'I can't keep doing this': gig workers say pay has fallen after California's Prop 22

[Kellhound]

There's 3 kinds of regulations:

1. The kind that forces businesses to the right/safe things. These grow and become extensive as new dangers/issues emerge and as businesses find new loopholes to not comply.
2. The kind that that are pushed by businesses through lobbies/PACs to hurt their competition.
3. Archaic ones that no ones uses, is worried about or are enforced.

#3 is not relevant and not worth effort right now.

The big problems are #1 & #2, but they are 100% the fault of businesses themselves. Businesses are like teenagers in that they don't follow the rules in place to keep them safe and honest then bitch and moan when they get caught and are then subjected to stricter rules because of their own indiscretions.

This is what happens when you have a philosophy, Capitalism, that is only concerned with the bottom line. Not ethics. Not fairness. Not compassion. Just money.

The "right" thing is very subjective though.

[Theodarzna]

I've made no assumptions about anyone. I've been honest about where my information and opinion is coming from. None of it is from or about Uber or Lyft.

Your info is "My friends friend? runs a gig business and he said its all great!" that is hardly like anything to go by. This is a bit like someone citing Joe Biden's own campaign website saying "See, Joe Biden said Joe Biden is a good guy!" Utter nonsense.

The wage issue is a good one, because it's all over the place, but many of them do make more than minimum wage...some significantly more, because in many cases they're able to set their own rates as "independent contractors." Those who work for companies like Uber and Lyft obviously can't, but those folks are gig workers just like that one guy down the street who DJ's on his own. The law sees them as the same when they're not, so shouldn't necessarily be treated that way.

Source: Dude Trust me.

Any data I've seen show its mostly a wash or a loss for any of them, and all of them are a car accident away from being financially ruined and one must work more time than they would have as an employee to make the same amount of money once you factor in health care and insurance and all the liability costs.

That's why the gig economy is a hard one to manage because it literally doesn't work the same way as typical full time hourly wage workers working for a company.

Yeah, by design, so companies can have a slave labor force, and not have to absorb any risk or cost. So..... win win for your friend.

I'm all for fixing it and holding big bad corporations accountable, but not at the expense of the little guys or the honest ones, because we want to try and enforce a one size fits all option that literally doesn't fit everyone.

Apparently you are not. This system exists at the expense of the little guy as is.

Nowhere did I say I'm against fixing the problem, only that I understood why the measure in California didn't pass and agree with the mentalities of some of the folks there who voted to keep it this way.

Ah, you are just not for any solution that you know fixes anything.

[Glorious Leader]

Consumption must be met with production... you cant just magically spend money to be a boon to a nation...

As a point of logic this is incorrect. In point of fact money must be spent first (by the government) before it can be used.

[Bodakane]

The "right" thing is very subjective though.

The only people that actually believe that are the ones that want an excuse to do as they please absent of consequences.

[Kellhound]

No, they are not... you are making shit up and think it’s a point because you generalize.



It’s easier, because being wrong, agrees with your assertion. If you used an accurate one, not one that is incorrect, but is easier to fit your assertions, you wouldn’t have a point.

Your data point is admittedly incorrect, yet your argument is based on it. :\



Why exactly would you want those jobs, while shitting on much easier and higher paying jobs, that you can usually do from home? Have you heard of the concept of mass production?



You are bringing politics into it... you are arguing that new money, is somehow leftist. You either don’t understand what leftist means or are repeating talking points from old money trying to hang on, as reality of modern age makes their established fortunes, obsolete.

I’ll give you an example... There are 2 corporations... one makes Antifa flags and the other makes American flags... which of these two corporation would Karl Marx claim is leftist? Which corporation most exemplifies the proletariat controlling means of production?



You have not provided any evidence of this being true, but to humor this. Do you think this has any connection to half the country creating policy to fight the industry, expanding jobs in the other half of the country? Could it be that half the country got convinced that IT is liberals and are supporting legislation, like revoking 230, that explicitly hinders jobs with upward mobility?

Amazon has been paying 15$ an hour for a while... Walmart is now promising the same... guess why... they are going on all on online shopping, targeting Amazon. Oh hey! IT jobs from Waltons... that’s “conservative”... right?

- - - Updated - - -

Ya’ll supported the removal of prop 230, which would cost hundreds of thousands of well paying jobs, because Trump didn’t like how he was being treated on something so trivial, as social media. Why? Because they are liberal jobs... wtf?

