This ruling could pave the way for a model that is good for everyone. As of now the gig economy exploits the poor[0]. Unless you think making 70% less than minimum wage is fair.
It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that these jobs not be available to them at all.
If people deserve some minimum standard of living, why should only employed people deserve that minimum standard? I don't see why gig economy employers are the ones getting the blame here. Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.
> It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements.
But then
> they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option
So obviously the problem was that the labor market was broken if the best they could find was that?
> Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.
Agree, this is definitely a 2 way problem. But I think it should be attacked from both sides: Unemployment benefits, healthcare for unemployed and so on should be so good that people don't take the worst jobs. But also: employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist. The end result, and a measure of success here would be a higher unemployment. Having a low single-digit unemployment isn't a mark of success.
> employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist?
But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do?
I don't want to claim that this argument applies to all situations, there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive arrangements that the government ought to ban, but if someone wants what looks to me like a bad job why should I stop them from taking that job?
Before COVID I used to frequent a coffee shop where everyone needed to bus their own tables. The cost of labor in SF is so high that it's not reasonable to pay someone to bus the tables. While there I would frequently see a man outside who was clearly homeless. I'm sure he would have happily accepted less than minimum wage to bus the tables, but it's a moot question because that kind of relationship is banned, it's "exploitive". I'm not sure he's happier being unemployed than he would be being "exploited".
> A measure of success here would be a higher unemployment
I'm roughly with you on this. Technically, unemployed means looking for a job and unable for find one so high unemployment will always be a bad thing. But yes, when fewer people accept bad jobs we'll know that everyone is being taken care of.
> But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do?
That's an idea that is centered around individual freedoms rather than maximizing the utility for the most people. This is simply a political/ethical conflict.
My reasoning works like this: I want a functioning labor market, where "functioning" means that the worst jobs are good jobs. So I want my lawmakers to ensure it. I'm happy for them to severely reduce my freedom to make agreements as an employer or employee in that process.
> The cost of labor in SF is so high that it's not reasonable to pay someone to bus the tables. While there I would frequently see a man outside who was clearly homeless.
This problem has 2 solutions 1) let people take worse jobs 2) make social security nets better. Both are required. I can't stress this enough: any change to the labor market laws must come with corresponding changes to welfare.
My view that even the worst jobs should be good jobs is of course coupled with an understanding that this potentially raises the equilibrium unemployment by a lot, so it it obviously follows that I also believe society (i.e. my tax money) should take care of everyone in society who is unemployed. There is an inconsistent viewpoint here: and that would be the one where you think there shouldn't be a massive social safety net but also people shouldn't be allowed to take low-paying jobs. To be clear, that's not what I think. I think the idea of "the worst jobs being good jobs" is a good goal, and that it also must be coupled with a large social safety net.
I realize that social safety net isn't in place in California - so arguing for the change to labor laws is, at least, arguing the for the inconsistent state - but it's hopefully something that can be addressed next. One thing would have to come first.
Thanks for elaborating, I think we're mostly in agreement.
In the current world where there is no good safety net I'm saddened by laws like AB5 which do not seem to maximize utility for the most people, they only maximize utility for the people who are valuable enough to their employers, leaving a large class of people unemployable. But it sounds like we actually agree about this.
We disagree slightly in that I think even in the world where everyone is taken care of people should be allowed to accept bad jobs. It's actually useful for us to allow this! If more people start accepting bad jobs again it's a sign that the safety net is failing and should be improved.
But if that world was not an option I would mostly happily live in the world you're describing, where bad jobs were banned but there was a robust safety net.
> So obviously the problem was that the labor market was broken if the best they could find was that?
How does this imply that it's broken? Economies at their core are systems to distribute scarce resources. It's entirely possible (bordering on likely given pandemic) that this is the best employment opportunity for many drivers.
> The end result, and a measure of success here would be a higher unemployment.
> that this is the best employment opportunity for many drivers.
The best opportunity being a bad one was my reason for calling it "broken".
> Uh, ok
Unemployment alone wouldn't be a measure of a good labor market, but a good labor market can have high unemployment as an expected side effect. It's only a "better" situation, if the unemployed people are better off in that labor market too (i.e. social safety nets exist).
I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying.
My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers.
If you think that these are immoral working conditions then what you really believe is that a large chunk of our society is immorally made to live in poverty, and you're blaming Uber but how could this be Uber's fault?
