meat machines, myself included. Anyone who believes otherwise is just plain unaware.
- Jensson 2y ago
  It does mean you can no longer choose when to work, it doesn't mean fixed shifts but it means you can't drive whenever you want since now they have obligations towards you even when you aren't making them any money. Other jobs where you can do work whenever flexible shifts are fine, but that doesn't apply to taxi driving since there work aren't available everywhere at all times, you have to follow schedules to follow the demand since now the company has to pay you even when you don't have a passenger around.
  - deepsun 2y ago
    So? Restaurants have to pay money to waiters even when there are no customers. It doesn't mean waiters can not be employees. They _must_ be employees. By the way, restaurants (except for few good ones, like Zazie in SF) don't pay minimum wages by offsetting it with tips. But if employee reports less tips than minimum wage for the same hours, the employer must pay the difference to bump it to minimum wage anyway.
    - Jcowell 2y ago
      But it is the difference of being able to turn on the app and choose when you want and don’t want to drive vs having to work in a time box that might or might no convent for you. A waiter cannot decide to not work one day without getting approval from their bosses/managers
glzone1 2y ago
AB5 was tough on a lot of groups nonprofits included. They're are now so many exceptions to AB5 because on a principles basis it was very difficult things to work - for example, getting a gig musician playing music for an hour at a bar to be an employee of of the bar was too much of a headache. Another common struggle was anyone getting paid flat sums under 1099's for things that involved thinking / writing - say you wanted to have some people give talks / present a paper at your "thoughts and talks" thing. No one wanted to keep timesheets or pay for time sitting on the toilet thinking of the talk. Now of course there are tons of exceptions, but the way they are worded are going to be landmines for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised to see more exceptions work their way into the law over time but cleanups / simplification I think likely too hard.
jameslk 2y ago
AB5 was a stupidly blunt law that had so many carve-outs for arbitrary professions. I remember being a software developer contractor in California at the time worrying about whether I'd get fired from contracts because of that law. Prop 22 ultimately left the parts of AB5 that screwed over everyone but the intended targets (ride share companies). I'm sure there's many who will claim Prop 22 was solely voted in because the ride share companies badgered all their gig workers to vote it in. This is likely true to an extent, but AB5 also presented a real existential threat to many gig workers (and contractors in general such as myself): as employees, no longer could we write off business expenses against our taxes. For ride share drivers, this would be wear and tear on their vehicle, repairs, gas mileage, insurance, phone/cell service, and plenty of other things they have to pay for as their own business. And it's definitely not something the ride share companies would of started paying for either. The incentive for the state made plenty of sense though: they could finally collect state unemployment taxes and do away with the business expense tax write offs.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  There were all sorts of weird things in AB5. Truck drivers were treated differently if they delivering milk vs delivering juice. It was a ridiculous law.
treebeard901 2y ago
Selective enforcement of the law is a major problem in our system of Government. It is a widespread problem and a major source of corruption and bribery. In a sense the only laws that exist are the ones that someone is willing to enforce. Often then the highest bidder or the ones who have financial leverage over an agency, judicial member or law enforcement agent. Maybe a company or person donated to a local DA or a Judge. Maybe someone is getting a kickback for enforcing the law against a competitor but not you. It extends beyond business law and regulations into criminal law as well. It's possible to be accused of a crime with no statute of limitations in the United States and then investigated your entire life where the investigation itself is used to punish you and take your life away. All because it was claimed you broke a law. Which enables an endless investigation to be started basically removing any rights you have. The Government can then say you do not have a Constitutional right to be charged if accused of a crime. Then maybe the DA decides to prosecute someone else for the same accused crime. There are endless examples and excuses. DAs and police will say they have to prioritize cases. Agencies will say they can only enforce laws and regulations on certain people due to resources. Behind the scenes though, that priority is usually driven by financial interests. Everything is about money.
insane_dreamer 2y ago
If there's no mechanism for enforcement of a new regulation, then those regulations are useless. Whereas as employees gig workers would fall under existing long-standing mechanisms for enforcement (including labor law suits -- nothing gets a company making changes like those). This is why gig companies spent $$$$ to defeat that law. I thought this was telling as to the lies that these gig companies spew: > Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.