Actually they have similar skill sets and education needs.

The more jobs created, the less the majority will be making of the stated amount.

That also means those jobs can be easily done in India with minimal investment. Also, they don't help national defense as much, especially during a war.

No YOU asked why a political group opposes high-tech. I would not have delved into it otherwise.

I am arguing PEOPLE not companies. I don't see many people at Boeing demanding they not work on military contracts for instance.

I support 230, I support technology. What I do not support is technology replacing manufacturing.

- - - Updated - - -

The only people that actually believe that are the ones that want an excuse to do as they please absent of consequences.

In your opinion.

[Bodakane]

In your opinion.

Right, you're speaking fact and I'm speaking opinion, is that what you're saying?

Its not right to pollute.
Its not right to force workers to work in the conditions they do at meat packing plants.
Its not right to have no fire protection in a place of business.
Its not right to promise people visas, smuggle them over the border than never give them the visas while giving them loans they cannot pay back, so you have an indentured and disposable workforce.
These types of things are not fucking morally ambiguous, no matter haw many times you people kneel at the altar of money.

[Katchii]

Your info is "My friends friend? runs a gig business and he said its all great!" that is hardly like anything to go by. This is a bit like someone citing Joe Biden's own campaign website saying "See, Joe Biden said Joe Biden is a good guy!" Utter nonsense.

My info is directly from my friend who is the owner of the business. It's not second hand like you're implying, but you don't care.

Source: Dude Trust me.

I didn't cite a source?

But if you want one, here you go.

https://fortunly.com/statistics/gig-...tatistics#gref

Median income for a gig worker is ~$36,500, which is more than minimum wage, and depending on the state, is significantly more than minimum wage. Yes, it's less than the average full-time worker, but that wasn't the argument.

Any data I've seen show its mostly a wash or a loss for any of them, and all of them are a car accident away from being financially ruined and one must work more time than they would have as an employee to make the same amount of money once you factor in health care and insurance and all the liability costs.

Not going to deny that's it's all over the place as far as wage is concerned, but this is a very broad statement and isn't universally applicable to all gig workers.

Yeah, by design, so companies can have a slave labor force, and not have to absorb any risk or cost. So..... win win for your friend.

Yes, it doesn't work the same way as normal full time jobs by design, that's why people do gig work. That's why the same rules don't apply.

Apparently you are not. This system exists at the expense of the little guy as is.

So, small gig business owners aren't the little guy? Or are you arbitrarily assuming all business owners are greedy fucks and everyone who works for them is the little guy? So, fuck everyone honestly trying to run a small gig business?

You know the gig business isn't just Uber and Lyft right?

Ah, you are just not for any solution that you know fixes anything.

I'm not for a one size fits all solution that fucks over a lot of people who are actually trying to do god by their employees. There are more types of gig business than Uber and Lyft.

[Edge-]

I'm not for a one size fits all solution that fucks over a lot of people who are actually trying to do god by their employees. There are more types of gig business than Uber and Lyft.

I'm sure Uber and Lyft are trying to do good by their independent contractors, which is why they dumped $200M+ into Prop 22 to keep them as independent contractors (and not like, actual employees with benefits and worker protections and shit) instead of using that money to pay their independent contractors better.

I mean, it's always a great look when the gig economy has to brag about rolling out features to protect their drivers from violent passengers, and their passengers from violent drivers. That's the kind of choice I'm looking for: Which rideshare app has the best way to secretly call the cops if my driver turns into a rapey creep, so they can be on the way without driving said rapey creep into a frenzy.

Truly, innovation that helps gig workers and those that use the services.

[Katchii]

I'm sure Uber and Lyft are trying to do good by their independent contractors, which is why they dumped $200M+ into Prop 22 to keep them as independent contractors (and not like, actual employees with benefits and worker protections and shit) instead of using that money to pay their independent contractors better.

I mean, it's always a great look when the gig economy has to brag about rolling out features to protect their drivers from violent passengers, and their passengers from violent drivers. That's the kind of choice I'm looking for: Which rideshare app has the best way to secretly call the cops if my driver turns into a rapey creep, so they can be on the way without driving said rapey creep into a frenzy.

Truly, innovation that helps gig workers and those that use the services.

