Patterico's Pontifications

12/17/2019

California Progressives Once Again Butt Up Against the Law of Unintended Consequences

Filed under: General — JVW @ 6:05 pm



[guest post by JVW]

This past fall the California Assembly, at the behest of their union overlords, threw a haymaker punch at Uber and Lyft but instead have knocked down Vox Media:

Hundreds of freelance writers at Vox Media, primarily those covering sports for the SB Nation site, will lose their jobs in the coming months as the company prepares for a California law to go into effect that will force companies to reclassify contractors in the state as employees.

“This is a bittersweet note of thanks to our California independent contractors,” John Ness, executive director of SB Nation, wrote in a post on Monday. “In 2020, we will move California’s team blogs from our established system with hundreds of contractors to a new one run by a team of new SB Nation employees.”

In a separate memo seen by CNBC, Ness said that California contractors can apply for a full-time or part-time position in California. Contractors who wish to continue contributing can do so but “need to understand they will not be paid for future contributions,” he said. [. . .]

Imagine that. Perhaps you as a Californian were quite happy serving as an editor and regular contributor of posts to a SB Nation blog such as Bruins Nation or California Golden Blogs. Virtually all of the people who contribute to and maintain those blogs are alumni/ae of that university, and though they did receive some renumeration from SB Nation for their efforts, from what I am told it is certainly not enough to provide a livable income and pretty much everyone involved in the various fan blogs has some other full-time job or a series of other part-time gigs (disclaimer: I know an editor at one of the SB Nation blogs, but I haven’t discussed the ramifications of this legislation with him yet). Because SB Nation does not want to be in the position of figuring out whether drafting and posting content, moderating and engaging with comments, and general site maintenance pushes the contributor over the threshold where they are now required to be treated as full-time employees, they have decided to put the blogs under the management of SB Nation inside staff. Though they do apparently intend to hire some full-time content providers and site administrators, the blogs are also beginning to ask for unpaid volunteers to provide content going forward.

None of this should be surprising to anyone who has the faintest clue as to how the economy works, which of course rules out virtually all legislative Democrats in this state. Assembly Bill 5, shepherded through that body by former labor organizer Lorena Gonzales of San Diego, was controversial from the very beginning. Supporters, namely organized labor and other left-wing groups, insisted that it would prevent workers from being exploited by wealthy tech companies like Uber and Lyft who use independent contractors in order to avoid having to pay benefits such as health and retirement. The companies for their part insisted that it would force them to either limit the hours contractors are allowed to work or else turn them into full employees thus eliminating the ability of workers to schedule their own hours and determine their own flexible workday, which is one of the major benefits of the gig economy.

It will probably not come as a surprise to anyone that Vox, who went through their own downsizing woes a couple of years ago, generally supported AB 5 and the attempt to rein-in this example of unfettered capitalism, and that some wags are already rubbing it in their faces:

Mackowiak Tweet

This battle next moves to the ballot box where the tech companies have pledged to spend as much as $90 million to qualify and promote a ballot initiative to undo the legislation. This also pits social justice-obsessed Silicon Valley against California Democrats, which just may cause some of the loudest and dumbest voices from the tech world to reevaluate their alliances. And though there is scuttlebutt that the movers-and-shakers of the tech sector will freeze out Elizabeth Warren and Bernard Sanders should either one be the Democrats’ nominee in next fall’s election, it would seem that the rank-and-file workers of these digital behemoths are quite fine with the trust-busting and wealth-confiscation that both Lieawatha and the warmed-over Marxist espouse. Maybe someday soon we will look back and say that 2019 was the last gap of the Age of the Triumphant Nerd Mogul.

– JVW

19 Responses to “California Progressives Once Again Butt Up Against the Law of Unintended Consequences”

  1. But there was a sliver of good news in California this past week, and I hope to blog about it over the next day or two.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  2. I am so glad I got out of California. Why do you all stay? I think all three of you (Patterico, Dana, and JVW) are there, right?

    norcal (47a1ac)

  3. Shrugs. Nobody is entitled to live well on another person’s sweat. If you want to be chauffeured and have your food delivered to your door, pay.

    “Gig economy” my fat Aunt Fannie. It’s coolie labor, with the factors — Uber, Lyft, Doordash, et al — taking their cut of the workers’ pittance off the top.

    nk (dbc370)

  4. I used Uber this weekend and I’ve got to say, the driver did pretty well for himself. I don’t think he was cookie labor. He was supplementing an income doing a job that a whole lot of people are willing to pay him to do. He sets his own hours, works where he wants, and takes the ride requests he wants. I have an elderly friend who was making a sixty mile journey but didn’t want to drive herself and used Uber instead. It was a great option which benefitted her, and clearly the driver as well.

    Dana (643cd6)

  5. I should add that I used Uber in Los Angeles because the stress of battling the endless traffic and trying to find parking simply wasn’t worth it.

    Dana (643cd6)

  6. “Gig economy” my fat Aunt Fannie. It’s coolie labor, with the factors — Uber, Lyft, Doordash, et al — taking their cut of the workers’ pittance off the top.

