Judge Halts California 'Gig Worker' Law From Taking Effect For Truckers (cbsnews.com) 146
schwit1 shares a report from CBS News: A federal judge has temporarily blocked a new California labor law from impacting more than 70,000 independent truckers. The law, passed late last year, makes it harder for companies to classify workers as independent contractors instead of employees, who are entitled to minimum wage and benefits such as workers compensation.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego on Tuesday granted a temporary restraining order sought by the California Trucking Association while he considers imposing a permanent injunction. He said the association is likely to eventually prevail on its argument that the state law violates federal law. He also ruled the truckers would otherwise be likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that temporarily blocking the law from applying to truckers is in the public interest. While the law's main target was ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft, there are about 400,000 workers in California doing such "gig" work. Also, the report says an additional 1.5 million workers in California, doing jobs such as cleaning, construction, building maintenance and trucking, are likely to feel its effects.
U.S. District Judge Roger Benitez of San Diego on Tuesday granted a temporary restraining order sought by the California Trucking Association while he considers imposing a permanent injunction. He said the association is likely to eventually prevail on its argument that the state law violates federal law. He also ruled the truckers would otherwise be likely to suffer irreparable harm, and that temporarily blocking the law from applying to truckers is in the public interest. While the law's main target was ride-sharing companies such as Uber and Lyft, there are about 400,000 workers in California doing such "gig" work. Also, the report says an additional 1.5 million workers in California, doing jobs such as cleaning, construction, building maintenance and trucking, are likely to feel its effects.
Good (Score:2, Insightful)
The gig job law was stupid AF, it needs to be killed off as it only hurts people and helps no one in the state. The only thing it will do is get most people to hier someone from outside of Cali instead and just gives someone else a job a resedent of the state could have gotten.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A temporary injunction isn't establishing precedent. He's putting the brakes on in the middle of a pending legal case.
This is the opposite of legislating from the bench, by allowing a challenge to the legislation by citizens, via the judiciary. You know, part of checks and balances?
You may agree or not, but nothing was decided except that things need to be decided in court because there's a claimed conflict between the State and Federal statutes.
Re: (Score:2)
A temporary injunction isn't establishing precedent.
The story says that this is a quick temporary injunction while he considers imposing a permanent injunction, so that is totally on the table.
But I don't see how this is "legislating from the bench" either. A state legislature can't just override federal law at their discretion. Since truckers are almost universally multi-state workers, this seems like one of the few invocations of the Commerce Clause that would actually be justified.
I'm almost disappointed.... (Score:3, Insightful)
I wanted to see what would happen if this law went through and suddenly thousands of iPhone developers tried to claim employee benefits from Apple.
I can appreciate the intent of the proposed law to ensure fair payment for work completed, I just can't see a general law that makes gig work all but completely impossible to find would, in the long run, actually be a good thing.
That's not how this works (Score:5, Insightful)
Apple's primary business is hardware. They have a secondary business of providing an Operating System and APIs.
If Apple's primary business was apps and they hired "gig" workers then yeah, they might have a problem. But that is not the case.
The law might need a few tweaks around the edges but the intent is clear and good: If you want to have a business that depends on workers you need to hire them. If you don't like that, tough. We're not a piece work society.
Re: (Score:3)
Apple owns and runs an App store, whose primary business is distributing software.
By the argument you are using, if I happen to own a side business company and people work for that company, I shouldn't have to pay them because that's not my main business.
Software distribution != Software Development (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
if it was Publishers wouldn't be a thing.
They may soon cease to be a thing, at least in California.
Publishers may soon be required to directly employ their writers.
Freelance writers have filed a lawsuit [latimes.com] challenging the law on constitutional grounds, but it is unclear if they will prevail.
Re: (Score:2)
That part will get wrecked by the Supreme Court. "You may not publish this person's 36th story this year unless you hire him."
You don't even need to get to significant additional costs as discouraging the publishing, also unconstitutional.
Re:That's not how this works (Score:4, Interesting)
If Apple's primary business was apps and they hired "gig" workers then yeah, they might have a problem. But that is not the case
This is wrong. Here is the text of AB5 [ca.gov].
