The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
Objectively speaking, what separates a freelance journalist, cartoonist, or musician from a taxi driver? Why can they get freelance work, but a driver can't?
And you’ve just identified the problem with a rules-based, rather than principles-based, approach to legislating (or parenting). Rules have their place, but you need to have and understand their underlying principle, otherwise you end up making endless amendments and amendments to amendments as you go deeper and deeper down the rabbit hole of arbitrary legislation. It’s clear there’s a problem they’re trying to solve, but they have yet to correctly identify and target it. As you said, what makes one fine and the other not? They don’t know.
How does a principles-based approach resolve that problem? From what I can tell, California's rulers have very few principles to inform any such law, except the principle that demagoguery will win them re-election.
The "vote blue no matter who" problem. If you vote for 1 party no matter what you will get a shaft. Its the whole "do you know the definition of insanity is?" California is also the state wants to remove Prop 209 (1996) from their constitution. Prop 206 of 1996 says "that discrimination and preferential treatment were prohibited in public employment, public education, and public contracting on account of a person's or group's race, sex, color, ethnicity, or national origin." If you don't believe me then he
They know what they are doing. They want to target the wealthiest companies, that's it. Companies they themselves have decided can afford it. If Uber and Lyft didn't have any money in the bank they wouldn't ever have put this legislation out there. They don't even care if the companies are losing money, as long as they have a cash reserve they feel like companies can afford it. California has different rules for the rich and the poor, they won't prosecute people illegally selling things on street corners but if you have a business where you lease or own property, pay all taxes, filed all permits and paperwork they will do everything they can draw money from you. This law is being enacted to be no different.
Someone needs to explain that they don't actually have a bank account equal to their valuation, and that by and large they lose money rather than make money. For its first decade or so, Amazon collected $1 in revenue when it sold $1.25 worth of product - but they made up the loss in volume!
AB-5 is based on a simple principle: Employers should not be able to misclassify employees as independent contractors. That's the principle. So who is genuinely an independent contractor? To decide that you need actual rules: (A) The individual is free from control and direction in connection with the performance of the service, both under his contract for the performance of service and in fact; and (B) The service is performed outside the usual course of the business of the employer; and, (C) The individual is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, profession or business of the same nature as that involved in the service performed. Can three simple rules perfectly categorize ~20 million workers? Maybe not, and some exceptions are necessary.
Did the person doing the work agree to be a contractor or not? That should be the sole basis of determination. No one is forcing you to drive for Uber or Lyft. There are plenty of real jobs out there. Driving for them does have the advantage of you determining your own schedule, being able to do it as a side job, and even being able to work for both at the same time. Try being an employee of a company and being able to work for their direct competitor at the exact same time, on call for both. If people were not willing to drive for either company, they'd either go out of business or change their business model. People have the power against gig companies by deciding to or not to provide labor. You don't need government intervention when people have freedom to decide. Government intervention just removes freedom. Those that like contract work would lose the ability to do it while those that prefer being an employee might not have a job after the company is put out of business by government regulations or they're deemed as not qualified by the new standards to achieve a different business model.
This is a strong argument for a universal basic income. That would allow people to withhold their labour as you suggest and not starve or go broke. It enables true free-market principles to be applied to employment.
They aren't being misclassified. They are independent contractors. Yes, those three simple rules can categorize 20 million workers. Many driving jobs are independent contractors. What is happening is that California is trying to change the rules because some people are trying to make a career out of something that is really a way to make EXTRA cash and are failing and then crying because what they are doing doesn't pay the bills.
No, what's happened with Uber and other "ridesharing" services is that a company undercut what used to very much be a job you'd make a career out of by insisting that it wasn't subject to the consumer protection laws and regulations by classifying it's employees as independent contractors. By doing so it simply pushed out the businesses that hired their drivers as proper employees, forcing most people who wanted to drive a taxi to come work for them.
As much as they like to insist otherwise, Uber is a tax
It’s clear there’s a problem they’re trying to solve, but they have yet to correctly identify and target it. As you said, what makes one fine and the other not? They don’t know.
It's not even clear they think there is a problem to solve. What has happened is that the labor unions created a ruckus. That ruckus got a minority of gig workers that think they have a real job to get loud. Meanwhile, the labor unions have been giving money to the state legislature and been talking up the evils of contract labor (it can't be unionized) all the while the loud minority is getting press time and drumming up public support in the vacuum of any critical journalism by the compliant press. Like
all those people in first group probably number in few thousand combined at most where as the drivers are 50k+. Looks more to me as a $ tax grab as if state can get them employee's that is more $ in tax's they collect under guise they are helping getting benefits. Except the fact how many those 50k employee's work say sub 20 hours a week? how many of them would get benefits that would cost company more then they make?
How long before the Courts or Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional because of the arbitrary exclusions?
Legislature and law should define what IS an employee and/or what IS NOT an employee only. Once exclusions from the definition creep in, then the law is treating different entities and groups unequally.
Yes, this is not the only niche where our laws treat people unequally.
How long before the Courts or Supreme Court rules the law unconstitutional because of the arbitrary exclusions?