Not sure if you missed my comparison or are choosing to ignore it. I said there are more out there BESIDES Uber and Lyft, as in, there are gig business that are different from, aka are NOT, Uber and Lyft.

They shouldn't all be treated the same way. They're not all like Uber and Lyft.

[Edge-]

Not sure if you missed my comparison or are choosing to ignore it. I said there are more out there BESIDES Uber and Lyft, as in, there are gig business that are different from, aka are NOT, Uber and Lyft.

Yeah...and?

They shouldn't all be treated the same way. They're not all like Uber and Lyft.

If they're not building their business a la Uber/Lyft-esque exploitation of their workforce, great! And AB5 probably wouldn't have been a huge hit to them, either.

But if they're following that exact same model then naw, they're no different. They're just exploiting on a smaller scale.

[Katchii]

Yeah...and?

Exactly what I said. You're rant was entirely about how Uber and Lyft treats their employees, when I already explicitly called them out as a bad example of a gig employer. I didn't really get the point of the rant in that context.

If they're not building their business a la Uber/Lyft-esque exploitation of their workforce, great! And AB5 probably wouldn't have been a huge hit to them, either.

Suddenly enforcing a requirement to furnish all your employees with benefits they didn't have before would be a major hit to any company. Don't pretend it wouldn't. You think a relatively small time gig employer that's making ends meet comfortably wouldn't be absolutely tanked by suddenly being required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for benefits without significantly jacking up their rates and losing customers?

In the example of my gig worker friend, which you can believe or not, but whatever....

He only had 7 employees total, including himself at the time. Based on how much he was charging, and how much the benefits he would be required to carry for each of them if AB5 went into effect, he would have had to charge ~300% more for his company's services to cover the cost of the insurance and still operate. A typical gig went for ~$500, so that same gig would now cost ~$1500. For absolutely zero difference in the service provided to the client. It would more than double his operating costs.

You think that "wouldn't have been a huge hit" to them?

This isn't about it being good or bad, just the reality of how hard that requirement would actually hit these businesses. Benefits are NOT cheap, and provide absolutely zero benefit to the customer/client of these gig workers, making it an extremely hard pill to swallow for those clients to see a rate hike that large.

But if they're following that exact same model then naw, they're no different. They're just exploiting on a smaller scale.

What model specifically? What part of the model is it that you are pointing to as exploitative? Their wages? Their benefits? Other?

[Edge-]

Suddenly enforcing a requirement to furnish all your employees with benefits they didn't have before would be a major hit to any company. Don't pretend it wouldn't.

I'm not. I'm just acknowledging that the entire business model is built off of exploiting workers. Because workers should receive benefits. If those companies fail because their business model is built on exploiting their workforce, tough shit.

You think a relatively small time gig employer that's making ends meet comfortably wouldn't be absolutely tanked by suddenly being required to pay tens of thousands of dollars for benefits without significantly jacking up their rates and losing customers?

Then they're undercharging customers so they can exploit their underpaid workforce. Again, not seeing how this is a bad thing? We've just gotten used to things being cheap because we don't mind if folks are exploited to fuck to keep prices cheap.

He only had 7 employees total, including himself at the time. Based on how much he was charging, and how much the benefits he would be required to carry for each of them if AB5 went into effect, he would have had to charge ~300% more for his company's services to cover the cost of the insurance and still operate. A typical gig went for ~$500, so that same gig would now cost ~$1500. For absolutely zero difference in the service provided to the client. It would more than double his operating costs.

If clients aren't willing to pay that increased price, maybe his business model is garbage and built off of exploiting his workers?

You think that "wouldn't have been a huge hit" to them?

Again I do, I just don't care much for companies that are built on exploiting their workers. I'm not gonna stan for them.

This isn't about it being good or bad, just the reality of how hard that requirement would actually hit these businesses.

And about how these companies are fundamentally built on a bad business model.

Benefits are NOT cheap, and provide absolutely zero benefit to the customer/client of these gig workers, making it an extremely hard pill to swallow for those clients to see a rate hike that large.

They don't benefit customers of non-gig companies directly either. But do you know what? Having a happier, healthier, better compensated workforce often leads to benefits for clients, and growth.

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman...doing-now.html

Weird that this company was able to provide far better benefits and compensation to their workers while still growing the business?

