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

31–40 of 126 posts

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

#31

Post by will4274 »

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.

Uber wouldn't have to pay surge pricing to drivers if they set the drivers schedules to ensure enough supply was available.

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

#32

Post by docker_up »

justinjlynn wrote: post #30
nathanvanfleet wrote: post #21

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Because part of the equation for Uber is having enough workers out there to fill demand by random chance.

If they have to pay a full-time employee, they can schedule the employee and force them to drive to a certain location, and do a certain number of trips, otherwise they would just fire them. They can squeeze out more efficiency from a single driver rather than hope that there's enough random drivers to fulfill all the demand.

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

#33

Post by WalterBright »

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…

The Uber drivers I've talked to all seemed to like that they could drive for Uber and get paid whenever they felt like it and had some free time.

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

#34

Post by dmode »

I am curious about the choice of the word “devastate” in the headline. Should we have a business where it is only viable when paying workers less than minimum wages ? Should we have a business where your core work has to be performed by “contractors” ? That is not a business model at all.

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

#35

Post by docker_up »

plink wrote: post #25
mrosett wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No one forces anyone to drive for Uber or Lyft. If they don't like the money they're making, they can go work at a regular job. With sub-4% unemployment there are PLENTY of jobs out there.

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

#36

Post by conanbatt »

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.

What's driving housing prices up are bad city/state level policies, not airbnb. Airbnb makes housing more effective, by housing more people for longer periods of time.

Housing utilization goes up with Airbnb, not down.

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

#37

Post by seanmcdirmid »

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.

Beijing, Shanghai, and a few their Chinese cities were decent enough, as were the few Indian cities I went to and Bangkok. Many smaller SE Asian cities were horrible though, with western tourists seen as prime targets for the local taxi mafia.

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

#38

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

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…

The Gig economy jobs are a race to the bottom of the pay scale now. You can get the least expensive services by using workers that have no insurance, vacations, sick days or any type of benefits but is that the work environment that we want to encourage? I get it. It's nice to be independent but it's even better to have a job that lets you have at the very least a satisfactory life.

Technology can give us jobs that free us from the traditional chains that we all know but we also need to figure out how to make sure those workers don't get exploited.

Technology is just part of the answer. We also need to have social and political changes. So we can have the jobs that we want without destroying the worker protections that our previous generations have fought so hard to gain.

Making sure that there are laws that protect workers is the start. The answer to the right pay for the gig economy workers will come. But we can't do it by removing all benefits from the workers and not have any other way for them to get them.

I know one thing. What Uber and Lyft provide is needed so companies will figure out how to provide it even with new laws.

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

#39

Post by jhanschoo »

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.

> Why would having a person classified as an employee turn it into a full time job?

I'm not too familiar with employment law, but in most governments, employees have rights and benefits that cost a company a fixed amount that a contractor doesn't.

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

#40

Post by whyenot »

docker_up wrote: post #32
justinjlynn wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Because part of the equation for Uber is having enough workers out there to fill demand by random chance. If they have to pay a full-time employee, they can schedule the employee and force them to drive to a certain location, and do a certain number of trips, otherwise they would just fire them. They can squeeze out more efficiency from a single driver rather than hope that there's enough random drivers to fulfill al…

Why "random chance"? Instead, Uber could encourage more people to be "on the clock" at high demand times by increasing hourly wages during those times. It feels like you are making mountains out of molehills.
Post reply on HN