SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Uber and Postmates won't be getting the reprieve they were hoping for from a new California gig worker law. A federal judge denied their request to put a temporary stop to AB 5 while a lawsuit they filed against the state works its way through the courts. This means both companies are still beholden to the law, which could force them to reclassify their drivers as employees.
"The court does not doubt the sincerity of these individuals' views, but it cannot second guess the legislature's choice to enact a law that seeks to uplift the conditions of the majority of nonexempt low income workers," US District Judge Dolly M. Gee wrote in a 24-page ruling on Monday. "The balance of equities and the public interest weigh in favor of permitting the state to enforce this legislation."
AB 5 boils down to worker classification. Currently, most workers for gig economy companies, like Uber, Lyft, Postmates and DoorDash, are classified as independent contractors. While that classification can mean increased flexibility for workers, it can also mean those drivers are shouldering many of the costs of their employers. Uber drivers, for example, pay for their own car, phone, gas and vehicle maintenance. They also don't get basic benefits, such as minimum wage guarantees, overtime pay and health insurance.
Under AB 5, which went into effect on Jan. 1, all companies using independent contractors in California will be put to a three-part test to determine whether they must reclassify their workers. If they don't pass that test, they'll have to turn their workers into employees.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Barenflimski on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:14PM (13 children)
Our employment system is out of date for so many reasons. This case here is hopefully the beginning of a long conversation. Its a real shame that this conversation has to take place in our court system though.
The crux of the issue to me seems to be the high costs of keeping 40 hour a week employees. One of the largest costs is healthcare insurance that we've attached to work. I'd love to see the de-tangling of health care and work. In many cases people are trapped in terrible jobs because they need the health insurance and can't afford a gap while in between jobs or trying to be an entrepreneur. Obamacare was a great start, but unfortunately is being dismantled.
Secondly, the entire idea that people either work 40 hours or not at all is insane. There are large numbers of people that for various reasons can't work 40 hours a week. Some want to be part of their kids lives. Some help family and friends that are sick or simply need help. Some have other personal health issues that makes a 40 hour a week commitment forever not possible. I've run across many people that are very smart and talented but don't fit the mold and won't promise to sell their souls. There is no reason that we shouldn't be able to accommodate people that can only put in 20 or 30 hours a week. Work is work. Help is help. Unfortunately because of our labor laws, companies need 40+ hours out of people to pay the health insurance racket.
I'd love to see wholesale changes to the system in the U.S. Gig jobs should be available to all and no one should be punished for offering them. Health Insurance is essentially required in the U.S so one can see a doctor.
Get this right and you're talking about millions more employed in a smooth system that promotes competition for employees. Get this wrong and... OH yea, that's our current system.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Thexalon on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:26PM (9 children)
This is one of the reasons I support Medicare-for-All: It would be good for every business besides health care, who now would have a lot more flexibility when hiring people.
The only thing that stops a bad guy with a compiler is a good guy with a compiler.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @05:19PM (8 children)
If you want universal healthcare and are still debating who to vote for here is one data point https://i.imgur.com/JoACFkB.jpg [imgur.com]
(Score: 4, Interesting) by bzipitidoo on Thursday February 13 2020, @06:57PM (7 children)
Hear, hear!
Employer provided healthcare isn't offered out of any sense of social responsibility. It's out of a desire to control. It's another lever to use against employees, to make them toe the line and not even think about being a whistleblower, or saying no to requests to work overtime, and such like. Employer desire to maintain this hold is the number one reason why real healthcare reform keeps being defeated.
This particular hold over employees is stupidly damaging, punitive, harmful, and wasteful. A family's children deserve better than suffering the lifelong consequences that lack of access to healthcare can cause, all because their parents got caught up in and spit out by office politics, or layoffs, or some of the other arbitrary crap that tends to go on at work. And because healthcare in the US is insanely expensive, all the more so without insurance. It's definitely not because we have to ration healthcare, no. All this wealth that the US still has, the ginormous spending on the military even in the absence of any credible threat to the nation that the military can answer, but somehow, healthcare has to be rationed. The list price for medical care for the uninsured is apt to be not just 2x, not even just 10x, but 100x or more the actual cost, that's how crazy expensive US health care is. Now, most medical providers will offer the uninsured steep discounts of up to 90% off. But that leaves the final price still 10x the cost. What a bargain! NOT!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:49PM
And I would hazard a guess that the majority of US citizens don't even get health benefits and must rely on shitty plans that cost them more money than not, except for a restricted subset of major procedures. So they're 100% screwed unless they're about to die, and even then they have to fight to get coverage.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @08:56PM (5 children)
Please learn to history. This is flat out wrong.
Employer provided healthcare was a benefit (there is a reason that is the tag used to describe it). It was a "I could go to Job A and get $20k a year, or go to job B and get $20k a year. Job A has an open cafeteria, and Job B will pay all of my healthcare costs." (Historically healthcare was basically 100% covered, too.)