The work is only required to be "the usual course of the hiring entity’s business". There is no requirement that it be the "primary" business.
According to the wording of the law, I can see no reason that it would not apply to app developers, freelance writers (who already filed their own lawsuit). It could be applied to real estate agents.
We're not a piece work society.
Then why should an independent coder be allowed to write an app? Or an independent author be allowed to write a novel?
Re: (Score:2)
Stop with the rational arguments, dammit. Everyone should have a job comrade. No more of this fending for oneself!
Re: (Score:2)
We can't all be evil genius supervillains running Linux and hanging out with femmebots all the time. We need downtime and hobbies too, like trolling Slashdot.
Re: (Score:3)
I haven't read the whole fine statute, but the most obvious reason that the law won't apply to app programmers is that it applies to "a person providing labor or services." App programmers (etc.) are not paid for their labor or services, but presumably for the right to redistribute their code (I haven't read the Apple Store agreement either).
On another note, this law shouldn't apply to actors because most are union--and if there isn't a broader carve out like there is for doctors and lawyers, then shame o
Re: (Score:2)
On another note, this law shouldn't apply to actors because most are union-
Actually, it doesn't apply to film and TV actors for a different reason: Most of them are already W2 employees.
For those performance artists who are not W2 employees, and work rotating "gigs" at bars or nightclubs, they may indeed be covered by this law.
One solution for a band or stand-up comedian is to form an S-corporation and pay themselves through the corp. This can be done in 30 minutes for about $200 and saves a lot of hassle. It also makes writing off expenses much easier.
Re: (Score:2)
In CA S-corps cost $800 a year to maintain (being an out-of-state corp just means you have to pay that state, too).
Most likely something sensible happens with actors and prizefighers, regardless.
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know how I could answer it more clearly (Score:3)
Independent Coders can write all the apps they want. For themselves. When a company wants to start a business writing apps they need to hire programmers. Period. Apple does not own the apps on their store. They distribute & publish them, along with providing a platform to sell them on and APIs to make them work.
Do you seriously know so little about how programming and application development works that you don't see the difference? If so go write a few apps. It'll be a
Re: (Score:3)
Independent Coders can write all the apps they want. For themselves.
Drivers can drive their cars all they want. For themselves.
Apple does not own the apps on their store.
Uber does not own the cars or drive the cars.
providing a platform to sell them on and APIs to make them work.
That is also what Uber does.
you don't see the difference?
There are many differences between driving a car and writing an app. Nobody is arguing about that. But I see nothing in AB5, which is obviously aimed directly at Uber, that would not also apply to Apple.
Re: (Score:2)
But I see nothing in AB5, which is obviously aimed directly at Uber, that would not also apply to Apple.
The part that doesn't apply to Apple is that Apple already donates, as to established taxi services, to politicians. Uber must be broken to that saddle.
Oops, sorry. Pay no attention to that little man behind the curtain. The great and powerful Oz has spoken!
Uber doesn't have a company without drivers (Score:2)
You do bring up a good point, which is that the closed nature of the iOS ecosystem puts Apple on shakier footing. There's an easy solution to that though, force them to open up app development like OS X development is. That said, there are more tests for employment to apply so it's debatable, but I'm happy to force an open iOS to clarify it. I'm sure most
Also Uber does own cars. They lease th
People who start the comment in the subject box (Score:2)
are morons.
Re: I don't know how I could answer it more clearl (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
This does not make apps the "usual course" of their business.
You could also say that "driving cars for hire" is not the "usual course" of Uber's business. They drive no cars for hire. They pay other people to do that, just like Apple pays other people to write apps.
But that is a complete inversion of what this law means, which is, of course, the business including the non-employee workers.
In 2018, Apple had a profit of $102B. $37B came from apps and services.
Re: (Score:2)
It's not actually (Score:2)
Think of it this way. Microsoft makes the XBox. They also make Office. Microsoft has to hire hardware engineers to make the XBox because that is a core business task of making consoles. But just because the XBox doesn't run Office doesn't mean the
Re: (Score:2)
I don't know (Score:2)
Or is this a meme I'm too old to understand? Kinda like how "cancel culture" means unsubscribing from somebody's service when you don't like them? Inquiring minds want to know.