A super long time. "Arbitrary and capricious" is a standard applied to administrative decisions and, less frequently, judicial review. Statutes are reviewed for a "rational basis." And the courts extend quite a bit of leeway as to what constitutes rational.
Legislature and law should define what IS an employee and/or what IS NOT an employee only. Once exclusions from the definition creep in, then t
A lot of/.ers want laws to the code that takes binary inputs and requires binary results. So when you make an exception to the broader rule, they want it written as a description, rather than a list. But economic relationships almost innumerable factors: as it was, the independent contractor law supplied a pretty fuzzy description that Uber nonetheless found a way to exploit. Additional descriptive rules would just result in Uber requiring drivers to draw a cartoon of their first daily fare and a short r
The simple fact that they are having to exclude more and more professions shows it it arbitrary and capricious.
The simple fact that they are having to exclude more and more professions shows it it arbitrary and capricious.
Which is not a basis for striking it down.The exemptions aren't arbitrary. The exemptions are for jobs which have much more independence in the completion of their duties than the vast majority of employees. And if courts rule that the exemptions are a problem, then the remedy is removing the exemptions from the law.
Objectively speaking, what separates a freelance journalist, cartoonist, or musician from a taxi driver? Why can they get freelance work, but a driver can't?
Skill, creativity, artistry, pay scale, and to some extent, location independence. All of those are highly skilled jobs. Therefore, one can assume that anyone choosing one of those jobs did so after careful consideration of the alternatives during the many years of study and practice that led that person to that career. Driving a car isn't a highly ski
That just opens up another can of worms. Just how skilled does it have to be? Just how creative does it have to be? Just how artistic does it have to be? Just how much does it have to pay? On the latter point, most artists (musicians inclusive) I know make less than most uber drivers I know. Usually the only people who pay them are themselves artists who just want to "support" them, but people who aren't into the artsy scene don't even find it relevant most of the time, and to that end, I'm not sure just ho
That just opens up another can of worms. Just how skilled does it have to be? Just how creative does it have to be? Just how artistic does it have to be? Just how much does it have to pay? On the latter point, most artists (musicians inclusive) I know make less than most uber drivers I know.
It is indeed true that musician pay sucks. My parents are retired music professors; I chose a career that pays for my music hobbies, which is why I'm posting on Slashdot right now.:-)
Freelance journalists in particularwhat separates a freelance journalist, cartoonist, or musician Skill, creativity, artistry, pay scale, and to some extent, location independence. All of those apply to an Uber driver just as well. You have to have good driving and navigation skills to drive for a living, and some good business sense to make money of it.
No, you really don't. Most Uber drivers that I've seen just plug the destination into their GPS system these days. Maybe they deviate from it in certain spots because they know the area, but that's still a minor part of the job. And the fact that the drivers aren't able to say, "Hey, there's another guy a block away going close to where you're going. Do you mind if I pick him up, too?" means that Uber controls almost every aspect of the transaction from start to finish. Uber drivers don't set their own rates. They don't get to drive a 1957 Buick because they like the way the air leaking through the rusted out floorboard feels on their feet in the hot summer sun. And so on. They operate under very strict rules. And it is not really a one-off contract, because their contract is not for a specific job, but rather an ongoing contract for all future jobs, i.e. it is an ongoing business relationship that more typically would be considered employment. They can't even reject fares that aren't convenient (or else they will get deactivated). And worse, they don't get to see the destination until after they have accepted the fare, which means they can't even fully manage their own hours. (Imagine if you accept a fare thirty minutes before you need to be home at the end of the day, and then find out that the trip will actually take an hour and is going in the opposite direction from where your home is.) That is not even within a million miles of what an independent contractor job should look like. If somebody else is making almost all of the major decisions for you, you aren't independent, even if you are making a bunch of tiny little decisions yourself, like whether to turn a block later so that you can let the passenger out on the correct side of the road.
Speaking of money, all of the Uber drivers I know make way, way more than a freelance journalist, cartoonist, or musician.
Per hour, after vehicle depreciation and long-term maintenance costs associated with driving a high-mileage vehicle? Because the national average hourly pay for Uber drivers after expenses is less than the national average for working at Taco Bell.
And there is no more location independent worker than an Uber driver. a cartoonist may not have a car.
. An Uber driver can only (realistically) work within a reasonable driving distance of where that driver lives, unless the driver just happens to be on vacation. A cartoonist can draw something and sell that cartoon electronically to a company on the other side of the world from the comfort of his or her living room. The two are not comparable.
Therefore, one can assume that anyone choosing one of those jobs did so after careful consideration of the alternatives during the many years of study and practice that led that person to that career. What absolute reeking bullshit that is. Haw many freelance journalist, cartoonist, or musician do that after years of study dedicated to that field? I'm not sure I know of ANY.
How many freelance journalists, cartoonists, or musicians do you know? Because I double-majored in communications, played in music ensembles through my entire school career (and still do), etc., so I know a lot of people who fall into one of those three categories, and I can tell you that every single one of them spent years learning their craft.
I know of office worker turned cartoonist, of a freehance journalist turning to that after years of being a waitress and tryin got make it in standup