The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.

The road to hell...

> The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.

There is a tendency to classify failed left-leaning policies as 'well-intentioned but failures' and right-leaning policies as 'heartless and also failures'. This is a ridiculous dichotomy.

The fact is that everyone knew this was going to happen. It was indeed a heartless policy. The leftist lawmakers that run california could have asked anyone and could have at least feigned interest in helping Uber and Lyft succeed in their state. Instead, they chose to essentially ban their business model with no input from the companies. It is especially egregious because the state has spent the last 50 years building an incredibly car-dependent society, and has failed in its duty to bring any kind of workable public transportation system. Uber and Lyft started to become their finally workable transit system, and the state can't even have that.

I'm done pretending that leftist policies are well-intentioned. We need to start calling them what they are -- evil.

Not for nothing (and feeling somewhat old for remembering this) but lyrics from a song from the late 80s come to mind[1].

"That those who know what's best for us Must rise and save us from ourselves"

It was on a playlist I was listening to last week walking my dog. Seems quite apropos here.

[1] https://www.azlyrics.com/lyrics/rush/witchhunt.html

But isn't the better position here to create a bill that decouples health benefits from the employer and allow contractors to have better lives?

This exactly. I can't for the life of me figure out why so many people think we should keep saddling private companies with all of this stuff. We should make operating a business as simple as possible. If you want everyone to have healthcare, pass universal healthcare (in California at least).

Thinking about how to structure this:

- Drivers should get the extra funds for medical insurance. California has Medicare and Medicaid, it just needs funds.

- Uber and Lyft don't want to employ people because of fixed vs non-fixed hours, etc. Full time employees at 40 hours per week get medical insurance, so gig-work (like Uber/Lyft) should probably pay partial amounts for medical insurance based on hours worked (i.e. roughly calculated at driving time for Uber or Lyft).

- California (through Medicare/Medicaid) sets a "medical insurance target", e.g. $200 per week, and a HSA for all gig-workers. If a driver drives 4 hours a week (40 / 4 = 10%), Lyft has to contribute $20 (10% of $200) to the HSA for that driver.

- The driver can either withdraw the money from HSA as income, or use the money tax-free to pay Medicare to continue coverage. If the driver only drove 20 hours per week on average, i.e. the HSA didn't have enough funds, the driver would pay the difference out-of-pocket. Ideally, drivers would drive 40 hours per week between Lyft, Uber, etc, and get full medical coverage.

Decouple healthcare from employment entirely, it was a mistake to begin with. Also the idea that employers "cover" some part of healthcare cost is false. The employee pays for all of it through their employment, it is part of their compensation.

I grew up in Canada, I agree with you. I’m just trying to help structure it in a way that California might actually adopt.

Yet another example of how Medicare for All would be a benefit to all citizens and businesses except those profiting off artificially limiting the supply of healthcare.

Uber and Lyft are voluntarily suspending operations to make a political point; they are the ones kicking the little guy while they're down. The fact that these companies can spend 100 million to dismantle the outcome of the political process shows how little power the California government actually has.

Tough to call anything done as voluntary with a gun held up to the head. Their entire business model (which has not been super profitable to say the least) was just made illegal in California.

Life goes on though, probably the Taxi industry is very pleased, many of the full-time drivers will go on to work as Taxi drivers, licensed with hours and all. And I'll just lower my expectations for getting a taxi dispatched within 30 mins outside of the main city.

What you call a gun to their head has been there for a year now! The only thing that actually ended was their hopeless legal effort.

So no, it was made illegal a year ago. It was Uber and Lyfts decision to do nothing to prepare.

>Their entire business model was just made illegal in California.

Their business model has been illegal since at least the 2018 Dynamex decision. The only sudden moves here are from Lyft.

I mean, if your business model is predicated on violations of the law, maybe you aren't a viable business as currently structured, and should restructure to be in compliance with the law?

I was under the impression they're planning on suspending operations because it would be illegal for drivers to operate as contractors come tomorrow. Their political stance is manifested in prop 22, but the shutdown is for compliance w/ the law.

From my understanding, the shutdown is to avoid classifying drivers as employees. Nothing has to change except Uber/Lyft having to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits for drivers working full time hours. It has nothing to do with flexibility. It's about a shifting tax burden. This shift may make the business model unprofitable without significantly raising prices.

Well, it's not "nothing". It requires having an HR org that is able to process some 50k extra headcount, among other things.

The companies already stated that hypothetically, they would hire drivers and raise prices if it came down to having to use an employee model in California, but the case they're making is that while that scenario won't be a fatal blow to them, it'll severely suck for riders and drivers.

If the business model can't be made to work when they have to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits, then shutting down is the only reasonable thing to do. I expect it's both: they cannot or do not want to change their business model to account for the new reality, and are also hoping that a full shutdown will make voters angry enough to get AB5 repealed.

(I'm not convinced that's actually the case, though, but I don't know the math around this, so it could be.)

I read that some 41% of people support prop 22 as of today, vs some 26% against (and 34% undecided)[1]

I feel like a shutdown would certainly bring it to the top of mind for people and help convert the undecided, but it already looks like it'll pass, shutdown or not.

[1] https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/california-propositi...

Completely false. If classified as employees, Uber and Lyft are suddenly completely liable for anything their employees do while working. They would have to do things like start taking inventory of their vehicles, start collecting employment verification documents, start setting up payroll, figure out how to not use their surge pricing model and switch to something else, etc. Even if you wanted to classify everyone as employees tomorrow, there is a huge administrative hurdle to overcome.