California Bill Makes App-Based Companies Treat Workers as Employees

[ZiprHead]

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/11/technology/california-gig-economy-bill.html

California legislators approved a landmark bill on Tuesday that requires companies like Uber and Lyft to treat contract workers as employees, a move that could reshape the gig economy and that adds fuel to a yearslong debate over whether the nature of work has become too insecure.

The bill passed in a 29 to 11 vote in the State Senate and will apply to app-based companies, despite their efforts to negotiate an exemption. California’s governor, Gavin Newsom, endorsed the bill this month and is expected to sign it after it goes through the State Assembly, in what is expected to be a formality. Under the measure, which would go into effect Jan. 1, workers must be designated as employees instead of contractors if a company exerts control over how they perform their tasks or if their work is part of a company’s regular business.

 

[ZiprHead]

And to add some perspective...

Uber co-founder buys record-breaking LA mansion for $72.5m as drivers fight for wages

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

But if they have to pay their workers like actual employees, they'll become even more unprofitable. Won't anyone think of the shareholders?!

 

[Metaphor]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

 

[prideandfall]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

and if so, one would certainly hope that the consumer response to uber is to abandon it, and the company goes out of business quickly.

IMO if your business model is incapable of incorporating having employees and treating them well with decent working conditions and a livable wage, you simply have no right to be in business.
i'm quite tired of the cultural expectation that the moral responsibility is on the public to guarantee corporate profits, as opposed to being on a company for being a business worth investing in (either directly or as a customer).

 

[Trausti]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

and if so, one would certainly hope that the consumer response to uber is to abandon it, and the company goes out of business quickly.

IMO if your business model is incapable of incorporating having employees and treating them well with decent working conditions and a livable wage, you simply have no right to be in business.
i'm quite tired of the cultural expectation that the moral responsibility is on the public to guarantee corporate profits, as opposed to being on a company for being a business worth investing in (either directly or as a customer).

Oh come one. The benefit of jobs like Uber is that you're not an employee. Work when you want. Some people use this to supplement their income. Why does government have to interfere? This virtue-signaling will deny many people their extra income.

 

[Loren Pechtel]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

Actually, I expect many of the gig jobs will disappear in California because of this.

 

[prideandfall]

The benefit of jobs like Uber is that you're not an employee.

this is not a benefit in the abstract sense, and i doubt very much that there are many people who use it to "supplement their income" that are doing it for fun and profit and not out of desperation - a desperation born of the fact that so very many jobs (uber included) don't pay a livable wage.

Why does government have to interfere? This virtue-signaling will deny many people their extra income.

the government has to "interfere" because it's the job of government to prevent the haves from extorting the lives of the have-nots - that's the very foundation of the social contract upon which all of civilization depends: some people get to have a lot, and in exchange for not being murdered in the fucking face and having all their shit taken, the teeming masses who don't get a lot get enough to get by comfortably and happily.

the problem is that the haves are too fucking stupid to get this concept and so blithely exert their power to the ruination of everyone else, and the only two possible outcomes of that are the government steps in and regulates it, or we start cutting rich people's heads off in the streets.

this is why, as a moderately well off land owning white male, i never object to large portions of my earnings being taxed so long as it's going towards the stability of society (ie, social safety nets and helping those who can't manage on their own) because i'd be in the first batch or two up against the wall when the revolution comes, so i'd rather take steps to avoid that ever happening.

 

[James Brown]

I agree with Trausti. I drove for Uber and Lyft for about a year to supplement my income, and one of the huge advantages was that I could work whenever I wanted for as long as I wanted.

But it became clear to me that it was no way to make money. Ride-sharing suffers from what economists call "Low Barriers to Entry." Just about anyone with a decent car can do it, so it's easy for people to start. The work gets spread around more and more drivers, so each one earns less and less. There were many evenings where I would sit in a parking lot for a couple of hours waiting for a ride alert.

Granted, more and more people are using Uber as the idea of "get in a car with a stranger" becomes more acceptable. So it's a matter of competing growth rates. Which will rise faster, the number of customers or the number of drivers. The answer will be a factor in the driver's earning potential.

I stopped driving for ride-sharers because after a year it became clear that I was being taken advantage of. The percentage of a fare that I received gradually declined due to various accounting tricks. Also, as more people were using Uber more frequently, more of them felt entitled to perks that I wasn't willing to provide. "Aww, our last Uber driver offered us warm cookies and bottles of water. Don't you have anything for us?"

But that was me, trying to supplement my income. There's no way that I would look to Uber as my primary income. I heard plenty of stories of people who drove full-time, twelve and fifteen hours a day just trying to get one more fare which will qualify you for a $25 bonus which you need because your rent payment is due tomorrow. I wouldn't want to get in a car with a driver who's buzzed on caffeine and has had six hours of sleep for the last two days.

 

[jonatha]

Oh come one. The benefit of jobs like Uber is that you're not an employee. Work when you want. Some people use this to supplement their income. Why does government have to interfere?

The government is interfering because the specific circumstances of working for Uber mean you *are* an employee, according to the rules used to distinguish contractors from employees. Why should Uber be allowed to flout those rules (as well as all the transit-for-hire regulations normal taxi companies have to follow)?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits...

