The legislation will affect at least one million workers in California who have been on the receiving end of a decades-long trend of outsourcing and franchising work, making employer-worker relationships more arm’s-length. Many people have been pushed into contractor status with no access to basic protections like a minimum wage and unemployment insurance. Ride-hailing drivers, food-delivery couriers, janitors, nail salon workers, construction workers and franchise owners could now all be reclassified as employees.
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
"Show me one Uber employee or work instruction concerned with the driving of cars!"
I have to respect their play here, but weren't there other criteria in there that they would violate?
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
"Show me one Uber employee or work instruction concerned with the driving of cars!"
I have to respect their play here, but weren't there other criteria in there that they would violate?
I think the play is:
* Get an argument that won't get laughed out of court.
* Get the court to put the law on hold while the case goes through the system.
* Delay for as long as possible.
* Use the ballot initiative process to repeal this law.
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
"Show me one Uber employee or work instruction concerned with the driving of cars!"
I have to respect their play here, but weren't there other criteria in there that they would violate?
I think the play is:
* Get an argument that won't get laughed out of court.
* Get the court to put the law on hold while the case goes through the system.
* Delay for as long as possible.
* Use the ballot initiative process to repeal this law.
* Hope self-driving cars come into play while all this is happening
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
"Show me one Uber employee or work instruction concerned with the driving of cars!"
I have to respect their play here, but weren't there other criteria in there that they would violate?
Even if they aren't telling them how to drive, they are telling their drivers what to charge for fare on a trip-by-trip basis. If they are truely independent contractors, the driver should be able to set their own fare.
Also, looking back at @AngelHedgie 's orignal summary of the court ruling, the contracter work has to be a trade skill, and driving isn't something most people would consider a trade.
+1
zepherinRussian warship, go fuck yourselfRegistered Userregular
Uber lost $5B last quarter and laid off almost 10% of their staff this week.
Whatever their core business is they kinda suck at it.
And it can be a successful business model. Lyft is about ready to make a profit, mostly because Uber fights all the legal battles first and they just slide in after.
0
syndalisGetting ClassyOn the WallRegistered User, Loves Apple Productsregular
Taxi, Black Car and Limo drivers are very much a trade though, and many cities require specialized licenses to perform the work.
SW-4158-3990-6116
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Taxi, Black Car and Limo drivers are very much a trade though, and many cities require specialized licenses to perform the work.
Commercial driving as a whole is very much a trade, with its own state based licensure system (the CDL) which can then have further licensure as pointed out.
Taxi, Black Car and Limo drivers are very much a trade though, and many cities require specialized licenses to perform the work.
Ignoring those regulatory bodies is a large part of how Uber initially gained market share. They started without seeking any approval, just start the machine and go. When challenged they would find the least regulated classification of a car service and claim it best fit their business model. Then they would simply ignore local legislation meant to rein them in. By that point traditional livery was depressed enough that many actual certified drivers would be working for Uber to compensate, and people would appreciate the often admittedly superior service at cheap subsidized rates, gaining stakeholders to argue on Uber’s behalf.
Straight up ignoring the law is very effective when you have weight to throw around.
Even if they aren't telling them how to drive, they are telling their drivers what to charge for fare on a trip-by-trip basis. If they are truely independent contractors, the driver should be able to set their own fare.
It goes further than that, as we have a term for when an entity or group of entities conspire to set pricing for a group of loosely affiliated entities.
Even if they aren't telling them how to drive, they are telling their drivers what to charge for fare on a trip-by-trip basis. If they are truely independent contractors, the driver should be able to set their own fare.
It goes further than that, as we have a term for when an entity or group of entities conspire to set pricing for a group of loosely affiliated entities.
That term being, of course, price fixing.
"No no, you see as part of the contract, drivers who use Uber to connect with customers agree to our pricing model. Obviously they are still free to take passengers and deliveries and charge their own rates, they are not our employees; they just can't use our platform to do it."
I mean, I expect the judge will laugh at the attorneys who come up with that argument, but I bet money they have that argument, or something similar, when someone points out they are admitting to heading a criminal conspiracy.
It would be exciting if this helped break up silicon valley. Are these jobs in the exemption list?