83 points by agiacalone 2y ago

AB5 is the issue and creature of the legislature, Prop 22 is a patch by unrelated corporate parties seeking an exemption who got citizens to pass it Its a confusing distortion and mess to a labor market that really needs a third categorization Classifying independent contractors as employees just so you can extend corporate health insurance to them is lazy and patronizing, not to rehash an old debate but not everyone is a victim or aspires to be an employee. and now this mess about how to enforce labor violations on Prop 22 gig workers? repeal AB5 in its entirety and come up with something more holistic

bsder 2y ago
Prop 22 was passed by Lyft and Uber blackmailing a whole bunch of people at the height of Covid whose only income at the time was ridesharing. Those people are now gone, ridesharing is the race to the bottom that everybody predicted, but now we're stuck with a shitty proposition. And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. AB5 wasn't great, but it would have been amended and updated because California actually has a functional legislature. Instead, Prop 22 froze the process in amber and now everybody gets the garbage fallout. Blast Prop 22 into atoms, and AB5 can be adjusted properly. In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. But, hey, as long as you have a couple billion in cash, you get to make your own laws. Ain't "disruption" grand?
- starik36 2y ago
  > California actually has a functional legislature You must be new here. There are homeless literally everywhere in LA and somehow "California actually has a functional legislature". A small example of dysfunction. You are living in a fantasy world. AB5 was a massively blunt tool that overreached and messed with businesses and individuals that had zero to do with ride sharing. Prop 22 undid small portion of it, where in reality, the law needs to be repealed in its entirety and rethought with an eye to future and potential unintended fallout.
  - badprose 2y ago
    I don't see how having homeless people everywhere in LA and SF is related to whether they have a functional legislature. Is there some law that California could pass to solve homelessness and they're just too dysfunctional to do so?
    - starik36 2y ago
      If the legislature focused on passing thoughtful laws and not feel good nonsense designed to appease their base, we might get somewhere. But specifically to homelessness, obviously no easy solutions since the problem has been allowed to go from bad to worse and more. But how about enforcing existing laws. The governor made a big deal about enforcing the law about clearing out the homeless from under the freeway bridges and some other public places, where it was getting out of hand. The media came, he had his publicity shot, the cops cleared out the homeless. Mission accomplished... and a week later, the homeless are back. This is a specific example of feel good nonsense with zero follow through. But the main problem is the endless funding for the homeless problem. In LA alone, the state has spent $6.5 billion in the last 10 years (number has been increasing over the years). This means, every year there is roughly $650 million to be doled out between businesses, local governments, activists, etc... Given that more homelessness results in more money to all these organizations, you would be hard pressed to ask them to actually solve the problem that feeds them. This problem is on the legislature.
      - consumer451 2y ago
        Can you give an example of a set of laws that would solve homelessness?
        mullingitover 2y ago
        Short term emergency solution: Take the massive amount money that's being used in a wildly inefficient manner on token permanent supportive housing projects and instead shelter 100% of people on the street. Treat it as an emergency on par with Covid and target 90 days to get everyone off the street. Enforce bans on street camping 100% after shelter is guaranteed statewide. Long term: Amend the state constitution to defang the California Environmental Quality Act and the Coastal Commission with regard to new housing development - Amend the state constitution to punitively remove local zoning privileges for 10 years on the first offense, permanently on the second, for any region that fails to have its housing element plan approved.
- vsuperpower2021 2y ago
  Who could they possibly have blackmailed? Voters wanted it, because like you said, there were flyers and popups everywhere and people just vote for whatever has the biggest advertising budget. That's democracy for you.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. It’s even more fascinating that said amendment only exempted gig economy works, which AB5 was crafted to specifically reign in - whole codifying a surprise 2018 court ruling for easier compliance. Its still worth nothing that the legislature itself has also exempted many other trades since then. And the 9th circuit just ruled that this doesnt violate the 14th amendment to exclude them. So AB5, AB2257, Prop 22 are all constitutional and in force. I would like to see push notifications role in political outcomes more regulated. I would like to see the 2018 case overturned if thats whats necessary to re-evaluate what AB5 aimed. The same simple majority of California citizens can do that.
  - diebeforei485 2y ago
    > Yes, using push notifications in their own apps to all of California to pass a state statutory initiative was a fascinating and impressive use of power. Low cost for them too. How is it different from sending texts? Texts are also very cheap: https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/ https://aws.amazon.com/sns/sms-pricing/
    - yieldcrv 2y ago
      Push notifications partially use your own server and apps stand out more than a spammy sms
      - diebeforei485 2y ago
        > partially use your own server I don't see the significance of this, but you can go on Amazon's console and type in a message to send just like with SMS'es. But I don't see how this makes a difference. > and apps stand out more than a spammy sms I'm not sure this is the case. App notifications are typically stacked behind each other under a long list of notifications on the home screen, while SMS's are shown prominently in the same texting app that people use to text their friends and family. Texts are also read out by Siri automatically while using headphones or while connected to a car, which is not true of push notifications.
- freeone3000 2y ago
  > In addition, I got tons of political crap pushed to my phone about Prop 22 by the apps and Uber and Lyft should have been fined through the nose for doing so. I’m going to strongly disagree here, and say speech about an upcoming ballot proposal is absolutely political speech and enjoys first-amendment protections.
- diebeforei485 2y ago
  > And what you are quite conveniently omitting is that AB5 was a reaction to a court case (and it wasn't even about ridesharing!) that sent people scrambling. I have never understood this argument. I know it's one of Lorena Gonzalez's talking points, but it makes no sense. The legislature and the judiciary are part of a system of checks and balances. If a court makes a decision we don't like, we pass legislation to change the statute that the court used to make its decision. Case in point: when the courts ruled that UC Berkeley are pollution (due to noise impact), we amended CEQA to say that people shall not be considered pollution: https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB1307/id/2814718 Instead of changing the statute upon which the court's decision was based on, what AB5 did was make it even worse than what the court ordered. There were all sorts of exemptions as hand-outs to favored political groups.
gottorf 2y ago
> just so you can extend corporate health insurance to them Besides, the true culprit to this is the WW2-era price controls on wages which made it so that non-wage benefits, like providing health insurance, were not taxable. In the end this has multiple undesirable effects: it tightly couples employment with health insurance coverage, which employers like as an additional barrier to the free movement of labor, and it decouples the cost of health insurance from the actual consumer, which healthcare executives like as an additional layer of obfuscation on an already complicated process. In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?), but perhaps more realistically we can stop this separate tax treatment, stop bundling healthcare with employment, and just pay people the difference. Employees can shop around for coverage independently and there will be a market force to drive those prices down.
- yieldcrv 2y ago
  > and there will be a market force to drive those prices down unfortunately, more needs to happen for that to occur the in-vogue approach is for large market participants, like Medicare and the VA to be able to negotiate prices with insurance companies. Some very insidiously clever law restricted those state plans from being able to negotiate, not only removing a market force but creating a massive distortion to support overcharging, and this has only recently been addressed and repaired
- randomdata 2y ago
  > In an ideal world "employment taxes" wouldn't exist at all (after all, don't taxes discourage the thing being taxed?) In an ideal world employment wouldn't exist, so employment taxes are moot anyway. In this less than ideal world, though, discouragement is the point. Generally speaking, the energy would be better utilized elsewhere. Employment is not the ideal state. The tax works[1] to see that energy only be redirected to employment where the usage of it is so compelling that it is still worth doing over and above the tax burden. [1] Or at least tries to. In our less than ideal world implementations often fail.
  - gottorf 2y ago

