Hacker News Reader

Comment by refurb | Hacker News Reader

You realize many of those exemptions were requested by the employees themselves?

It was particularly interesting watching journalists cheerlead for AB5 right up until the point where they realized that it affected them too and not just Uber and Lyft drivers.

It’s been a depressing display of hypocrisy or short sightedness or something to see the amount of “That is exploitation and this needs to be the test of what constitutes an employee! For justice! (Except in the case of my job/industry, where it would be awful and destroy how I want to work)”

I don't believe that, but would read any evidence you have that tends to substantiate your claim.

https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/freelance-...

People readily choose to let themselves be exploited. That's why minimum wages are compulsory not negotiable by employees. It's why human trafficking is illegal - the victims choose to be trafficked. It's why unions have compulsory membership. Here, individual drivers might be more concerned about losing their jobs or lifestyle (perhaps justifiably) than the consequences of the exploitation.

Prop 22 added minimum wage protection and benefits to gig drivers. Thinking that they need to be employees to receive it is conservative thinking.

Undercut by the fact that they need to be „actively“ working. Waiting for the next ride is excluded. Not really minimum wage IMO

Their minimum wage is 20% higher to adjust for that. Exactly how much higher it should be is arguable, but it can be worked out. Including waiting time in the equation will force Uber and Lyft to exit California, it is better to try to make gig work viable. This isn't a question about cost, but about business viability.

Also waiting time is very abusable. Uber could just force quit your app if there aren't any rides, and then you have to try to login and it will boot you instantly every time. Then once there is a ride it accepts you. Exactly how to meassure waiting time is therefore not viable, either uber wont be able to boot you making their business model unviable or you will never get any wait time anyway.

Uber and Lyft claim that they would exit. But I don't see much reason to believe that. And if they did, well, it would be a great opportunity for other companies. The barrier to entry for rideshare is very low; the main reason we have only two options is that they've been burning money trying to establish their monopoly/duopoly position.

And I see no reason why they would stay. The only reason they work is that they used gig drivers being paid per ride instead of using people with a wage. Without that they are just a regular taxi service with no advantage over the competition, meaning they will have to exit and you are left with the taxi services you had before uber/lyft. They have no experience at all managing a fleet of employees driving, that is much harder than maintaining their app.

They would stay because they have a strong brand and a lot customers who will pay the higher price a living wage requires. They'll stay because they make money. They have giant advantages over taxi companies.

It amazes me that in this hub of free enterprise and cheerleading for free markets, people act like companies will fall over the instant they hit a complication.

> unions have compulsory membership

In EU, compulsory union membership is generally prohibited as violation of right-to-work and freedom of association.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com