Re: (Score:2)
You were caught repeating, word for word, one of his posts the other day. Here's the "other guy"
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
And here's you:
https://slashdot.org/comments.... [slashdot.org]
Curiously, your post got modded up, but his down? How did that happen?
Re: (Score:2)
It's possibly a troll. Or possibly not. We've had people get busted making "Oops" posts while logged in that were meant to be AC and similar before . . . albeit not necessarily involving rsilvergun.
He hasn't even denied that BARef0Ot posts, instead linking to "barefoot" as if that somehow proved that the BAReF0Ot didn't exist. The whole thing is fishy.
Re: (Score:2)
That's not the bearfoot they are referring to, methinks.
It's this one [slashdot.org]
Re: That's not how this works (Score:3)
Almost every Uber driver Iâ(TM)ve met drives for both Uber and Lyft at the same time. This is impossible if they are an employee of only one. If they are forced to be an employee of only one, it will hurt the employee the most.
Also, the whole idea of a single full time job is a recent phenomenon. Throughout most of history (and still in many countries), many people have multiple overlapping jobs and not just the poor. Most quiet âoemillionaire next doorâ types have multiple income streams
The whole idea of civil rights is pretty new (Score:3)
The fact that they can run off multiple services doesn't change that the companies are skirting around minimum wage law. It doesn't change that in a country where access to healthcare is predicated on employment they do not have health insurance. It doesn't change the fact that the are paying
Re: (Score:2)
Nice misappropriation of Hobbes.
Re: (Score:3)
The fact that they can run off multiple services doesn't change that the companies are skirting around minimum wage law. It doesn't change that in a country where access to healthcare is predicated on employment they do not have health insurance. It doesn't change the fact that the are paying much less into SSI & Medicare because of those lower wages. It doesn't change that we have millions of professional drivers driving on private insurance.
OK. Now, how does all that apply to a contractor who's been making $150/hr at an aerospace company and paying the max into Social Security and has no trouble affording health insurance, who due to SB5 is now facing "conversion" to a part-time employee limited to 30 hrs/week and no benefits? Maybe one size really doesn't fit all?
Re: (Score:2)
That might be the dumbest thing anyone has ever said... EVER.
Looking to the past for insight on how people in the past did things is fine. Assuming that people in the past had all the right answers about... anything, is nonsense. We can sometimes look at the past and say... "oh, well, that was a disaster." But I'm definitely over the attitude that just because some old men 3000 years ago wrote down a code of morality, that it's a code of morality that is still valid, because they said it was.
Re: (Score:2)
You have never been an employee for more then one company at once? When I was an employee and only received 14 hours a week, I got a second job as an employee to get the other 14 hours.(this was in high school after hours jobs.)
Or are you saying you can only work for one company at a time?
Re: (Score:2)
Uh, what?
Actually, the idea of a single full tiime job, or career, is many generations old.
What *IS* a releatively recent phenomenon with regards to full time employment is the notion that one would tend to shift full-time careers or employers several times before they retire.
Re: (Score:2)
There is no such requirement for it to be a company's primary business. The criteria is:
"(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business."
Since the internal development, sales and distribution of iPhone apps is in the usual course of Apple's business (it makes them billions per year), a California developer publishing software via the App Store would fail B, meaning that Apple would legally have to classify them as employees.
Re: That's not how this works (Score:2)
The big difference I see between an app developer and Uber is currently Uber contractors canâ(TM)t set their own rates.
Re: (Score:2)
Interesting language in the order (Score:3)
The order refers to the Motor Carrier as “the independent contractors that they are.” That they are? Not “that they allege” they are?
Note “Motor Carriers” has a specific definition under federal law, and the statutes being litigated have many exceptions. So this is a very narrow ruling. But it’s a start.
‘At least Nero played the fiddle’ [twitchy.com]
They are, under federal law, which is this case (Score:3)
This case is about federal law vs state law. The question in this case is:
Does the federal law which explicitly bars states from regulating trucking in interstate commerce prevent California from applying this law to truckers?