Uber doesn't have profits. Never has.

 

[TSwizzle]

Oh come one. The benefit of jobs like Uber is that you're not an employee. Work when you want. Some people use this to supplement their income. Why does government have to interfere? This virtue-signaling will deny many people their extra income.

This is what some people don't understand about Uber/Lyft. Driving for Uber/Lyft is not a job per se.

 

[TSwizzle]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits...

Uber doesn't have profits. Never has.

Loss of $5.2 billion in the last quarter, 400+ laid off recently. I believe Uber's long game is driverless technology, not running a taxi service.

 

[Worldtraveller]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

Actually, I expect many of the gig jobs will disappear in California because of this.

Good. The so called gig economy has been eroding worker's rights and making it more difficult for almost everybody but the richest.

 

[Gun Nut]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

and if so, one would certainly hope that the consumer response to uber is to abandon it, and the company goes out of business quickly.

IMO if your business model is incapable of incorporating having employees and treating them well with decent working conditions and a livable wage, you simply have no right to be in business.
i'm quite tired of the cultural expectation that the moral responsibility is on the public to guarantee corporate profits, as opposed to being on a company for being a business worth investing in (either directly or as a customer).

Oh come one. The benefit of jobs like Uber is that you're not an employee. Work when you want. Some people use this to supplement their income. Why does government have to interfere? This virtue-signaling will deny many people their extra income.

such employees would be designated part-time... which makes a huge difference to companies in terms of the costly benefits they are required to provide. I think the biggest drawback Uber has to face here is regarding liability for their employees actions... Contractors are not as protected by the corporate umbrella as employees. I think that is what is most concerning to a company like Uber.

 

[Bomb#20]

But if they have to pay their workers like actual employees, they'll become even more unprofitable. Won't anyone think of the shareholders?!

Actually, I expect many of the gig jobs will disappear in California because of this.

Good. The so called gig economy has been eroding worker's rights and making it more difficult for almost everybody but the richest.

IMO if your business model is incapable of incorporating having employees and treating them well with decent working conditions and a livable wage, you simply have no right to be in business.
i'm quite tired of the cultural expectation that the moral responsibility is on the public to guarantee corporate profits, as opposed to being on a company for being a business worth investing in (either directly or as a customer).

My wife is an independent contractor. She is probably going to lose her job because of this bill. In the interests of helping you all to become better people by learning to put yourselves in other people's shoes, here's hoping all of your respective legislatures likewise pass similarly idiotic laws, legislating all of you out of work too.

https://www.latimes.com/california/...yment-law-independent-contractors-gig-economy

Assistant professor Jeffrey Darna directs the USC Program of Nurse Anesthesia. He also contracts out as an anesthesiologist. If Darna were a physician anesthesiologist, he would be exempt from the new law. But he’s a nurse, so he’s not.

What’s the difference?

“We [nurses] cost the system less, but deliver the same level of service,” he says. “We can work with patients who are on Medi-Cal. And we are the only anesthesiologists in nine Northern California rural counties.

“Access to rural healthcare is at risk now because of this law.”​

 

[Trausti]

New rules for contractors have unexpected consequences for The City’s strip clubs

As some 30 dancers were handed the first employee paychecks ever issued to them by the Penthouse Club one evening in early November, a wave of panic swept the popular North Beach strip club.

“I opened mine in the locker room, and I was shocked,” said a former Penthouse dancer who asked to be identified as Jane. “All the other girls were also freaking out. Me and my friends decided right then that we were done. That was the final straw.”

Historically classified as independent contractors, the dancers were used to walking out of the club’s doors with cash each night — often hundreds of dollars — after their shifts ended. That changed suddenly when clubs across The City began enforcing a California Supreme Court ruling from April in an unrelated industry that set new standards for determining whether or not workers should be classified as employees.

Democrats are economically illiterate.

 

[Jason Harvestdancer]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

Actually, I expect many of the gig jobs will disappear in California because of this.

The regular employers have always hated the gig economy, it gives people more freedom. In the name of helping the poor, regular employers bribed the legislators into hurting the poor. But this is California, so what can you expect?

 

[Jimmy Higgins]

It's likely that some of the costs will reduce profits and some of the costs will be passed along in increased prices.

Actually, I expect many of the gig jobs will disappear in California because of this.

The regular employers have always hated the gig economy, it gives people more freedom. In the name of helping the poor, regular employers bribed the legislators into hurting the poor. But this is California, so what can you expect?

That is an interesting twist on employers who pay into FICA and pay benefits making jobs worth having feel that being undercut by these schemes that avoid paying benefits and into Social Security is not fair.

Funny how UHC would provide the workforce with substantial freedom to work where and as they wanted, yet... our conservative heroes don’t want that.

 

[prideandfall]

My wife is an independent contractor. She is probably going to lose her job because of this bill. In the interests of helping you all to become better people by learning to put yourselves in other people's shoes, here's hoping all of your respective legislatures likewise pass similarly idiotic laws, legislating all of you out of work too.

oh well if some random jackass on the internet claims to have a wife that supposedly might lose a job about it, then nevermind - what was i thinking? corporate-mandated slave labor is the only rational choice left to us, innit?