I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and systems to adhere to this law - which takes time.
OP said that THIS law wasn't too much, not that over-regulation doesn't exist. Please reply to the opinion that this law isn't too much. I would be interested to hear your thoughts.
Reductio ad absurdam is a legitimate way to respond to an argument, if the argument is susceptible to it.
"It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model." is an argument that could be used to defend any law. It defends the concept of law itself, rather than the specific law we are discussing. It's perfectly reasonable to point that out and ask where the line should be drawn.
Reductio ad absurdum does not mean "exaggerate to absurdity," which is what the GGP actually did:
>>>> It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
>>> Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?
If you want to label this kind of argument, the correct term is straw man. It doesn't address what vkou said, but rather sets up an exaggeration that is easier to attack and dismiss. Loughla was entirely correct in his criticism.
A likely outcome now is that Uber/Lyft will carve out an exemption for taxi drivers (like a few other industries with effective lobbying operations have already done) while distressed small employers continue to suffer from AB5's effects.
I think it's quite fair to call AB5 a bad law.
Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?
The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.
In jobs where it is virtually impossible to organize others doing a similar task such as was the case with most of the jobs impacted by AB5, its totally reasonable for these folks to lobby the government to fight for their interests.
Maybe with a labour monopsyny? I guess we don't want the big mining company in the small town to run down it's workers. Whenever I think of the best argument for unions, I think of small towns subjugated by mining companies or mills. But a ride-share company with competition in a big city?
The reason for why all those agreements are highly regulated isn't because they adults entering them are not of sound mind. The reason for it is that there is often a large imbalance of power between the two parties in the contract.
This kind of regulation has been the foundation of common law for nearly a millennium, and has been present in other legal systems for far longer than that.
[1] (As it turns out, you can't [2] marry someone with the stipulation that they can't divorce you, or with a fly-by-night, grossly inequitable pre-nup.
[2] Well, you can, but the judges will laugh your contract out of the room when you try to enforce it.
Why are you defending AB5 specifically? Why is this specific regulation good? Keep in mind that it has had a lot of negative, unintended side effects already.
When the dust settles, business carries on just fine while we get to enjoy things like a 40-hour week with overtime pay if the employer needs more, safety regulations, sick leave, etc.
I'm going to guess most of us here on HN aren't getting any overtime pay
Whether the minimum wage actually harms economic activity does not have a clear answer; you can find studies all over the place in terms of conclusions.
And the supporting argument--that businesses should be regulated because they have asymmetrical power when hiring--is also used to justify other policies that HN folks tend to like, such as the California prohibition on non-compete agreements.
This however is very different. Adults (in the US) are allowed to willfully enter into mostly any sort of agreement with another consenting party. In areas where that’s not the case, there is usually some other greater fundamental social protection that we seek to prioritize (i.e. you cannot legally permit someone to murder you). This law however continues to encroach on the things that free individuals can do. If I want to work for Uber under the terms that apparently many millions of others also want to, then that is my right. The government is effectively seeking to make this illegal...for my own protection.
The issue here is that 99% of HN commentators, politicians, etc have no experience in the gig economy yet project their own ideology onto the situation. Would it be better for workers if Uber provided more benefits? Sure. But Uber loses billions every quarter. So who pays for this? If Uber doesn’t pass on the costs to consumers, it goes bust. If Uber does, there’s a good chance that consumers spend less, or use alternatives. Either way it is likely to harm drivers.
The beauty of a free market is that if Uber was legitimately a bad deal for drivers, they would have never had a business in the first place.
Hell, If our goal was maximizing economic activity at all costs, we'd be rounding up idlers, and putting them to work, involuntarily.
[1] Ones whose business model relies on one of the following:
* Exploitation of children.
* Providing labour-intensive products for less then the cost of keeping a labourer alive, housed, and fed.
* Running machine shops where workers have to juggle chainsaws, while breathing in asbestos dust, and licking radium-coated postage stamps.
The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...
> The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.
You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed.
Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.
They should either treat their drivers like FT employees, pivot to a new (legal) service, or shut down entirely (and disband the company).
If they can't treat their drivers decently and follow the law, they shouldn't exist.