Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

https://www.foxbusiness.com/money/truckers-sue-california-say-new-gig-economy-law-would-kill-70000-jobs

by kmod • 7 years ago

131 111 7 years ago

bhupy• 7 years ago

Pretty comical that it ended up being California regulation that would put truckers out of work instead of Silicon Valley automation.

thrower123• 7 years ago

I mean, if I had to lay bets, I'd give astronomically better odds of California passing a dumb, counterproductive law than a difficult technological innovation.

arcticbull• 7 years ago

California is kinda the undisputed king of both.

wil4214• 7 years ago

What Silicon Valley companies have put workers out of a job since let’s say 2000? Some of the old companies have like HP and Intel certainly made certain office work redundant and to an extent Oracle.

What does HN think?

a3n3• 7 years ago

They're working on it.

As a trucker, I have no problem with automation. No one has the right to any specific job or career.

ars• 7 years ago

Farmers? Farms have become very automated, you need less people to do the same work.

thephyber6• 7 years ago

that would put truckers out of work

  s/would/could/

It's still hypothetical at this point.

kissickas• 7 years ago

Well, now we know what Yang will be talking about in the debate next week.

stjohnswarts• 7 years ago

Yang is basically a foot note in history at this point.

dba7dba• 7 years ago

I wonder what makes you think so? Because of low polling #? Just curious.

chillacy2• 7 years ago

The overton window is slow, we've known about global warming for decades now and haven't done much. Galvanizing people around automation has got to be that difficult at least.

graeme4• 7 years ago

This element of the law is an odd standard:

performing work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business

That bans subcontracting, no? It's a common, long established practice in a lot of industries.

dangrossman2• 7 years ago

It doesn't ban anything, it just says that certain types of people working in certain arrangements can't be deprived of employment benefits.

baggy_trough2• 7 years ago

Yes, but unfortunately the mandated benefits were created by the comically ham-fisted California legislature.

graeme4• 7 years ago

This is odd language. If you can only give work to employees then by definition it isn't subcontracting.

This would therefore appear to ban subcontracting, as that normally occurs within the same industry.

A sensible reply would have either said that I'm wrong, and normal subcontracting is not affected. Or you could have argued that subcontracting as described in this wiki is morally bad.

But instead you made neither point and appear to think I'm merely confused.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Subcontractor

EricE• 7 years ago

"standard employment benefits."

And what would those standards be?

bcheung• 7 years ago

It also says if you actually want to be an independent contractor... because maybe you just dropped $150K on a vehicle, then you can't write it off anymore, and you're screwed.

It bans people from having a choice.

d0ntt4z3m3br0• 7 years ago

Used Roadie to ship some furniture this year to few customers. Much easier than dealing with LTL carriers and the customers liked it much more. Be interesting if they can stay around..

crooked-v• 7 years ago

The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done.

Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks

I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business.

and the right to set their own schedules

I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws, wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the contracting company's fault.

dsfyu404ed• 7 years ago

The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done.
I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business.

Loads formerly carried by owner/operators and small fleets will in steal be hauled by Swift, Schneider and the like. Those are the kinds of companies that have enough people to absorb these new laws with little cost other than shuffling drivers and trucks around to comply.

Owner/operator and small fleet is where truckers go after they've put in their time working for the bottom of the barrel driving sweatshops (the big dry van companies). Removing those small operators is basically removing the part of the industry that sucks the least to work in.

This is basically the trucking equivalent of replacing the independent sandwich shops with Subway and saying it's no big deal because meals are still getting served. Sure it may be an improvement for some people but the rigidity that comes with working for a big company (yes I know it's a franchise but the franchise tightly controls each location so bear with me here) be bad lot of the people formerly working for the small shops.

I read this as: truckers will no longer be expected to "comply with the laws, wink wink" to meet impossible schedules in ways that legally aren't the contracting company's fault.

This doesn't remove the federal electronic logs mandate and DOT working hours rules.

Edit: improved restaurant analogy.

fzeroracer4• 7 years ago

Independent restaurants still have to comply with the law and provide a basic level of care for their employees.

Now if you had a restaurant that tried to claim their staff were all independent contractors (because they worked for multiple restaurants in the same chain) in order to avoid complying with labor law, you'd have a closer analogy. Ultimately this sounds like they wanted to get away with offloading the risks of trucking to the individual rather than deal with it at a business level.

himeexcelanta• 7 years ago

Hit it right on the head.

pmcginn• 7 years ago

I'm in finished vehicle logistics, and I've worked directly with a wide variety of truckers, including three years in California. You are very right that the amount of cargo that needs to be moved will not change because of this law, but you are, in my opinion, wrong about everything else.

I don't want to stereotype truckers because it is a diverse group. But I will say that in my anecdotal experience, this is a job that tends to attract people who want to be left alone. These are people who value freedom and hard work above everything else and many of them will change careers or retire if they are forced to work for big corporations. The average trucker is 55 years old, and many of them will just sell their and retire if AB5 is not overturned.

