> overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent.
However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money.
I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period. It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine, then you owe as payment to the government to provide that.
We WANT people to have stable employment, not gigs.
Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models.
You can ban exploiting labor, you can force companies to share more with the workers, but you can't legislate well-paying jobs into existence. You might view Uber as an exploitative employer, but it isn't some wildly-profitable company that is failing to share its bountiful profits with the workers.
I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome.
> Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models.
And that's fine. We have minimum wage laws for a reason.
A "contractor" who is earning near or below minimum wage isn't a contractor--they're a mechanism to skirt labor law.
I want to see every layer of "contracting" have to pay benefits. If the contractor is expensive enough (aka $100K+ a year), people won't care. But, yeah, if the "contractor" is skirting labor law, they'll lose--big time.
> I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome.
I'm willing to roll the dice on this one. The last time Uber and Lyft pulled this stunt (Austin), a whole bunch of companies stood up to take their place. Uber and Lyft then went to the state to override Austin--so we never got to see the end evolution of that.
Maybe the business model isn't viable. However, I'm willing to let a bunch of people try competing against it without having to compete against VC subsidy.
But not allowing those people to work with uber would just make them... even more dependant on the state? Either:
1) They are driving because it's the best opportunity available for them, and losing that possibility would force them to work less desirable/paying jobs, have less disposable income if uber is just a side gig for them or just end up unemployed. Which would lead to them contributing even less to their healthcare/education/etc costs.
Or
2) You are assuming that they are driving even if they can get 40h jobs with good benefits but just choose... not to? Or that if uber inevitably ends up closing their California operations, they will magically find those cushier jobs & those who drive to add to their income will just find an extremely flexible side gig that can net them hundreds of dollars a month?
I don't understand how unemployment is a more desirable outcome. Because uber will absolutely not pay for each of their driver's benefits. And that's even if they were able to afford it (they absolutely can't).
> However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money.
So you response is to support a solution where they can't earn any money because it's not enough money? Congratulations, now these people are idle and you're now paying even more to cover their needs whereas previously your taxes only had to cover some of their needs and they could participate actively in the economy, working their way up to better opportunities.
> whereas previously your taxes only had to cover some of their needs
I don't believe this. I also pay for the negative externalities due to them driving: increased traffic, increased pollution, increased accident rates, hospitalization (driving is one of the most dangerous acts for people under 30), etc. I don't believe that the tiny amount they get driving for Uber/Lyft even slightly offsets this.
> working their way up to better opportunities.
Unfortunately, Uber/Lyft are a trap because they sink time in return for not very much money and give you nothing in return. I would rather support those people idle--so they can go to school, learn English better, learn a trade, work a job that has a promotion path, etc.
However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money.
I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period. It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine, then you owe as payment to the government to provide that.
We WANT people to have stable employment, not gigs.