The truckers are, as a matter of federal law, independent contractors. California has passed a law saying they aren't allowed to continue to be.
I have no opinion on thr answer in this case, but that's the question.
Allowing confusion is a HUGE problem. (Score:2)
One of the worst examples of legal confusion is the California Proposition 65 Warnings [ca.gov]. The warnings are on web sites and packages, with NO explanation. Many of the Proposition 65 Warnings are on items that don't seem likely to contribute toxins.
My experience is that Washington State law is even worse than California law, in some areas.
Any Worker law should be national, not different in different states. Now, a trucker
Re: (Score:2)
If you go into a business, open their fax machine, and eat the toner, you can get cancer. So, in California, that business is required to post a warning sign.
Since ALL businesses have a fax machine (or did when the law was passed), they all have the warning. So consumers have been conditioned to just completely ignore the signs.
A generic sign that says "Warning: Cancer" is much easier than a sign that says "Don't eat the toner from our fax machine". It also covers all the bases, so if a customer, say, dri
Full time is about degree of control (Score:3)
Do I use my own tools?
Do I own my work environment or do I go into an office?
Do I have a degree of freedom in deciding how I do my job?
Also is my job part of the core part of a companies business.
If I'm a cleaner and come into an office after hours, use my own supplies and decide which night I come in then I'm likely a contractor. If I drive my own rig but someone else sets my hours, what I pick up and that someone else's core business is promising to deliver items from A to B it gets tricky. If we look at Uber drivers, the driver supplies their car, sets their own hours and Uber could argue their core business is facilitating the transaction between drivers and riders. I would lean towards that being a true gig. As for office workers who work 9 to 5 at someone else's office - they are full time employees the first day they start work. I suspect the state of California is breaking this law right now.
Re: (Score:2)
It's interesting to note, I think, that the anwers to those questions are essentially the same for Uber/Lyft drivers and independent truck drivers.
So why are truckers exempt but Uber/Lyft drivers are not?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Plus the law was created specifically to go after Uber and Lyft.
Re: (Score:2)
So why are truckers exempt but Uber/Lyft drivers are not?
Because Uber is not interstate trucking and thus not superseded by federal law.
Re: (Score:3)
AB5 also sets some more requirements on independent contractors. The most laughable two are -- quoting the law verbatim [ca.gov]:
Re: (Score:2)
So if I'm a contract engineer, consulting with the Pentagon on weapons design, does that mean I have to do part time work for the Chinese and/or Russians as well?
Re: (Score:2)
That's why all the defense contractors are in the Northeast :-)
Re: (Score:2)
If I drive my own rig but someone else sets my hours, what I pick up and that someone else's core business is promising to deliver items from A to B it gets tricky.
If you hired a contractor to remodel your kitchen, would that person be your employee or a contractor?
He's using his own tools, but you're likely to set the hours he can work and limiting the amount of freedom he has in deciding how to do his job (use these style/brand parts, these colors, etc) If a literal contractor doesn't meet the definition of a contractor, then we may have overthought the definition a bit...
Re: (Score:2)
Actually, you don't set the contractor's hours. You provide available time ranges for them to work, but they can also decide to not show up. They don't have to be there so long as the project is still finished on time.
limiting the amount of freedom he has in deciding how to do his job (use these style/brand parts, these colors, etc)
That's not limiting how they work, but what the work is. You hired them to make your kitchen look and work a certain way. Whether they used the jackhammer or the sledgehammer is up to them.
Re: (Score:2)
Do I set my own hours?
Do I use my own tools?
Do I own my work environment or do I go into an office?
Do I have a degree of freedom in deciding how I do my job?
Also is my job part of the core part of a companies business.
For Uber, all of these are "Yes" except the last, and being a "core part" of the business is not a criterion used by AB5, so it is irrelevant.
Re: (Score:2)
These are really weak arguments.
So (Score:2)
If a trucker gives you a ride, is that ride-sharing?
It caused other problems also (Score:3)
Pro wrestling isn't something everyone likes, but there's couple lawsuits by California based indie wrestling companies also trying to stop this law. And 2 indie wrestling promotions moved their HQ out of the state. As far as big corporations like the infamous WWE there are rumors by wrestling news sites like wrestling observer and ringside news that holding shows and ppvs like Wrestlemania in California maybe canceled regarding this law.
