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.<p>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.
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.<p>> Many would have to abandon $150,000 investments in clean trucks<p>I read this as: truckers will no longer be expect to supply their own $150,000 trucks to get into the business.<p>> and the right to set their own schedules<p>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.
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.<p>So more jobs lost, thanks to legislation to protect a certain group of people.<p>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).
This element of the law is an odd standard:<p>> performing work "outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business<p>That bans subcontracting, no? It's a common, long established practice in a lot of industries.
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..
Technical question: what is the difference between the Supreme Court ruling[1] (I _think_ I linked the correct Dynamex ruling) and this new law?<p>TFA states:<p>> The law implements a legal ruling last year by the California Supreme Court regarding workers at the delivery company Dynamex.<p><i>implements a legal ruling</i> 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".<p>Can anyone shed light on whether I am on base or not?<p>[1] <a href="https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584" rel="nofollow">https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...</a>
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.<p>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.