Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

businessinsider.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 126 posts

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#11

Post by pmart123 »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #6
d1zzy wrote: post #2

There are many serious issues around how Lyft/Uber (and many others) treat their "employees" and I'm happy if things are moving in a direction to help them out. However, as a customer, Lyft/Uber has been HUGELY better than any previous taxi experience, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Before Uber was a thing, I tried getting a taxi in the Bay Area at 3 different times. Months apart. Calling different companies (that I…

Before Uber and Lyft cabs were terrible everywhere except maybe London and Tokyo. Competition was sorely needed in this industry. I hope the competition continues even if the prices go up.

London cabs were brutally expensive though. The minivan service was typically very good compared to other cities.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#12

Post by caseysoftware »

bobthepanda wrote: post #7
wswope wrote: post #5

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Shortly after Uber and Lyft became popular, they were forced out of Austin due to a scuffle around local regulation. It took very little time for some new competitors to start up, one of which (RideAustin), is still thriving. The cost is almost exactly the same, but far more money goes to the drivers, and the drivers tend to be far higher quality. If memory serves me right, they even adopted some user-friendly featur…

It's worth noting that the original scuffle was about fingerprinting drivers, a regulation that they already comply with in New York City. The difference is that Uber and Lyft won't leave one of their biggest markets.

No, "fingerprinting" was the issue the City marketed.

The actual scuffle was because the City of Austin wanted ride-level trip data and a larger fee from the individual rides. Further, Mayor Adler's goal was a tax+security screening system for anyone who wanted to transact online. Those are his words, not mine. Quoted in the post below.

I detailed some of it here: https://medium.com/@CaseySoftware/mayor-steve-adler-is-scamm...

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#13

Post by api »

wetpaws wrote: post #8

Fun fact - Austin is a peculiar example of a city that banned uber and basically created a black market for makeshift ridesharing service based on facebook groups, google docs, craigslist adds and only god knows what else. People think that once uber is dead ridesharing will disappear, but reality shows that once idea is in the wild it's almost impossible to stop it.

This is particularly the case when taxis are so painfully awful. Every time I ride one I vow "never again." Its always a horrible experience and costs 2X as much as anything else.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#14

Post by bt848 »

mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

“Unique niches” of the job market that exploit the people filling them must be regulated out of existence. Uber drivers who very carefully manage their overhead generally still earn a pittance, near minimum wage or even below it. Uber mostly relies on the ignorance of their drivers who essentially accelerate the conversion of stored value in their vehicle into short-term earnings. Then when the first bill comes for brake pads, tires, shocks, CV joints and tie rod ends they pack it in. This is why their driver turnover rate is astronomical. The other side of the issue is the drivers who ignore such things and drive all over the place in under-maintained, under-insured cars, converting a public nuisance externality into Uber revenue and prolonged starvation wages.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#15

Post by frgtpsswrdlame »

mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

Well Uber could also go the other way and free the market that they oversee - allow drivers to set their own rates and make the cut that Uber takes transparent to both driver and rider.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#16

Post by markdown »

d1zzy wrote: post #2

There are many serious issues around how Lyft/Uber (and many others) treat their "employees" and I'm happy if things are moving in a direction to help them out. However, as a customer, Lyft/Uber has been HUGELY better than any previous taxi experience, in the San Francisco Bay Area. Before Uber was a thing, I tried getting a taxi in the Bay Area at 3 different times. Months apart. Calling different companies (that I…

I can barely remember my interaction with anyone I met yesterday. How do you remember three distinct taxi (and therefore trivial) encounters from years ago?

Do you work for Uber, or do you just have an amazing memory?

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#17

Post by mrosett »

bt848 wrote: post #14
mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

“Unique niches” of the job market that exploit the people filling them must be regulated out of existence. Uber drivers who very carefully manage their overhead generally still earn a pittance, near minimum wage or even below it. Uber mostly relies on the ignorance of their drivers who essentially accelerate the conversion of stored value in their vehicle into short-term earnings. Then when the first bill comes for b…

The claim that Uber drivers aren't actually earning money but just engaging in "conversion of stored value in their vehicle into short-term earnings" is based on a clearly flawed study [0]. Even after subtracting out vehicle wear and tear, drivers make a modest (but not great) wage. You can rail about "exploitation" and "starvation wages" but the people I know who have worked for Uber generally thought the wage was decent and the conditions were better than most alternatives. Removing the option to "be exploited" by Uber doesn't leave them working a cushy 6-figure software job; it leads to doing work they like less.

[0]: https://medium.com/uber-under-the-hood/an-analysis-of-ceeprs...

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#18

Post by mrosett »

frgtpsswrdlame wrote: post #15
mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

Well Uber could also go the other way and free the market that they oversee - allow drivers to set their own rates and make the cut that Uber takes transparent to both driver and rider.

I wouldn't object to that, although I imagine there would be challenges to making that system work.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#19

Post by qtplatypus »

mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

Why would having a person classified as an employee turn it into a full time job? Like why would they hire managers and set schedules when it gives no benifit to Uber?

To me this closes a loophole. As you say these people drive for Uber, uber is doing the employing. This is not like if a contracted a builder to renovate my kitchen. That is the class of employment that are real contractors.

Re: California bill could force Uber and Lyft to reclassify drivers as employees

#20

Post by dmix »

mrosett wrote: post #10

I worry that this bill will ultimately eliminate a unique niche in the job market. I have several family members who drive for Uber/Lyft and consider it a great way to make money. One of the aspects they like is how much independence they have: no manager, no set schedule, no need to work the same number of hours each week or each day. The pay is fine - not great - but the flexibility makes working for Uber much more…

I strongly doubt that would be an unpopular outside of HN/twitter.

The solution is to update laws that reflect the future (ie, giving contractors better rights and better temporary unemployment social support) instead of protecting entrenched dying industries and their working hour/payment models, by forcing their business models to be the only one allowed.

You also don't have to defend Uber directly, this type of stuff will affect the whole market including any future or present companies that are far better run than Uber.

If you look at reviews for the old taxi companies in most cities they are all 1/5 stars. Plus they aren't shining beacons of worker protections or good pay either. Most taxi drivers were already contractors before Uber so I'm curious how these laws will affect them too.

Post reply on HN