roughly 2y ago

The gig work companies spent $200M pushing Prop 22, if you were curious how profitable that business model has been and how much money isn’t making its way to the people who aren’t their employees. https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020)#Campaign_finance https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based... If anyone had any notion at all that any part of Prop 22 was going to work out for the workers, all I can say is keep that starry-eyed naivety, because the world’s a cold place and we could use some optimists, I guess.

mullingitover 2y ago
It's sort of elitist to essentially say, "There was a well funded campaign for a ballot measure, and voters are too hopelessly stupid to see past it and make their own decisions." I voted for it because I thought AB4 was a badly written law and the legislature needed to be chastised. I'd vote for it again. As another commenter pointed out here, AB4 was a mess that threatened to disrupt a large number of people's livelihoods.
- pdoege 2y ago
  Did you miss quote the OP?
  - mullingitover 2y ago
    Not quoting OP directly, just commenting on the oft-used trope ('the votes were bought!') used to attack the measure's legitimacy.
    - carapace 2y ago
      Why do you think they spent $200M?
      - JKCalhoun 2y ago
        Good point. Whether $200M bought any votes, it's telling that corporate CA thought it was worth that.

deepsun 2y ago

I remember talking to a Lyft driver who was persuaded that being an employee means working fixed shifts. Nice job by Uber/Lyft to plant that idea in people's minds! https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/flexibleschedules https://www.dol.gov/general/topic/workhours/flexibleschedule...