What model specifically? What part of the model is it that you are pointing to as exploitative? Their wages? Their benefits? Other?

The model where you have a workforce of easily replicable contract workers who are poorly compensated and receive no benefits so that the company can offer bargain rates on their services to customers off the backs of the exploited workforce?

[Glorious Leader]

You're assuming they're all being exploited.

Are they receiving the entirety of the surplus created with their labor? No..then they're being exploited.

[Katchii]

I'm not. I'm just acknowledging that the entire business model is built off of exploiting workers. Because workers should receive benefits. If those companies fail because their business model is built on exploiting their workforce, tough shit.

Regular companies don't furnish employees who don't work full-time with benefits, only the full time ones. In order to even have an insurance option you need to pay money to have the option, even if the employees don't even use it, because that's how the deals with the insurance companies work, that's how you guarantee the rates.

Then they're undercharging customers so they can exploit their underpaid workforce. Again, not seeing how this is a bad thing? We've just gotten used to things being cheap because we don't mind if folks are exploited to fuck to keep prices cheap.

If clients aren't willing to pay that increased price, maybe his business model is garbage and built off of exploiting his workers?

Again I do, I just don't care much for companies that are built on exploiting their workers. I'm not gonna stan for them.

And about how these companies are fundamentally built on a bad business model.

Many of these "businesses" are just trying to help provide a centralized place where the independent contractors that use them can find work without spending hours and hours putting themselves out there to get a gig. Otherwise they'd literally be on their own, with no support network, having to find and pay for their own insurance, find and pay for their own equipment, find and pay for advertising, etc...

But now that this business is helping them find work, they're now on the hook to cover benefits and all these extra costs that the independent contractor was on the hook on their own for, before they started helping them find work?

Obviously this doesn't apply to companies like Uber, Lyft, and those like them who are literally abusing their workers by calling them independent contractors and therefore getting away with some of the bullshit you're talking about. They just need to make their "employees" actual employees.

They don't benefit customers of non-gig companies directly either. But do you know what? Having a happier, healthier, better compensated workforce often leads to benefits for clients, and growth.

https://www.inc.com/jessica-stillman...doing-now.html

Weird that this company was able to provide far better benefits and compensation to their workers while still growing the business?

That's not a gig employer, is it? Kind of an unfair comparison as the rules are completely different. I don't believe they should have the exact same rules. That's my main point, that the one size fits all solution didn't really work for everyone.

The model where you have a workforce of easily replicable contract workers who are poorly compensated and receive no benefits so that the company can offer bargain rates on their services to customers off the backs of the exploited workforce?

There's a few pretty major assumptions in this sentence. Yes, there are many gig employers that do follow this line of thinking, but not all. Two I can think off the top of my head are well equipped, actually good DJ's (not just some guy with some speakers and a laptop full of music) and licensed and well equipped independent Massage Therapists.

That being said, this seems to be more of a health insurance issue than an employer issue. If we had Universal Healthcare this wouldn't really be a discussion because these folks would have the benefits you're saying their employer is required to give them.

If the actual underlying root issue here is trying to make sure these gig workers get insurance benefits, isn't the healthcare system, how it works and how for-profit insurance companies require companies to pay to get coverage the main issue? Or are there other benefits you're referring to?

- - - Updated - - -

Are they receiving the entirety of the surplus created with their labor? No..then they're being exploited.

In the case of my friends business? Yes, they're getting the entirety of the "surplus."

Just like any other facilitator of work, the business takes a cut of the fee to pay for the office people manning the phones, scheduling the gigs, doing the advertising, etc...while the gig worker goes and does the job and gets the rest.

I'm not really seeing how that's exploitative, when the gig worker is an independent contractor who was expected to pay their own way for benefits previous to using the "employer" to centralize where they got their jobs from.

That logic only applies to gig companies that work that way, who are literally just trying to help facilitate finding and scheduling the work of the independent contractors. Companies that hire "independent contractors" so they can exploit the shit out of them, I agree with everything everyone is saying. I'm just not on board with the idea that every gig employer is an exploitative piece of shit like everyone seems to be implying.

[Trifle]

They were all doing gig work on the side, didn't need the benefits and just wanted the extra cash. The business was basically like a guild in an adventure RPG/ anime where they acted as the source for information and scheduled the gigs and the workers just came in and took the jobs they wanted. The business took a cut for setting up the gig and the workers took the rest.