Marty: The future, it's where you're going? Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
0
EncA Fool with CompassionPronouns: He, Him, HisRegistered Userregular
My thought was that this will impact gig dev and it shops, who would rather not have employees and they will move.
Yeah, but there is no reason that Austin would be on the top of their list, even as an attractive place for modern IT dev. The amount of movement will likely be minimal, probably moving corporate HQ from one headquarters to another.
Which, given current perspectives across the US, are as likely to be international as elsewhere in the US.
If a few tech companies left California, that would be very good for California and the nation: it would reduce housing pressure in California (which is currently causing a homelessness crisis) and boost economies elsewhere. If there's more than one city you can live in to work in tech, that's a good result all round.
+16
HacksawJ. Duggan Esq.Wrestler at LawRegistered Userregular
They could always move to Detroit. Plenty of available real estate in Detroit.
My thought was that this will impact gig dev and it shops, who would rather not have employees and they will move.
Yeah, but there is no reason that Austin would be on the top of their list, even as an attractive place for modern IT dev. The amount of movement will likely be minimal, probably moving corporate HQ from one headquarters to another.
Which, given current perspectives across the US, are as likely to be international as elsewhere in the US.
The move to Austin as one of the three replacements for SF is already ongoing, though. This is just one more pebble.
My thought was that this will impact gig dev and it shops, who would rather not have employees and they will move.
Yeah, but there is no reason that Austin would be on the top of their list, even as an attractive place for modern IT dev. The amount of movement will likely be minimal, probably moving corporate HQ from one headquarters to another.
Which, given current perspectives across the US, are as likely to be international as elsewhere in the US.
The move to Austin as one of the three replacements for SF is already ongoing, though. This is just one more pebble.
Portland, OR is currently busy having it's housing market turbofucked by people moving from California and making cash offers on everything as an investment. I'd rather see gig economy profiteers simply become insolvent. Not move to some already difficult to afford trendy city out of CA.
My thought was that this will impact gig dev and it shops, who would rather not have employees and they will move.
Yeah, but there is no reason that Austin would be on the top of their list, even as an attractive place for modern IT dev. The amount of movement will likely be minimal, probably moving corporate HQ from one headquarters to another.
Which, given current perspectives across the US, are as likely to be international as elsewhere in the US.
The move to Austin as one of the three replacements for SF is already ongoing, though. This is just one more pebble.
Where's the other one?
Austin is on top for sure, they have something like as many startups as SF.
Up in line as well are places like Nashville, Atlanta, and DC, though I think only Nashville seems to still be going up. Atlanta is petering out and DC is always going to rise and sink with federal work. Boston may sneak in there?
Meanwhile there's SF, NYC, and Seattle as their own things.
They could always move to Detroit. Plenty of available real estate in Detroit.
Michigan is likely to pass these kind of laws eventually. They'll want to move South, where even federal labor laws get ignored.
Kansas City would be the ideal place IMO. You can get gigabit internet for your startup via Google fiber, the housing is dirt cheap, and you get to decide whether you want Missouri or Kansas to decide your labor laws and taxes without having to move HQ more than a few blocks if your first choice starts to turn purple.
pretty sure that AB5 is still going to have the gig economy workers in california classified as employees no matter where the company's hq is located.
...they move the jobs too.
Service jobs don't work that way.
Dev, 3rd party IT, and phone based support job do. These are part of the gig economy too.
the devs are the employees at these companies, that's how they say their on the ground employees are contractors, since their primary business is the development work.
and odds are the 3rd party IT/phone support was actually legitimately contracted out, and would remain so after AB5. this mostly effects the misclassified workforces on the ground they exploit, and you can't move them.
Posts
Uber/Lyft/DoorDash have already said they will spend $30M (or more) on a campaign for a ballot initiative repealing this law (if signed, as expected).
Labor unions have said they will fight those efforts, but didn't say a dollar amount.
Faiz Siddiqui is a reporter for the Washington Post.
Basically, they'll argue that they're actually a technology firm, whose main business is building e-commerce platforms for a variety of industries to be used by independent contractors.
Of course, what's being ignored is that this is akin to confessing to price fixing, given how Uber operates.
"Show me one Uber employee or work instruction concerned with the driving of cars!"
I have to respect their play here, but weren't there other criteria in there that they would violate?
I think the play is:
* Get an argument that won't get laughed out of court.
