- Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they
- Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that
- The state will reverse this judgement
OP said that THIS law wasn't too much, not that over-regulation doesn't exist. Please reply to the opinion that this law isn't too much. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Reductio ad absurdam is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it.
"It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model." is an argument that could be used to defend any law. It defends the concept of law itself, rather than the specific law we are discussing. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out and ask where the line should be drawn.
Reductio ad absurdum does not mean "exaggerate to absurdity," which is what the GGP actually did:
>>>> It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
>>> Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?
If you want to label this kind of argument, the correct term is straw man. It doesn't address what vkou said, but rather sets up an exaggeration that is easier to attack and dismiss. Loughla was entirely correct in his criticism.
A likely outcome now is that Uber/Lyft will carve out an exemption for taxi drivers (like a few other industries with effective lobbying operations have already done) while distressed small employers continue to suffer from AB5's effects.
I think it's quite fair to call AB5 a bad law.
Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?
The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.
In jobs where it is virtually impossible to organize others doing a similar task such as was the case with most of the jobs impacted by AB5, its totally reasonable for these folks to lobby the government to fight for their interests.
Maybe with a labour monopsyny? I guess we don't want the big mining company in the small town to run down it's workers. Whenever I think of the best argument for unions, I think of small towns subjugated by mining companies or mills. But a ride-share company with competition in a big city?
The reason for why all those agreements are highly regulated isn't because they adults entering them are not of sound mind. The reason for it is that there is often a large imbalance of power between the two parties in the contract.
This kind of regulation has been the foundation of common law for nearly a millennium, and has been present in other legal systems for far longer than that.
[1] (As it turns out, you can't [2] marry someone with the stipulation that they can't divorce you, or with a fly-by-night, grossly inequitable pre-nup.
[2] Well, you can, but the judges will laugh your contract out of the room when you try to enforce it.
Why are you defending AB5 specifically? Why is this specific regulation good? Keep in mind that it has had a lot of negative, unintended side effects already.
When the dust settles, business carries on just fine while we get to enjoy things like a 40-hour week with overtime pay if the employer needs more, safety regulations, sick leave, etc.
I'm going to guess most of us here on HN aren't getting any overtime pay
Whether the minimum wage actually harms economic activity does not have a clear answer; you can find studies all over the place in terms of conclusions.
And the supporting argument--that businesses should be regulated because they have asymmetrical power when hiring--is also used to justify other policies that HN folks tend to like, such as the California prohibition on non-compete agreements.
This however is very different. Adults (in the US) are allowed to willfully enter into mostly any sort of agreement with another consenting party. In areas where that’s not the case, there is usually some other greater fundamental social protection that we seek to prioritize (i.e. you cannot legally permit someone to murder you). This law however continues to encroach on the things that free individuals can do. If I want to work for Uber under the terms that apparently many millions of others also want to, then that is my right. The government is effectively seeking to make this illegal...for my own protection.
The issue here is that 99% of HN commentators, politicians, etc have no experience in the gig economy yet project their own ideology onto the situation. Would it be better for workers if Uber provided more benefits? Sure. But Uber loses billions every quarter. So who pays for this? If Uber doesn’t pass on the costs to consumers, it goes bust. If Uber does, there’s a good chance that consumers spend less, or use alternatives. Either way it is likely to harm drivers.
The beauty of a free market is that if Uber was legitimately a bad deal for drivers, they would have never had a business in the first place.
Hell, If our goal was maximizing economic activity at all costs, we'd be rounding up idlers, and putting them to work, involuntarily.
[1] Ones whose business model relies on one of the following:
* Exploitation of children.
* Providing labour-intensive products for less then the cost of keeping a labourer alive, housed, and fed.
* Running machine shops where workers have to juggle chainsaws, while breathing in asbestos dust, and licking radium-coated postage stamps.
The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...
> The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed.
Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.
They should either treat their drivers like FT employees, pivot to a new (legal) service, or shut down entirely (and disband the company).
If they can't treat their drivers decently and follow the law, they shouldn't exist.
That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws.
AB5 is a case of capriciously writing laws. The state wrote a new law that was specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it.