    And yet somehow I have never seen an Uber driver with a gun to his or her head forced to drive. If driving for the ride share companies was such a ripoff, you would think that there would be lots of stories of Uber and Lyft drivers taking jobs with taxi companies. Instead, it’s pretty much entirely the other way around.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  7. I am so glad I got out of California. Why do you all stay? I think all three of you (Patterico, Dana, and JVW) are there, right?

    I have no illusions that I will remain here once I retire. For the time being, as a homeowner living in a desirable neighborhood I actually have it pretty good. But I also recognize that I was one of the last people of my income bracket that would be able to live this lifestyle.

    JVW (54fd0b)

  8. If you have to resort to tricks to not pay your employees or not offer benefits then your business model is not a success and you deserve to either have to restructure or fail.

    Nic (896fdf)

  9. If you have to resort to tricks to not pay your employees or not offer benefits then your business model is not a success and you deserve to either have to restructure or fail.

    Balderdash. People have free will and if they have valuable skills that an employer needs then the employer will offer benefits in order to attract the best employees possible. if they just have run-of-the-mill skills that most everyone has, such as the ability to drive an automobile, then why should an employer to obligated to overpay for the job?

    JVW (54fd0b)

  10. uber and lyft have broken common carrier laws and drove taxi companies out of business who followed state laws and rules
    and have used the money they made to bribe politicians. let see these crooks get out of this one

    asset (158ba5)

  11. And yet somehow I have never seen an Uber driver with a gun to his or her head forced to drive.

    And we will not see any of them leaving the business because they’re now getting a minimum $21/hr, workers compensation, unemployment compensation, and health insurance. If the customers have to pay more so the drivers can have those things … “Nobody is entitled to live well on another person’s sweat. If you want to be chauffeured and have your food delivered to your door, pay!”

    nk (dbc370)

  12. What makes them coolies (and also employees under the law):
    — The companies decide whether you work. No app, no jobs. No like your car, no app, no jobs. No like you, no app, no job.
    — The companies set the price, and the customers make the deal with the company through the app.
    — The companies collect the fare or the delivery fee. They take their percentage and pay you the rest.
    — And last, but not least, the companies set the rules of *how* you work, and you better work good and not get less than five star ratings and no complaints or no app for you.

    You only get to pick the hours and locations. If you want to make money for yourself, you will, willy-nilly, work hours and locations that make money for the companies. They get paid first, and you get the rest. Yes, I know, that’s not a gun. They’re just glad to see you.

    nk (dbc370)

  13. if they just have run-of-the-mill skills that most everyone has, such as the ability to drive an automobile, then why should an employer to obligated to overpay for the job?

    I’m sorry, JVW, but I just can’t resist. (Besides, what’s the point of resisting temptation? Another one will come along.)

    “And yet somehow I have never seen an Uber driver Travis Kalanick with a gun to his or her head forced to drive found Uber.”

    nk (dbc370)

  14. “Gig economy” my fat Aunt Fannie. It’s coolie labor, with the factors — Uber, Lyft, Doordash, et al — taking their cut of the workers’ pittance off the top.

    There’s no such thing as a free ride, nk.

    Except down the road to serfdom.

    (Reminds me of a sticker I saw on the passenger side of a student’s car in the parking lot a month or two ago, that read: “Gas, Grass or Ass; Nobody Rides for Free”)

    Dave (1bb933)

  15. And we will not see any of them leaving the business because they’re now getting a minimum $21/hr, workers compensation, unemployment compensation, and health insurance. If the customers have to pay more so the drivers can have those things …

    …A lot of them will choose not to avail themselves of the service. Which means no jobs for the drivers and no hours worked at that higher rate. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    Let’s put it another way: if it’s a free transaction between a willing buyer and willing seller, then it’s none of your damned business what the price is.

    “Gas, Grass or Ass; Nobody Rides for Free”

    Are they still printing that one? I remember it from the mid-1970s. I guess even bumper stickers have gone retro.

    Chuck Bartowski (6fff93)

  16. 50% of something is better than 100% of nothing.

    Not in socialist land. Equality is the most important principle. If we are all equally squalid, then that is a victory for socialism.

    Bored Lawyer (998177)

  17. @9 We know what the labor playing field looks like, they decided to cheat. Obviously if you cork the bat, the home run is easier.

    Nic (896fdf)

  18. You’re not going to abolish wage and labor laws, not in California and not in Alaska neither, so let’s leave that for University of Chicago faculty cocktail party small-talk. And, furthermore, the difference between California’s wage and labor laws and socialism is bigger (much bigger) than the difference between capitalism and feudalism, so let’s skip the labels too. I won’t even insist that we talk about the reality, not theory, of an Uber driver making less than minimum wage while Travis Kalanick cashes out $2.5 billion (yeah that’s “billion dollars” with a “b”) of Uber stock.

    nk (dbc370)

  19. Lorena Gonzalez, your no Loretta Sanchez (though she borrowed from the same relationship playbook and nabbed a gabacho USMC officer).

    urbanleftbehind (44d676)


Powered by WordPress.

Page loaded in: 0.0944 secs.