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

21–30 of 126 posts

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

#21

Post by nathanvanfleet »

qtplatypus wrote: post #19
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.

The current scenario is that you can turn the app on and do work any time you want to do it. If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you, because it might not suit what's going on at that time. You can't just drive where you want, because it might not suit what's going on. So the only solution is going to be something like what you usually think of for employed work. Set hours and times etc.

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

#22

Post by bobthepanda »

caseysoftware wrote: post #12
bobthepanda wrote: post #7

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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-i…

Ride-level data and per-trip fees are also a requirement in New York City. In fact, now minimum wages are required in New York for TNC drivers. The point still stands, is that Uber has never, and would not ever, actually threaten to leave bigger markets. And the data isn't some evil hoovering scheme, but it is incredibly helpful with city planning:

> Like camera-wearing meerkats, taxis provided insight into the city’s transportation ecosystem. Are cabs speeding along a certain stretch of street? Time to review the street design. Getting stuck at the same intersection every rush hour? Maybe rethink the traffic light timing.

https://www.wired.com/story/nyc-uber-lyft-ride-hail-data/

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

#23

Post by post_break »

Personally I'd rather them devastate Airbnb. Uber and Lyft haven't caused the car market to price people out of corollas and camrys. I know it's a tongue in cheek comment but driving for uber or lyft is a choice, the housing market getting turned into hotel development isn't for a lot of people.

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

#24

Post by ImprovedSilence »

markdown wrote: post #16
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?

uh... really? you should get that memory thing checked out.

I too have absolutely terrible pre-uber experiences (in the DC area). If one was out drinking in DC, and needed a cab back across the river to VA, you had to hope the cabbie had the doors unlocked, because they couldn't refuse a fair once you got in and sat in the car, otherwise they'd just drive away if you told them where you were going. And it was "cash only". Which I later learned was a load of BS, when I had a $100+ fare for work, cabbie happily pulled out the old cc scanner complete with carbon paper... Things didn't get better until my roommate introduced me to his "driver". Which is was just a guy with a Town Car that I could call, tell him where I'm going and when, and if he was available, he'd quote me a price (there was no meter or anything). And then there was the stress of is the cabbie I called for going to show up in time to get me to the airport at 6am. Uber/Lyft crushed it for all these reasons, and if the prices need to rise a little, sure fine. The example of a new company in Austin doing it's own little Austin thing is fine, but the other huge benefit of Uber is it travel. If I get off a plane in Europe, NYC, SF, small po-dunk town, whatever, I've now got a very frictionless path to getting myself some transportation. Don't gotta look up the local cab company, don't gotta mess with the local mass transit, all my billing info is setup and ready to go. Makes me wonder if everyone seemingly hating on them or wishing them harm is too young to remember how shitty things were before. On the "employee" side, I do know a number of people who drive for either or both company, but they all do it on the side, fwiw.

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

#25

Post by plink »

mrosett wrote: post #17
bt848 wrote: post #14

Earlier quoted context omitted.

“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 d…

Drivers who are aquainted with you may make a modest wage, and I’ll wager you know no drivers in Minneapolis nor Orlando, for their mileage rates cause their rideshare labor to be an entirely charitable endeavor.

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

#26

Post by ImprovedSilence »

post_break wrote: post #23

Personally I'd rather them devastate Airbnb. Uber and Lyft haven't caused the car market to price people out of corollas and camrys. I know it's a tongue in cheek comment but driving for uber or lyft is a choice, the housing market getting turned into hotel development isn't for a lot of people.

Yeah, this is so much truth. It happens more than in big cities too. It's driving up home prices in smaller college towns, for football, graduations, and old people tourism, and it can really put a crunch on supply for people who actually need to live there.

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

#27

Post by saimiam »

Now for a truly unpopular opinion:

Uber, Lyft (on basically all other on-demand/delivery services) are making urban living qualitatively far worse on average than the benefit of extra commerce facilitated by them. They should be banned outright. Give us our streets back.

Back when ride-share and on-demand/delivery services were not so ubiquitous, you could either get out and do a chore yourself or do without. For example, one recent weekend I casually mentioned to my wife that I was craving a specific sweet popular in my hometown in Eastern India. She surreptitiously looked up a vendor selling that sweet where I now live and had it delivered. I loved the gesture but it made me think that without delivery, I wouldn't have caused a bike messenger to pick up my snack and bring it a few kilometers to my house. Ergo, no environmental impact, no added traffic, less use of plastic and packaging, and all manner of downstream impacts attributable to me.

Yes, there are positives - less skilled/more entrepreneurial people are able to support themselves as drivers, money flows around from consumer to producer as it should in a healthy economy, my cravings are being met and my wife is able to exercise her love language, and so on but IMO, the negatives outweigh the positives.

The extra traffic introduced by delivery is untenable, at least in urban India. Delivery persons drive often don't obey traffic laws with minimal consequences. Becoming a driver provides MVE - minimal viable employment - for someone facing economic pressures so instead of upskilling to earn more, they stagnate. The environmental impact of delivery alone should make us worry about their usefulness.

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

#28

Post by mindways »

markdown wrote: post #16
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?

I'd wager because strong emotion tends to result in strong memories, and waiting for a needed ride that isn't showing up is stressful, particularly if you have no insight into where the right might be or if/when it's arriving.

I have memories of several times I was stood up or unreasonably delayed by bad taxi service / rideshare service, and the higher-stress ones (e.g., when I was trying to catch a plane) are the most vivid. One's from over a decade ago - I can't remember where I was going, but I remember the room I was in, pacing back and forth, calling the taxi dispatcher for the 3rd time.

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

#29

Post by Johnny555 »

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…

The other problem is that there are a dozen or more cab companies in SF, so sometimes you'd call a cab from one company and see empty cars from other companies drive by. So you have to make the choice between alienating the company you called by taking a competing cab, or waiting and hoping that your called cab shows up.

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

#30

Post by justinjlynn »

nathanvanfleet wrote: post #21
qtplatypus wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The current scenario is that you can turn the app on and do work any time you want to do it. If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you, because it might not suit what's going on at that time. You can't just drive where you want, because it might not suit what's going on. So the only solution is going to be something like what you usually think of for employed work. Set hours an…

Why are your requirements strictly necessary? If you try to refute your own answer, it'll likely be a much more fruitful conversation.
Post reply on HN