Are they even covered by prop 22 then? Prop 22 is only for ride sharing services and delivery drivers. It's quite literally the Uber & Uber Eats law.

The company wasn't threatening to kill their job, the business would have been closed completely because it couldn't support the cost of doing business anymore if it had to pay the extra stuff Prop 22 was requiring, which the workers didn't want, didn't need, or didn't care about because this was all side work for the vast majority of them.

This makes no sense to me. Presumably there are other businesses offering similar services which can afford to pay their employees all their benefits... since they can function, there's no reason your friends business can't function?

[Kellhound]

Right, you're speaking fact and I'm speaking opinion, is that what you're saying?

Its not right to pollute.
Its not right to force workers to work in the conditions they do at meat packing plants.
Its not right to have no fire protection in a place of business.
Its not right to promise people visas, smuggle them over the border than never give them the visas while giving them loans they cannot pay back, so you have an indentured and disposable workforce.
These types of things are not fucking morally ambiguous, no matter haw many times you people kneel at the altar of money.

How much pollution is too much?
Define "force" and what exactly constitutes proper conditions
What is the correct level of fire protection?
That is an immigration issue.

The only fact is we are both dealing with opinion.

[Katchii]

Are they even covered by prop 22 then? Prop 22 is only for ride sharing services and delivery drivers. It's quite literally the Uber & Uber Eats law.

I know it's a copout, but I'm sorry, I honestly don't know exactly why they worried about Prop 22. I assume it had to do with what kind of precedent it may have set for other types of contract workers should the same thinking be applied elsewhere.

This makes no sense to me. Presumably there are other businesses offering similar services which can afford to pay their employees all their benefits... since they can function, there's no reason your friends business can't function?

Actual independent contractors, maybe, not necessarily other businesses.

Independent contractors are on the hook to pay for their own benefits because they're essentially self employed. My friend's business was selective in which independent contractors they allowed to work with them, to maintain their reputation for quality, and then as part of the agreement would help them find gigs, advertise for them, etc... in exchange for a cut of the gig fee.

[Bodakane]

How much pollution is too much?
Define "force" and what exactly constitutes proper conditions
What is the correct level of fire protection?
That is an immigration issue.

The only fact is we are both dealing with opinion.

I used to work for a business that showed people how to comply with OSHA, EPA and DOT regulations.

Back in the day, there were no regulations. Then, people got tired of businesses burning down and killing most of the workers because there were no fire prevention measures or fire fighting measures either. Hell, they used to lock the doors to their factories during work hours so employees were trapped. So, they said, you need some kind of fire prevention. People, who made the same arguments you are making, would put a bucket of water in the middle of the manufacturing floor and call it done. So people still died and property was still destroyed at the same rate. So the government had to come back and say, ok you need fire extinguishers. So people that thought like you, would begrudgingly buy 1 fucking extinguisher for 20,000 sq/ft facility and called it done. So on and so forth, until we have to have numerous regulations just about fucking extinguishers just so people like you can loophole the system.

I've seen it first hand. Across numerous businesses and numerous industries, all have the same mentality in common.....how little can we do too meet regulatory requirements instead of how can we protect our employees, customers, neighbors and the environment.

So you can pretend, its fucking nebulous and just so unknowable.....but I've found that people like you start to think these things are extremely knowable when you start screaming and crying about fairness when you have to follow the rules. You can set your watch by it.

[Edge-]

Back in the day, there were no regulations. Then, people got tired of businesses burning down and killing most of the workers because there were no fire prevention measures or fire fighting measures either.

Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
The Jungle - Upton Sinclaire

The history of why regulations are necessary and important is one of tragic human loss and suffering, all so that big companies can make more money.

"But it make it harder and more expensive to operate!" yeah, it does. Because killing or maiming your workers isn't acceptable anymore, or at least shouldn't be.

[Bodakane]

Triangle Shirtwaist Fire
The Jungle - Upton Sinclaire

The history of why regulations are necessary and important is one of tragic human loss and suffering, all so that big companies can make more money.

"But it make it harder and more expensive to operate!" yeah, it does. Because killing or maiming your workers isn't acceptable anymore, or at least shouldn't be.

Apparently, it's impossible to know how many maimings and killings it takes to pass from acceptable to wrong, I'm told.....