consumer451 2y ago
We are all easily programmed meat machines, myself included. Anyone who believes otherwise is just plain unaware.
Jensson 2y ago
It does mean you can no longer choose when to work, it doesn't mean fixed shifts but it means you can't drive whenever you want since now they have obligations towards you even when you aren't making them any money. Other jobs where you can do work whenever flexible shifts are fine, but that doesn't apply to taxi driving since there work aren't available everywhere at all times, you have to follow schedules to follow the demand since now the company has to pay you even when you don't have a passenger around.
- deepsun 2y ago
  So? Restaurants have to pay money to waiters even when there are no customers. It doesn't mean waiters can not be employees. They _must_ be employees. By the way, restaurants (except for few good ones, like Zazie in SF) don't pay minimum wages by offsetting it with tips. But if employee reports less tips than minimum wage for the same hours, the employer must pay the difference to bump it to minimum wage anyway.
  - Jcowell 2y ago
    But it is the difference of being able to turn on the app and choose when you want and don’t want to drive vs having to work in a time box that might or might no convent for you. A waiter cannot decide to not work one day without getting approval from their bosses/managers

glzone1 2y ago

AB5 was tough on a lot of groups nonprofits included. They're are now so many exceptions to AB5 because on a principles basis it was very difficult things to work - for example, getting a gig musician playing music for an hour at a bar to be an employee of of the bar was too much of a headache. Another common struggle was anyone getting paid flat sums under 1099's for things that involved thinking / writing - say you wanted to have some people give talks / present a paper at your "thoughts and talks" thing. No one wanted to keep timesheets or pay for time sitting on the toilet thinking of the talk. Now of course there are tons of exceptions, but the way they are worded are going to be landmines for everyone. I wouldn't be surprised to see more exceptions work their way into the law over time but cleanups / simplification I think likely too hard.

jameslk 2y ago

AB5 was a stupidly blunt law that had so many carve-outs for arbitrary professions. I remember being a software developer contractor in California at the time worrying about whether I'd get fired from contracts because of that law. Prop 22 ultimately left the parts of AB5 that screwed over everyone but the intended targets (ride share companies). I'm sure there's many who will claim Prop 22 was solely voted in because the ride share companies badgered all their gig workers to vote it in. This is likely true to an extent, but AB5 also presented a real existential threat to many gig workers (and contractors in general such as myself): as employees, no longer could we write off business expenses against our taxes. For ride share drivers, this would be wear and tear on their vehicle, repairs, gas mileage, insurance, phone/cell service, and plenty of other things they have to pay for as their own business. And it's definitely not something the ride share companies would of started paying for either. The incentive for the state made plenty of sense though: they could finally collect state unemployment taxes and do away with the business expense tax write offs.

diebeforei485 2y ago
There were all sorts of weird things in AB5. Truck drivers were treated differently if they delivering milk vs delivering juice. It was a ridiculous law.

treebeard901 2y ago

Selective enforcement of the law is a major problem in our system of Government. It is a widespread problem and a major source of corruption and bribery. In a sense the only laws that exist are the ones that someone is willing to enforce. Often then the highest bidder or the ones who have financial leverage over an agency, judicial member or law enforcement agent. Maybe a company or person donated to a local DA or a Judge. Maybe someone is getting a kickback for enforcing the law against a competitor but not you. It extends beyond business law and regulations into criminal law as well. It's possible to be accused of a crime with no statute of limitations in the United States and then investigated your entire life where the investigation itself is used to punish you and take your life away. All because it was claimed you broke a law. Which enables an endless investigation to be started basically removing any rights you have. The Government can then say you do not have a Constitutional right to be charged if accused of a crime. Then maybe the DA decides to prosecute someone else for the same accused crime. There are endless examples and excuses. DAs and police will say they have to prioritize cases. Agencies will say they can only enforce laws and regulations on certain people due to resources. Behind the scenes though, that priority is usually driven by financial interests. Everything is about money.

insane_dreamer 2y ago

If there's no mechanism for enforcement of a new regulation, then those regulations are useless. Whereas as employees gig workers would fall under existing long-standing mechanisms for enforcement (including labor law suits -- nothing gets a company making changes like those). This is why gig companies spent $$$$ to defeat that law. I thought this was telling as to the lies that these gig companies spew: > Gig companies have said that, due in part to the initiative’s earnings guarantee, workers now make more than $30 an hour. But a May study by the UC Berkeley Labor Center found that, for California ride-hailing drivers, average earnings after expenses, not including tips, is about $7.12 an hour, and for delivery workers, $5.93. With tips, drivers’ average hourly earnings are $9.09 an hour, and $13.62 for delivery workers, the study found.