AB5 was written in bad faith with the goal of hurting specific companies, not with the goal of writing a sensible law that sets a framework for how businesses ought to operate. They wrote it in such a hurry that it unintentionally hurt a bunch of other people and small businesses. That's not how laws are supposed to work.
One could argue that much of our labor and environmental protective apparatus was written to curb behaviors of specific companies (or "business models," if you prefer).
“People’s jobs should be better” is a different goal from “bad jobs should not exist.” It may be used as a tool to achieve the former, but we care whether it’s actually effective at doing so.
Your last sentence is interesting because the entire point of a labor law like this one is to bring jobs under the remit of labor protections so that "people's jobs should be better" is something that can even be addressed.
a) The gig economy is viscerally disgusting.
b) Its existence will trigger a “race to the bottom” that threatens all workers.
c) Gig work is not very important to casual gig workers, so taking it away would not harm them.
d) Taking away gig work will prompt gig workers to find real jobs which are better for them, anyway.
Low margin employers like Walmart and Amazon ruthlessly squeeze efficiency from their employees to ensure productivity > cost for every shift. The could not do otherwise - such are the economics of a low margin business. The gig economy offers the option of working “inefficiently,” and some people value that enough to trade off compensation for it. Maybe the gig economy companies could operate like Walmart, but the point is people are choosing gig work over Walmart for a reason.
It would be capricious if it were more targeted, written without ample public discussion, or if the affected firms had no ability to continue operations. As I understand it, none of that is true of AB5. For example, the affected companies are free to use contingent workforces in a manner similar to the other many thousands of companies that were not affected.
I'm far from an expert on the law, but wouldn't a fair read also be that those companies were operating in noncompliance with community norms (as expressed by voter preferences), and so lawmakers plugged a regulatory hole?
In that way, could it be seen as similar to a body writing a new law (say) prohibiting people from carrying long rifles into grocery stores? Would that also be a law written capriciously?
Just reading up on it, I see exemptions for (simplifying a bit) a) highly-paid professions and b) commercial fishers, repo agencies, and people who drive for driving clubs(?). The first category absolutely makes sense if the aim is something like "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers". The second category smells like lobbying.
Unless I'm missing some of the dozens of types of businesses, I don't see how the exemptions are broadly anything more than a red herring here. I guess they could have left the exemptions and then put a $ figure and an inflation tie, but that has proven problematic as well.
How would you have written a law to express the goal of "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers" ?
> A repossession agency licensed pursuant to Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, for whom the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, if the repossession agency is free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (nonitalic emphasis mine)
IANAL but that's not an exception - that's the bill saying that if the primary part of the ABC test does not apply, then the existing regulations for that licensed business take over from AB5.
From my quick glance, all of the exceptions I could find boiled down to this FAQ from the CA state website or older legislation explicitly mentioned right next to the exceptions in AB5 [2]:
> 4) Do AB 5 and Labor Code section 2750.3 require use of the ABC test in all situations? > ... > Additionally, where a court determines the ABC test cannot apply for a reason other than an express exception, the Borello test, described in Question 5 below, will apply. For example, if a court were to determine in a particular case that the ABC test is preempted by an applicable federal law, the Borello test would be used.
Note that the "express exception" in the case of the repo agencies is due to existing CA state law governing that profession which supersedes AB5 as long as the "repossession agency is free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact."
In the case of other licensed professions like doctors, veterinarians, and yes, commercial fishermen (who must have a commercial fishing license) they are all covered by existing, more specific, legislation and federal laws that by definition require exceptions in the State law - otherwise it'd be even more bogged down in the courts. That's why there's the Borello test and explicit exception: in order to fit in with other existing laws.
This is all just seems like self serving FUD from our industry but again, IANAL.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...
[2] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
No, except perhaps as a settlement offer, but because the law gives specific rights to workers which State executive officials don't have the authority to bargain away, I don't know that would be effective except against any fines, etc, that might be due to the State; individual workers would still have claims until they complied.
> Or does it have to be done ASAP?
It has to be done from the effective date of the legal requirement to avoid legal penalties; for the preliminary injunction, it has to be done on whatever timeline (which may be immediately) is specified in the injunction once any stay on the injunction ends (this one was stayed for 10 days during which Uber is attempting to appeal to have it lifted) to avoid contempt penalties for defying the injunction.