* Get the court to put the law on hold while the case goes through the system.
* Delay for as long as possible.
* Use the ballot initiative process to repeal this law.
* Hope self-driving cars come into play while all this is happening
3DS Friend Code: 3110-5393-4113
Steam profile
Whatever their core business is they kinda suck at it.
Their core business is giving investor money to the CEO and also bankrupting public transportation.
They're actually really good at it.
Well yeah, but you're not supposed to say that out loud.
Honestly if this is their argument it'd be hard to argue against it
Even if they aren't telling them how to drive, they are telling their drivers what to charge for fare on a trip-by-trip basis. If they are truely independent contractors, the driver should be able to set their own fare.
Also, looking back at @AngelHedgie 's orignal summary of the court ruling, the contracter work has to be a trade skill, and driving isn't something most people would consider a trade.
Let's play Mario Kart or something...
Commercial driving as a whole is very much a trade, with its own state based licensure system (the CDL) which can then have further licensure as pointed out.
Ignoring those regulatory bodies is a large part of how Uber initially gained market share. They started without seeking any approval, just start the machine and go. When challenged they would find the least regulated classification of a car service and claim it best fit their business model. Then they would simply ignore local legislation meant to rein them in. By that point traditional livery was depressed enough that many actual certified drivers would be working for Uber to compensate, and people would appreciate the often admittedly superior service at cheap subsidized rates, gaining stakeholders to argue on Uber’s behalf.
Straight up ignoring the law is very effective when you have weight to throw around.
It goes further than that, as we have a term for when an entity or group of entities conspire to set pricing for a group of loosely affiliated entities.
That term being, of course, price fixing.
"No no, you see as part of the contract, drivers who use Uber to connect with customers agree to our pricing model. Obviously they are still free to take passengers and deliveries and charge their own rates, they are not our employees; they just can't use our platform to do it."
I mean, I expect the judge will laugh at the attorneys who come up with that argument, but I bet money they have that argument, or something similar, when someone points out they are admitting to heading a criminal conspiracy.
It's the law in California.
It'll be interesting to see how this shakes out. It's really a huge huge change.
This is going to terrible things to housing prices in Austin.
Doc: That's right, twenty five years into the future. I've always dreamed on seeing the future, looking beyond my years, seeing the progress of mankind. I'll also be able to see who wins the next twenty-five world series.
Yeah, but there is no reason that Austin would be on the top of their list, even as an attractive place for modern IT dev. The amount of movement will likely be minimal, probably moving corporate HQ from one headquarters to another.
Which, given current perspectives across the US, are as likely to be international as elsewhere in the US.
Michigan is likely to pass these kind of laws eventually. They'll want to move South, where even federal labor laws get ignored.
The move to Austin as one of the three replacements for SF is already ongoing, though. This is just one more pebble.
Where's the other one?
Austin is on top for sure, they have something like as many startups as SF.
https://www.dailyherald.com/news/20190917/cronin-dupage-cant-afford-county-clerks-big-requested-budget-increase-for-elections
Up in line as well are places like Nashville, Atlanta, and DC, though I think only Nashville seems to still be going up. Atlanta is petering out and DC is always going to rise and sink with federal work. Boston may sneak in there?
Meanwhile there's SF, NYC, and Seattle as their own things.
...they move the jobs too.
Service jobs don't work that way.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
Kansas City would be the ideal place IMO. You can get gigabit internet for your startup via Google fiber, the housing is dirt cheap, and you get to decide whether you want Missouri or Kansas to decide your labor laws and taxes without having to move HQ more than a few blocks if your first choice starts to turn purple.
a guy who drives someone from point a to point b in san fransisco is a pretty hard job to move offsite.
Dev, 3rd party IT, and phone based support job do. These are part of the gig economy too.
Those aren't the jobs AB5 is aimed at.
3DS: 0473-8507-2652
Switch: SW-5185-4991-5118
PSN: AbEntropy
they aren't in the exceptions, and seem to fail the abc test
the devs are the employees at these companies, that's how they say their on the ground employees are contractors, since their primary business is the development work.
and odds are the 3rd party IT/phone support was actually legitimately contracted out, and would remain so after AB5. this mostly effects the misclassified workforces on the ground they exploit, and you can't move them.