I think there was some tax reasons driving this as well, like it was tax deductible for the employer as well.
Regardless, it was a classic case of market competition. The companies which provided this benefit got better employees, so other companies started copying them to get better workers, and we ended up in this current situation.
The down side is that it ossified at the current state because "everybody has employer covered health insurance, so why bother with anything else.) However, it is not a mechanism to control the employees... any more than "do what I say and I'll pay you money" is a mechanism to control.
No. Healthcare reform keeps being defeated because change is scary.
I dare you. Go ahead and go up to 5 random people on the street and ask them, "Are you willing to give the government 100% control of what healthcare you and everybody receives?"
I personally am in favor of Single Payer (go NHS, and Canada, etc.) and am very highly informed on the topic, and even I have a reflexive flinch away when Warren or Sanders talks about it. Change is scary.
The reason why we don't have healthcare reform is because people don't want it. They know they dislike what we have right now, but "better the devil you know than the devil you don't." Besides, most Americans have healthcare in some fashion or another (I want to say 90% are covered to some amount... actually look at the raw numbers of uninsured people, and how little the Affordable Care Act affected raw metrics.)
You can argue that they should want it, but irrespective of "should," they don't.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by PartTimeZombie on Thursday February 13 2020, @10:02PM (4 children)
You have asked the wrong question in that case, and are playing directly into the hands of your awful health insurance industry when you ask that question.
For those of us who live in a country with proper taxpayer funded healthcare (which is everybody outside America) the "Government" have no control over the healthcare people receive. Doctors and nurses make those decisions, which is the way it ought to be.
The Government decide policy, and set budgets.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @12:39AM (3 children)
Then what is the "right" question to ask? Just because the question doesn't give the answer you want doesn't make it the "wrong question."
You can argue that Americans "should" want to public funded healthcare, just like you could argue that Americans "should" want nuclear power, to put humans on Mars, to have bible studies be a subject in public school, should make buying firearms illegal, should make class action lawsuits illegal, or any number of other things you believe.
I'd say that the majority of Americans, for better or worse, in actuality don't want government run healthcare, in large part because "change in scary." My unscientific intuition would guess guess that about 1/4 of the population knows about the topic and want Single Payer, about 1/4 know the topic and don't want Single Payer (divided between those who like status-quo and those who want something less drastic a change than Single Payer), and about 1/2 of the people don't understand the topic and are scared to lose what they know (these are the same people who say "keep the government out of my Medicare").
(Score: 3, Insightful) by PartTimeZombie on Friday February 14 2020, @02:02AM
You may be deliberately misunderstanding me.
"Government run" healthcare would be stupid, so nobody has their government run their healthcare system. What they do is have a publicly funded system that healthcare experts run.
As an example, when Mrs. PartTimeZombie fell down the stairs a couple of years ago and broke her ankle, we called an ambulance and took her to the hospital. None of the doctors or nurses rang the Health Minister to ask what treatment they should use, because how the hell would he know?
I have never argued any of those things, and don't really care if you guys do that smart thing and demand proper healthcare. Bible study in schools would be good though, because bible study turns kids into atheists.
(Score: 2) by helel on Friday February 14 2020, @02:04AM
The right question to ask would be "Are you willing to give the a handful of sociopaths with business degrees 100% control of what healthcare you and everybody receives?" If they answer "no" then they are clearly against the "free market" solution we are using now and can be assumed to favor government provided health care.
At a minimum this bad question would get closer to the true answer which is that 60% of USians believe the government has a responsibility to insure that all Americans have health coverage. [pewresearch.org]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Friday February 14 2020, @10:52AM
The right question is:
"Do you feel that decisions about your health should be performed by businessmen with no medical background and a vested interest in paying out a minimum, by certified health care professionals with a vested interest in restoring your health, or something else?"
Only answering that you want businessmen making the decisions is a response in favor of private health care.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @04:50PM
Is this the case in European countries that have universal healthcare? More workforce participation?
(Score: 1) by fustakrakich on Thursday February 13 2020, @05:41PM (1 child)
Well, Sanders is a big talker. I guess we gotta vote him in to see if he can pull it off. Gotta sweep out the House though. Get rid of the old antiques cluttering up the place, causing so much obstruction! Can't even find their way to the bathroom.
La politica e i criminali sono la stessa cosa..
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday February 13 2020, @07:54PM
Yes that is the problem, and benefit, of the separation of powers. A benevolent dictator could more easily force changes through, but I'll take the protection of limiting evil dictatorship. After this impeachment debacle I think politicians will realize they had better support UH if they want to win their elections. It is a pretty bipartisan issue now that the country has had enough time to see how shitty the ACA is, and for the misinformation to be pushed back by factual statements.
The facade of perfect capitalism has crumbled and we see the thieves cackling in their mansions purchased literally off the suffering of others. Not just in healthcare either, Amazon workers being treated like robots and often pushed beyond physical limitstions, etc.
Not that we should go communist, I think heavily regulated capitalism is the best balance of freedom with civic duty.