Hacker News Reader

Comment by jjcon | Hacker News Reader

I agree with you but I also think that they should have waited.

Right now is a terrible time to wipe out the gig economy. So many people are turning to it and it is creating value. Economic/employment changes like this one are best suited when the market is strong because people job mobility is higher etc.

View on HN

There was no choice to "wait". AB5 was passed to fix the law because of a court decision [0]. Had they (the CA Legislature) not passed AB5, the court finding in Dynamex would be just as bad for Uber.

The court doesn't have an option to "wait" just because it's a recession.

Uber doesn't have a choice to "wait" because this ruling is going to go into effect in ~10 days unless the stay is extended.

[0] - https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...

Courts can absolutely choose when to take cases

You do not want courts adjusting when they take cases specifically because of the economy. Doing that is to explicitly make the court an economic actor rather than a legal arbiter, which is a really bad idea.

And on the balance I think that would be preferable to an entire section of the California economy getting wiped out during record unemployment

The authors of AB5 took the liberty of exempting certain professions (presumably influential voter blocs and donors) from Dynamex.[1]

If you drive delivering beverages, whether you're an employee or contractor under AB5 depends on whether or not that beverage is milk.

I don't see why they couldn't have anything in there for rideshare.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I detest uber. yet AB5 is an abomination, an embarrassment. sad

Reply on news.ycombinator.com