Supplying a $150,000 truck is not at all a barrier to entry. There is a major shortage of truckers and employers are offering free training, big sign on bonuses, and high starting pay to attract talent. Walmart, which is certainly not known for paying its employees well, pays truckers an average of almost $88,000 per year--and Walmart supplies the truck. The people spending $150,000 on a truck are doing it because they want to, not because they have to. This is not a medallion situation.

As for your "wink wink" comment, ELD's have been mandated since the end of 2017, and even companies that are small enough to not legally be compelled to use one are often forced to comply due to customer contracts. (Shippers want the data the ELD provides to offer better ETAs to their customers.)

In my opinion, the most likely outcome of this law is that some truckers retire and sell their rigs to big corporations, some decide to work for big corporations, and prices go up for everyone who ships goods or buys shipped goods. Unless you're in asset based trucking and looking to expand, the chances are that AB5 is going to hurt you, not help you.

trianglem• 7 years ago

Everything you said makes sense except for the part where prices go up. Why would prices go up?

bsder• 7 years ago

In my opinion, the most likely outcome of this law is that some truckers retire and sell their rigs to big corporations, some decide to work for big corporations, and prices go up for everyone who ships goods or buys shipped goods. Unless you're in asset based trucking and looking to expand, the chances are that AB5 is going to hurt you, not help you.

So why won't the logistics companies simply swing this to: "A load is a starting point X. The destination is ending point Y at time Z. Bid for it."

The problem is that everybody wants to control the hours, control the price, etc. rather than letting people actually bid for things and control the variables themselves.

And, to be fair, if you want to impose control on the employee variables, well, that's not really a contractor now is it?

To be fair, I would much rather see a law along the lines of "for every 40 hours of contract work--you have to supply the equivalent benefits (healthcare/retirement/vacation) as one full time employee or get fined the equivalent amount of money." That way, the whole "We'll subcontract it because it's cheaper" actually gets whacked for being cheaper for fobbing off the externalities but not if cheaper is simply that subcontractors are more efficient."

a3n3• 7 years ago

Well said.

I would add, "setting their on schedule" likely refers to independents choosing which loads to take and where.

BurningFrog3• 7 years ago

Note that if trucking prices do go up, the amount of cargo that gets moved will go down.

mistrial9• 7 years ago

a bicycle ride in the Port of Oakland seeing idling trucks, shows many hundred very sketchy "contractor" truckers who I doubt have seen the kind of large, steady number of dollars you are quickly citing there.. the condition of their vehicle, their health, their English language skills and other superficial indicators would be the evidence

nradov• 7 years ago

There is no "shortage" of truckers. Never has been and never will be. New truckers can be trained in a few months. Customers and employers just don't want to pay.

Claiming that there is a shortage of workers in a particular field is generally nonsense. Is there a shortage of gold? No, I can buy as much as I want tomorrow ... at the market price.

manigandham6• 7 years ago

There's a strange political narrative (in California and elsewhere) that people can't possibly make their own living without being ripped off.

All it's doing is taking freedom and choice away by squashing freelancers, not creating any new opportunities.

katmannthree5• 7 years ago

I think the point is more to set the floor for work conditions (such as with minimum wage laws) so that the very desperate and those who have difficulty assessing long-term costs (such as with MLMs or Uber) don't set the minimum conditions for everyone.

friendlybus• 7 years ago

I see the same narrative in normal joes outside the political sphere. Some people really rely on mitigating risk to the point where work or income is guaranteed.

r00fus• 7 years ago

There are no absolute freedoms, otherwise we'd be fine with pay-for-hits markets like what was revealed in the silkroad investigation or child labor. Everything is nuanced and regulated to some degree.

The question is where you draw the line, and there's real difference of opinion on this front.

The fact we have different states experimenting with these laws is what makes the US form of Federalism great.

Expect more legislation and regulation of the new markets created by AirBnB, Bitcoin and Uber.

anonuser123456• 7 years ago

The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed, which would strongly suggest there will be about the same number of jobs in the end, since the same amount of work still needs to be done.

Well, not by magic, by well understood economic principles. It would be very unusual for the demand for shipping to be inelastic to price. So as prices rise due to labor cost increases, demand will fall.

I'm not advocating one way or another. I'm simply saying the impact can be reasonably anticipated.

dragonwriter2• 7 years ago

The loads hauled by these truckers aren't going to magically vanish because the employment laws have changed,

Also, since the new gig economy law just enshrined in statute the rule already adopted and enforced by state courts, while adopting some new exceptions not germane to the immediate issue, the law substantively hasn't even changed.

xiaodai• 7 years ago

As predicted by Andrew Yang. Read "War on normal people"

chillacy2• 7 years ago

I don't recall a prediction of laws against this in The War on Normal People. He does mention the changing nature of jobs (most newly created jobs are gig or contract) in the past few years though, and what that means for worker stability (healthcare, etc).

sedeki• 7 years ago

I am curious about what federal law they are referring to and what it says? I am not an expert nor a US citizen.

thephyber6• 7 years ago

If I am correct, I think it's the Interstate Commerce Clause[1] of the US Constitution.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Commerce_Clause (note that the wiki article is the "Commerce Clause", but it mentions the "Interstate Commerce Clause")

thephyber6• 7 years ago

Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?