Sports illustrated wrote article about the problems this law causing for wwe and other wrestling organizations back in September :
https://www.si.com/wrestling/2... [si.com]
Dana had mentioned about this law that the UFC would also not hold any shows in California as ufc fighters are independent contractors.
But even Hollywood handles actors and such as independent contractors, so the law makes no sense. Of course California ranks number 1 in the US for losing citizens as massive amounts of Californians are leaving the state.
California, due to the massive losses in population are losing a seat in the house and also losing a member of the electoral college which is why so many democrats in California are wanting to abolish the electoral college.
https://www.nationalreview.com... [nationalreview.com]
Re:It caused other problems also (Score:5, Insightful)
That claim doesn't make sense. If all votes weighed equally (which they should, obviously) then a state with a declining share of the national population would still lose sway in national elections, in proportion.
Re: (Score:3)
Slower growth (as described in the article you linked) does NOT mean "massive loss", or any loss whatsoever.
You either have an agenda so you twisting words around, or you have no idea what you're talking about.
California Population Graph [worldpopul...review.com]
AB5: You can't legally contract for one client (Score:5, Informative)
I wrote this in another reply, but it merits a top level post because I think it's pretty interesting. The law itself [ca.gov] has two other clauses that are going to super disruptive within the the tech industry:
The first half of (G) is probably the biggest one -- it says that you can't contract as a business if you don't actually provide services to multiple clients. Period. No exceptions, nothing -- if you want to write an app for a local pizzeria or set up a POS or whatever, too bad you have to actually hold yourself out as publicly hirable to do the same for anyone AND you have to find a second client.
This is going to be a big deal, and it seems like these two clauses are being ignored as applied to tiny operations in favor of looking at the consequences for Uber/Postmates/truckers. Those are also important (maybe even more important than small fries) but still I think this deserves some serious attention.
Re: AB5: You can't legally contract for one client (Score:2)
Most Uber drivers also work for Lyft. It would be interesting if this law made Uber require people to sign up for both services.
Re: (Score:3)
you can't contract as a business if you don't actually provide services to multiple clients. Period.
That's a huge problem. Nobody starts out having a bunch of clients. There's always the first one. And that one is illegal.
Re: (Score:2)
too bad you have to actually hold yourself out as publicly hirable to do the same for anyone AND you have to find a second client.
Actually I doesn't mean you have to do the same for anyone. You are still completely within your right to pick and choose whom you contract for. It seems like the type of statement you can get around by advertising and rejecting other offers.
Re: (Score:3)
Either you don't understand the law or you choose to misunderstand it. The main classification is a):
(...) a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless (...):
(A) The person is free from the control and direction of (...) the performance of the work (...)
(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business.
(C) The person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade (...)
So "write an app for a local pizzeria or set up a POS" would typically fall under a). Sections b) through i) are additional ways you can be an independent contractor, one of which is (e) business-to-business contracting relationship that includes the conditions you quoted. So you can hire someone for your core business and/or direct who, when, where, how they perform that service provided they're an actual c
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with being a small business (esp sole proprietorship) and providing services to only one customer?
Doubly so if this is not your primary line of work, maybe you are a student working on the side, or a retiree or some other arrangement where this is intended to be part-time.
Re: (Score:2)
What's wrong with being a small business (esp sole proprietorship) and providing services to only one customer?
Technically nothing, until companies started using it to bulk replace employees with one man "businesses". Imagine that next month McDonald's said we're firing everybody, the staff are now independent contractors working on commission. No burgers sold, no money, no minimum wage, no sick leave, nothing. That's what would happen if there was no restrictions on contractors. Companies got very creative "micro-servicing" regular work to get around it, now there's push-back to say that if you're driving around de
Re: (Score:2)
I think the blasé attitude towards the collateral damage is what's most off-putting. There are real independent contractors whose livelihoods are being rent by these provisions and the best we can say is "well, we couldn't find a more fine-grained way to exclude you and include the people we want, so it's OK to be over-inclusive".
