Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by martyb on Wednesday May 02 2018, @04:54PM   Printer-friendly
from the GIGantic-decision dept.

In a ruling with potentially sweeping consequences for the so-called gig economy, the California Supreme Court on Monday made it much more difficult for companies to classify workers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The decision could eventually require companies like Uber, many of which are based in California, to follow minimum-wage and overtime laws and to pay workers' compensation and unemployment insurance and payroll taxes, potentially upending their business models.

Industry executives have estimated that classifying drivers and other gig workers as employees tends to cost 20 to 30 percent more than classifying them as contractors. It also brings benefits that can offset these costs, though, like the ability to control schedules and the manner of work.

"It's a massive thing — definitely a game-changer that will force everyone to take a fresh look at the whole issue," said Richard Meneghello, a co-chairman of the gig-economy practice group at the management-side law firm Fisher Phillips.

Source: https://www.nytimes.com/2018/04/30/business/economy/gig-economy-ruling.html


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:46AM (3 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday May 03 2018, @01:46AM (#674874) Journal

    Do specify:
    Solar -
    Wind -
    Geothermal -
    Tidal -

    All of those are subject to thermodynamic constraints. Current practical limits are 80% waste for solar (50+% waste for solar thermal), 50+% waste for wind, 90% waste for geothermal, and 20% waste for tidal power (all found by googling X power efficiency). I'm willing to grant that these are typically much less polluting than fossil fuel sources, but energy production no matter the form dumps a lot of heat. One can reuse much of this heat for building heating and similar low grade heating needs, but otherwise it's unusable. That is the waste which I speak of.

  • (Score: 3, Informative) by deimtee on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:48AM (2 children)

    by deimtee (3272) on Thursday May 03 2018, @10:48AM (#674998) Journal

    Don't forget the materials and energy involved in harnessing those power sources too.
    They don't magically provide pollution free megajoules without significant infrastructure.

    --
    If you cough while drinking cheap red wine it really cleans out your sinuses.
    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:10PM (1 child)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 03 2018, @08:10PM (#675283)

      The amount of concrete and steel needed to contain the explosion of a traditional generation plant is immense.
      The usefulness of that stuff at the end of the plant's life, as far as I can see, would be just as landfill.
      (You'll have to bury it mighty deep if it's from a nuke plant.)

      In contrast, aluminum smelting is done electrically; the aluminum frames of new solar panels can be produced via existing (clean energy) solar panels.

      Additionally, I've heard that solar stuff is completely recyclable back into more solar stuff.

      .
      I saw a thing the other week where a German Tesla SIG had extrapolated the useful life of their cars' batteries and figured they would have 90 percent capacity remaining at 185,000 miles. [google.com]
      The degrading curve flattened again at 500,000 miles, with 80 percent capacity remaining.

      I read that as saying that the battery will outlast the car.
      ...and batteries continue to improve in price and performance.
      ...while last-century fuels continue to become more expensive.

      Solar panels also continue to become cheaper and better.

      Here's the big thing:
      The number of workers in the renewable field is already larger than those in the last-century energy fields.
      ...and the renewables number continues to expand.
      (I just heard about 2 coal companies that merged because the coal market is shrinking toward zero.)

      -- OriginalOwner_ [soylentnews.org]

      • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:34AM

        by Anonymous Coward on Friday May 04 2018, @10:34AM (#675571)

        In the end it all comes down to EROEI - Energy Return On Energy Invested.
        Traditional fossil fuels are over 100. Sometimes over 100,000.
        It is not that long ago that 'renewables' passed 1. They are now up to between 5 and 50 depending on which renewable where.

        The importance of this is related to the fact that 1/EROEI of your economy is devoted to energy production. (Where economy is measured by energy consumption)
        Eg fossil fuels, Better than I/100 is small, almost negligible, and drove most of the economic growth of the 20th century. Yes, they are running out and we need to adapt, but If your renewables have an EROEI of 5, then 20% of your economy is diverted to simply providing energy to the rest. That is a huge hit.