> The latter seems sort of infeasible.
Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law.
The business plan didn’t break the law; a new law was introduced to disrupt the existing business plan. This is pretty obvious no matter your opinion about Uber’s business model or the novel law in question.
The transition period was the ~2 months between AB5 being signed and it coming into effect (+ the year leading up to it, which they could've also used to prepare).
IANAL, but well, this is kinda basic. All laws come with instructions about that. Some do give them that time, other laws do not and say they must be followed immediately.
I don't think they want to follow the law in good faith, but even if they did, they'd have to shut down while they restructure to accommodate the law, so this outcome doesn't tell us much about their thinking yet.
Your 20 min pick up time is because drivers don't want to accept the fares. Both for health and earnings reasons.
I imagine not.
And since UberEats's drivers already tend to work for their competitors as well, the effect of Uber pulling out of the market probably wouldn't even be noticeable.
And they have even lesser cash to burn.
The delivery price is already a significant chunk of the order, and if the price goes up significantly, I guess the option for people is to stop ordering food and cook at home.
Which is good and probably saving me a lot of money anyway once I get used to it, but I don't think drivers will be the only one that are unhappy with this.
Or the restaurants can just go back to hiring their own delivery drivers and taking orders over the phone.
> If the appeal doesn’t work out for Uber, it will bank on voters to determine its fate in voting on Proposition 22, which would exempt drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies from being considered employees.
https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
Like, something better than "okay app-based drivers don't have to deal with that mess"? Perhaps a simpler, general rule for when contractor rules wouldn't apply? Though I guess the politics of it mean that you do have to be super narrow like this just to get it passed.
[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978
[2] ctrl-f for "35" https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/
But solid general purpose laws are the responsibility of the lawmakers. They're the reason there's a crazy exception list, and they deserve the blame for it. The proposition doesn't make it meaningfully worse.
This is why the proposition system in CA is screwed. It's no longer being used in good faith. Almost every proposition is a law written by a lobbyist group who couldn't find a sponsor in the legislature so they take it directly to the people.
It truly highlights the folly of direct democracy.
And no surprise, it was written and pushed by Uber and other app-based gig work companies, and they're going to spend a lot of money to promote it. From your link:
> On August 30, 2019, three companies—DoorDash, Lyft, and Uber—each placed $30 million into campaign accounts to fund a ballot initiative campaign should the legislature pass AB 5 without compromising with the companies.... The companies Instacart (Maplebear, Inc.) and Postmates also joined the campaign, each contributing $10 million. Together, the five businesses had provided more than $110 million in support of the ballot initiative.
To put that amount in perspective, it's 40% of the amount the Biden campaign plans to spend nationally on ads in Septemter: https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/05/us/politics/biden-ads.htm....
Good riddance.
If Lyft continues to operate, that certain class of urbanites will switch to Lyft before they complain to their reps.
They also have the option, if they can find the financing, to comply with the law and burn money building an entrnched user base before jacking up prices to compensate.
I mean, even on the old model, that's how Uber got itself entrenched and hard to displace.
Business have the right to decide if playing a market is worth it or not.
In this case, the public clearly wants to know about and discuss this, as demonstrated by this thread and the news coverage.
You and I were not forced to read the article and discuss it, but here we are by our own choice.
From my perspective, think it is an interesting and engaging topic that I want to explore further.
From Uber's perspective, they have every interested in raising awareness and support for their cause.
https://www.theverge.com/2020/3/19/21186865/uber-rides-decli...
Nope. Live in an exurban town on the other side of the country and don't think I have ever taken an Uber/Lyft that wasn't associated with travel to another city. And rarely take them even then.
They are literally forbidden by the court to operate as they have been. They need to make their drivers into employees.
You think they can do that overnight?
And why do you think it’s economically feasible to do so even if they could do it? Do you think users have an appetite to pay 2X or more per ride?
It’s possible the regulatory burden makes this an infeasible business. That’s certainly the case with a lot of other economic activity such as private city buses, affordable daycare, etc.