If someone has genuinely decided to accept work for $4/hr and this shocks you so much that you're demanding Uber give them more, you should also be shocked that so many people are currently earning $0/hr if you have any hope of having a consistent worldview.
When seen from this lens the whole argument over SB 5 and Prop 22 makes no sense at all. Stop focusing on Uber, ask your legislators to stop focusing on Uber, and to start attempting to solve the real problem.
I think I hear you. Let people do what they want. Caveat emptor.
Here is what I am saying.
Imagine you're very poor and have a son who isn't very smart. He comes home excited about a new "job" washing the neighbor's car for $2 every other weekend because it means he'll be able to go to Disneyland this summer. Summer rolls around and it turns out he only made a quarter each wash because he had to replace his bike tires riding to and from the neighbor's house, and pay for soap and rags and stuff. You go to the neighbors and they tell you "tough shit" because your kid was too dumb to realize not even Mr Clean himself could make it to Disneyland washing cars for $2, and that the whole game was rigged from the start. Your neighbor just wanted a clean car without having to pay for it. Then after all this drama, they're texting your son that he should keep washing the cars for $2 because washing it for $10 isn't in his best interest.
In another part of this thread I mention that there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive agreements which we are right to ban; the situation you're describing seems to veer into that territory.
To the extent that your counterparty lies to you about your future take-home pay that is fraud and is already illegal whether you're an employee or a contractor. To the extent they strongly imply you'll be taking home $2 per week or that you'll be able to afford Disneyland, well aware neither are true, that is likely also fraud.
To the extent that someone is genuinely dumb and naive it seems easier to legally put them into an exploitative situation but I reject the notion that this is an accurate description of most Uber drivers.
You have brought up a good point, the system I'm imagining doesn't have a good solution for people who are dumb and naive and who unknowingly put themselves into exploitive situations. Luckily I don't think there are many people like this, hopefully they have a network of friends/family guiding them, and hopefully the safety net I'm describing puts some bounds on their downside: by picking a bad job they might not make it to Disneyland but at least they won't make it into poverty.
> Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr?
Do you think that people would continue to work for Uber after the first month if they were really earning $4/hr when they could walk into a fastfood chain and earn minimum wage?
So either your number is wrong, or the answer is yes. Either way, you're not arguing for what you think you are.
People used to "freely enter" agreements to work for pennies per hour, or to die while building the Hoover dams and the railroads. Are you saying that worker protections are all unnecessary because people freely enter their employment?
IMO, just because someone will work for $4 per hour, doesn't mean that it's ethical for the company to pay them that rate, or that it's desirable to have a society in a race to the bottom. ideally, the wage would be more in line with the actual value that the worker brings in
That's exactly what's going to happen, though. Uber and Lyft are not very profitable so they can't actually afford to increase wages or benefits out of their own pockets. If they increase prices, the market will shrink, so drivers won't have work.
The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.
That's not true. The demand is there because the cost makes sense. I had a car, but after considering the cost of owning (and parking) that car, I found that I was better off not having a car and relying on Uber when I need to get somewhere that requires a car. If that math no longer makes sense, I'll probably go back to driving.
I take it as a "no". You nor California's government have no better options for them.
> The alternative scenario...
Another scenario is that Uber hikes prices, people cease to use their services because they are too expensive, and the company fails, and all these drivers lose their jobs, and customers lose the service, which will double-hurt the working class because rich people can afford their own cars and/or expensive taxis.
The drivers are not exploited. Had their have better options, they would be working elsewhere. You want to help them, give them better options, make opening business easier and so on. Not kill their options.
Ehh... I'm wasting my time... Socialists are the worst enemy of the people the claim to want to protect.
If workers get paid more in benefits and "rights," more people will become rideshare drivers. And then pay will get pushed down, until the work is just as undesirable as it is now, only differently undesirable, because the compensation is in the form of benefits and "rights," instead of cash that the driver can spend however they want.
Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.
Exactly. Employment and benefits requirement will completely eliminate part-time and flexible-hours workers, and other people that were really benefiting from this type of work.
I'd be very surprised if this turns out to be true. Ridesharing is competing with public transit, personal vehicles, walking, etc. If prices significantly increase, the market size will go back to what it was before Uber.
If people deserve some minimum standard of living, why should only employed people deserve that minimum standard? I don't see why gig economy employers are the ones getting the blame here. Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.