TFA states:

The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex.

implements a legal ruling sounds suspiciously like "the court says that the previous state of law was ambiguous/incongruent and the legislature must pass a law to address it".

Can anyone shed light on whether I am on base or not?

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

dragonwriter2• 7 years ago

Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?

The new law codified the Dynamex ruling but also added some new industry-specific exceptions; outside of those exceptions they are essentially the same.

joshklein• 7 years ago

This article is about a suit from The California Trucking Association, a trade group and industry lobbyist representing corporate management, not truckers. You can learn about them on their website if you're curious. The only source providing a statement in the body of this article is the association's head lobbyist. Background sources seem to include a politician and an academic institute. No truckers.

I don't have any comment about the suit or the law, but I do think this is fine opportunity to discuss the nature of propaganda.

favorited• 7 years ago

Thank you! The Teamsters union (and locals), which actually represent truckers, supported AB5.

stickfigure2• 7 years ago

Ah yes, the teamsters... who will no longer have to compete with independents.

Mathnerd314• 7 years ago

It's not even a new lawsuit. It was originally filed October 5, 2018: https://dockets.justia.com/docket/california/casdce/3:2018cv...

The story seems to be created based on a PR release (https://millerpublicaffairsgroup.cmail19.com/t/ViewEmail/i/5...) that CTA issued after amending their complaint (https://01a3edcb-713b-4446-a7f4-8c833b6d990e.filesusr.com/ug...).

The Fox article is just an AP release: https://apnews.com/7f23a934b6514560a2c9f3bb5ee326c0. I guess the author emailed the press release to the politician and went from there, threw in Berkeley because it was in his inbox too.

There are other articles, e.g. https://thetrucker.com/california-trucking-association-two-o... has a Teamster's union source (but no politician).

https://www.routefifty.com/management/2019/09/california-gig... from September has some of your prized trucker sources, they basically say the same thing as the association except they sound more scared and anti-union.

There's not much to see here besides the continued death of journalism in mainstream news.

ng122• 7 years ago

Where do you see that? The CTA does seem to represent independent truckers (owner-operators): https://www.caltrux.org/owner-operators/

Animats2• 7 years ago

Right. The Owner Operator Independent Driver Association says low pay is the problem.[1] They're concerned about the Hours of Service regulations. They have a list of state issues, state by state. CA-5 isn't even mentioned.[2]

[1] https://www.ooida.com/MediaCenter/PressReleases/pressrelease... [2] https://www.ooida.com/Legislative/leg-watch.aspx

nemo44x2• 7 years ago

You’re watching corruption in real time Here. Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system and corporations are flexing how much they’ll spend if they can’t cut a deal.

Regulations like these lead to lobbying which leads to corruption. This isn’t about “justice for workers” - it’s a shakedown by politicians in a single party state.

shams93• 7 years ago

Between Jerry Brown and Pat Brown one single family has ruled the state as governor for over 40 years combined.

thephyber6• 7 years ago

over 40 years combined

Are you counting in base10? I count[1] 6 terms of 4 years each = 24 years.

67% off. Not bad for government work.

If your argument is a Democrat in the governorship, since 1942 it's (R=47, D=30). Since 1958 it's (R=31, D=30). Republicans are at least equally to blame for California's governorship.

In practice, the governor is largely about qualities of a single person. The legislature is heavily skewed D/blue because that's how density votes in the US.

[1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_governors_of_Californi...

thephyber6• 7 years ago

Lorena Gonzalez is openly condemning the court system

Can you explain your thinking here?

From my reading, the law she wrote/sponsored was largely aligned with the Supreme Court of California interpretation of the Dynamex case.

nemo44x2• 7 years ago

She says that they are “delaying justice” by taking their grievance to “the courts”. I read it as a condemnation of the courts as an obstacle to her view of what justice is.

Any law maker should embrace a court challenge to their law. Suggesting the courts are an obstacle to their constituent’s is bad precedent.

raintrees• 7 years ago

In our small town in very Northern California along the coast, the local paper, which is struggling to survive, having just been bought out of receivership, has decided to start delivering the paper via USPS to avoid this law's ramifications with the paper delivery router people.

So more jobs lost, thanks to legislation to protect a certain group of people.

Hazlitt would have recommended examining the law's merits prior to passage to see if it 1) Benefited only a group of people, not the whole, and 2) Did not help the whole in the long run (paraphrased).

greglindahl• 7 years ago

Jobs lost? If the paper had failed I could see that jobs were lost, but changing from one delivery system to another doesn't seem to be jobs lost?

lwf• 7 years ago

Increasing mail volume by one newspaper per household will not result in a comparable increase in mail carriers -- they're making the trips anyways.

Truckers sue California, say new gig economy law would kill 70k jobs

Related Stories