That's what happened to dozens of freelance writers. That's what almost happened to the truckers. It's a total lack of care to ensure that the statutory fixes are limite
Truck driving leases and "gigs" (Score:5, Interesting)
They need to be stopped. We can only abuse people so much before they get violent. There's pictures of checks with 100+ hours on them for 25 cents after fees (not advances, _fees_).
Remember folks, if they can do it to truck drivers they can do it to you, and they will. It's when, not if.
Re: (Score:2)
Why would any sane person continue working for a job that makes them 67 cents?
In 2008 there were no jobs (Score:5, Insightful)
People do not make good decisions under pressure. Scott Adams is a nut job now but he did make a few good observations before jumping off the deep end, one of them was "Pressure does not make diamonds, it makes garbage more compact".
Re:In 2008 there were no jobs (Score:4, Insightful)
You can thank 90% of the problems relating to that directly to the Obama administration. Everything from changing "how" truck drivers were allowed to drive, to "who" they could work for under what conditions. To the mandatory replacement of old trucks for environmental reasons that were challenged in court, and the feds lost. Luckily, this has all been reversed under Trump including rebuilding truck engines and upgrading them. Which killed 95% of all rebuild shops. Tell me, if the feds suddenly changed the law and said you could no longer drive your vehicle because of insert reasons, and the only way you could keep working was to buy a new truck. But there are no trucks, what the hell are you going to do? Take the worst deal you can and hopefully keep your head above water.
There's still some absolute shit regulations from the previous government in force that haven't been rolled back either, which are still killing sub 1k employee companies. Though most truck drivers these days are far happier they don't live in Canada, considering freight shipments up here have dropped 35% in the last two quarters. The recession is already in progress in Canada and is going to get far worse, especially since wages across the board have fallen in some cases by 25% that's not a typo. Some people are already voluntarily taking 25% pay cuts just to keep their jobs.
To round it out, Scott Adams isn't a nut job. He's exactly where he's always been aka centrist with leanings in both directions. The problem is you've just become more politically extreme over the years and you think everyone else is extremist.
The problem was Bush, not Obama (Score:2)
All the things you mentioned were planned for years, Obama just rubber stamped them. What made it a problem was the 2008 market crash. Suddenly Trucking companies were looking for ways to screw everybody and everything to keep profits up. It was dog eat dog, every man for himself, no hold barred libertarian capitalism. Do what though wilt shall be the whole of the law (I've got more of these if anyone's interested
Furthermore there was de
Re: (Score:2)
None of those things were planned for years. Your understanding of exactly what happened in the market is rather sad. Those regulations were brand new, cooked up directly by the EPA. Rubber stamped by him into force, if Obama did one thing it was his active subversion of the rule of law and ensuring that legal requirements and regulations went through no proper process. Obama did more to damage to middle class by imposing regulations and rules that were all found to invalid and a gross overreach.
Where d
There are many who do not want (Score:2)
There are many who do not want to be contractors, and yes this includes some Uber drivers as well. On the other hand, CA state needs to fill its "unemployment insurance". The governor had also accepted there is not enough money in the fund: https://www.sfchronicle.com/ne... [sfchronicle.com]
So they are pushing 1099 employees to take W-2 instead, thereby funding the insurance from their paychecks. However for most drivers I know Uber *is* the unemployement insurance between jobs. They take home much more than the $450 state p
Re: There are many who do not want (Score:2)
Yep, I have met a lot of them too. Driving for Uber/Lyft is kindof the current UBI for anyone who has a car. Many of the drivers have told me that they drive for Uber/Lyft because they are having a hard time finding a job elsewhere. The great irony is that instead of increasing the number of people paying into the unemployment fund, this law will likely instead increase the number of people drawing from the unemployment fund.
I thought IRS makes the rules (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a judge who knows the restraining orde (Score:5, Informative)
It sounds like the type of judge who understands the relevant law, the conditions under which a temporary restraining order is supposed to be granted.
Such temporary orders are appropriate where:
1. The party has a reasonable probability of success on the merits.
2. The party would suffer irreversible harm if the order is not granted.
3. The counter-party would not suffer irreversible harm from the order.
The truck drivers will indeed be harmed of they lose their job for a few months.
