Hacker News Reader

Comment by pishpash | Hacker News Reader

It's clear to me that Prong B of AB5 is broken and it's not fixable, except by arbitrary exemptions galore. Rather than admitting this, the state seems hellbent on shoehorning this law into something politically motivated against gig companies.

All the actions on the state's part points to bad faith.

View on HN

Or maybe the state is acting in good faith on behalf of gig workers, and it's the gig companies tying themselves into knots trying to avoid legislation who are acting in bad faith?

No, that's delusional. The state is at most interested in recouping revenue because it's out of money due to Covid. There are proposals on the table that would realistically improve the environment around gig work, but the state doesn't appear to care about those.

So altruistic Good Guy Underdog Uber fighting in good faith to stick it to Big Bad Government is not delusional?

Also, the legal wrangling over this started long before Covid.

To first order, both Uber and drivers were willingly choosing to work together. The state is outlawing a money-making venture consenting adults wanted to do. You don't know that the second order effects will be what you want. Government is a blunt instrument and many ordinary people will be upset and perhaps completely screwed by this. As the story says, for the next several months at least, the state may have cost people their source of income. Owners of taxis and shuttle services should be thrilled though. Were they the little guy here?

Yes, the state's actual goal is to end gig work, by forcing gig work companies to actually treat their employees like employees. I'm for it. (It also seems weird to dismiss government action as politically motivated - of COURSE it is, it's literally political action! It's not going to be motivated by the tides!)

Then just come out and make a clean law against gig work. That's not what's done though.

It's fine to be politically motivated, however it's not good faith to be motivated against specific businesses while pretending to be following a broad principle that then needs exemption holes poked all over it to make work. It indicates there is no principle being followed, or at least they don't know what it should be, a situation which everyone should agree is dangerous.

What is "gig work"? It needs to be very specifically defined. It needs to include Uber and Instacart but exclude beekeepers and software developers. So, as with most practical laws, it ends up as a very long list of do's and don'ts, so it actually covers the thing to outlaw while interfering minimally with others. This isn't unusual.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com