There is a reasonable probability that the federal law prohibiting state governments from regulating trucking in interstate commerce does override AB5.
The state of California is not irreversibly harmed by waiting a couple months to enforce the new law.
The judge is correct in letting the case be heard before AB5 is enforced against the truckers.
Re:What kind of judge? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:What kind of judge? (Score:4, Insightful)
And what's all this nonsense about personal liberty? Next you know, people will start thinking they can make their own deals, without *any governmental intervention at all*. What kind of world would that make?
Re: (Score:2)
Finally some sanity on /. political post and here I am without mod points.
You're right, that really is sanity on /.
Re: What kind of judge? (Score:2)
Add in UBI and you have a pretty good plan for the 21st century economy.
Re: (Score:2)
There are better ways, like make sure workers have good conditions and wages, which can and should decimate profits. If automation puts a ton of people out of work, cut the maximum le
Re: What kind of judge? (Score:2)
What you think are problems with UBI aren't really issues. Labor and production are still free market. Prices will adjust.
And there are so many holes in your approach. Just to start, it doesn't address children, the disabled, or the elderly. UBI addresses all of those.
It's a moral question not a practical one. Do you believe useless people should be left to die or not. If not, then UBI is the best way to do it, and the only fair way.
Re: (Score:2)
If you're willing to work for $4/hour, that's all you're worth.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:What kind of judge? (Score:4, Insightful)
You may say that it is still up to the person to make that call, but why do you think we have a minimum wage (such as it is) in the first place? What about unemployment? If you're an independent contractor you likely don't qualify because the company doesn't have to pay into the system for you. That is money the company gets to save by classifying you as a contractor instead of employee. That means they can either make more money, or charge less for their products/services, compared to their competitors.
Re: (Score:2)
It also does too little to differentiate between "gig" work and traditional contracting. The truckers in question are not "gig" workers at all. They're pursuing trucking opportunities that have existed long before the likes of Uber.
Re:What kind of judge? (Score:5, Informative)
Why can't I be an independent contractor pursuing a variety of disparate interests?
you can, and this law will not change that. But many "contractors" these days are not independent at all. They work for one company only, under usurious restrictions and for ridiculously low compensation, in a blatant attempt by the company to evade basics like taxation and healthcare while not paying the "contractor" enough to cover those.
It's high time the government pushed back on those abuses.
Re: What kind of judge? (Score:2)
What you are describing does not describe Uber and Lyft drivers and most of the gig economy that people worry about. You know, the targets of the law.
Re: (Score:2)
Is this the kind of judge that always seems to bend the law in favor of wealthy republican donors?
We're about to enter an era of Democrats being the ones to start complaining about "legislating from the bench."
Re: (Score:2)
This was already noted in the net neutrality issue. Suddenly the left was all for states doing it their own way, and the right for a single federal mandate.
Politicians are soulless bastards who pick philosophies as important for one goal, then decry it and tout the opposite for a different goal.
Re: What kind of judge? (Score:2)
Neither Republicans nor Democrats give a single fuck about whether we have a strong federal system. But Libertarians do.
Re: What kind of judge? (Score:2)
Why should California taxpayers pay to enforce federal law? If the Federal government wants to enforce their laws, they have the resources and jurisdiction to do so. Why are they trying to get Californians to do their job for them?
California state judges work for California. Not Trump.
Re: (Score:2)
Or when Obama started more wars than Bush?
Oh yeah. Some military airstrikes against Syria, Libya, Yemen, Somalia, and Pakistan. We're totally at war with all of those countries. That is SO much worse than our involvement in Afghanistan and Iraq.
Re: (Score:2)
We've been at war with Syria since ISIS/ISIL popped up and we've been at war with Libya since at least the 1980s. [...] We've been at war with Iraq since Desert Shield.
Technically, we haven't been "at war" with any of them.
Re: (Score:2)
There might not be a union, but a lot of people have ridden with Uber and don't want to go back to the taxi medallion days. If the Republicans have a brain, they'll put a repeal on the ballot this coming November.