Live data from Hacker News

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

businessinsider.com

41–50 of 126 posts

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

#41
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 the bill eliminate this niche market?

The bill does NOT say, Uber drivers need to change the way they work.

The bill does say, the way Uber drivers work is considered employment with respect to the law.

It changes the definition of employment to include the type of flexible work Uber drivers are currently doing.

In other words, Uber (or any similar gig-economy business) could keep working with their employees as they always have, it's just that they'll now have to provide those employees with a bunch of benefits they currently do not provide and pay a number of taxes they currently do not pay.

The idea that "employee" means particular way of scheduling hours is false. The bill doesn't say that. The law doesn't say that. There's nothing that requires that. These newly defined employees could keep all the flexibility they've had. If Uber reduces that flexibility, that's Uber's decision.

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

#42
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 is a marketing company. The Uber business model is nearly identical to the taxi business model it is replacing — except taxi drivers don’t have to lease or rent cars from Uber as they did with the taxi company. You also don’t have mobster-controlled “Medallions” as a means to artificially constrict supply.

I think a lot of people have no idea how the old taxi business worked.. it was far worse than Uber — it was more of a monopoly as well because you were required to drive a specifically-branded car purchased or leased from the taxi company. You couldn’t use the same car to drive for other companies. Damage had to be repaired at the specifically designated repair shop (owned by the taxi company of course,) and you had to pay for insurance from the specific taxi company “vendor” (also owned by the taxi company.)

And.. you were an independent contractor; you were the customer of the taxi company. You got to pay your own self-employment taxes, but your own health insurance and if you got sick, you still had to pay the taxi company the lease fee for the car. While you did collect your own cash fares, you had to pay a very high percentage (8-10%) on credit card fares and you were paid those fares weekly. If you lost the charge slip paper, you lost the fare, however the taxi company still had the swipe, so they’d still collect the money but just not pay any of it to you.

The taxi business is and was an incredibly corrupt and nasty business. There is a reason that job was popular with fresh off the boat immigrants — anyone who had done the job more than a minute knew how much of a rip-off it was (unless you were willing to sleep in your car and drive 16+ hour days in order to save up money to start your own limo business or convenience store which was a common goal among many of the south Asian immigrants I drove with.)

The kids hating on Uber really have no idea what they are talking about. Unless someone has actually worked in the towing, taxi, limousine, hot shot, or trucking businesses (all extremely nasty and tough businesses,) it’s pretty hard to have much credibility when complaining about the gig economy, Uber, etc. Uber/Lift/Doordash is a dream compared to the bad old days. You can have one car and pretty much drive and deliver as much as you want and make money proportional to how hard you are willing to work. It isn’t easy-street, but nobody plans on being a career Uber driver — it’s a stopgap, a transition, or a supplement. Anyone thinking that this is some kind of full time career is either of low-IQ and has no prospects of doing anything better, or just lacks ambition. Being a McDonald’s cashier ought not be a career either, but there are people working in that position for 15+ years. At that point, that failure is on them. We shouldn’t be optimizing society around making low wage service jobs into some kind of permanent career. Even a high school kid gets promoted at McDonalds if they stick around for more than a few minutes, yet there are literally people who have been making minimum wage for years. At some point people ought to be treated as adults and not like exploited children. A person chooses to drive for Uber/a taxi/whatever. They aren’t Shanghaied or otherwise indentured. If people don’t want to do those jobs, then that ought to motivate them to find something slightly better — or start at the bottom washing dishes somewhere and move up through a restaurant’s ranks. But that requires hard work and dedication— traits in very short supply in an era where people that literally sweep floors think that work is worth $15 per hour.

Source: I drove for Yellow Cab Houston in the summer of 2001. I also drove hot shot deliveries in Houston in 2008 and a good friend of mine owned a bike courier business. I also worked a string of shitty restaurant and bar jobs, lived on the street a short time and now I work as a software engineering project manager for one of those FANG companies.

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

#44
post #25
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.

Are they indentured servants?

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

#45

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…

"If you are an hourly-paid employee, you can't just choose the times that suit you"

Why not?

Or more specifically: the law doesn't require this, so why would it have to change?

The bill merely states, "hey, this flexible way you've been working, that's not independent contracting, that's employment and the employer have to abide by all these other regulations." Those regulations in no way require Uber to make workers work for specific hours, pay them hourly, or schedule their work differently. In fact, it just says, "the way you're already working, that's employment." So why do you think they'd have to change how they work?

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

#46
post #17
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…

That doesn't have anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm discussing data from TNC driver organizations like https://www.ridester.com/how-much-do-uber-drivers-make/

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

#47
post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Why would they want to pay people who aren't actually doing work? That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees, those employees should be working all the time, instead of at their leisure the way it currently is. There is no requirement to take a ride if you don't want to right now, but if there's surge, drivers will be encouraged to work. If they are full-time employees, they just work for a flat rate and at the places and times that the employer requires them to be, in order for them to be maximally used.

Hiring people to just sit around and do nothing doesn't make any sense whatsoever.

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

#48

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…

oh this is interesting to read. as someone who lives in Austin, I had heard so much about all this when it was going on but I never really actually looked enough into it to try and understand it all. At that point, I had stopped driving for lyft, so it didn't particularly affect me (especially because at the time I was living in Williamson county outside of Austin city limits so I could at least still use it for rideshare purposes), but I certainly was curious to learn more. Thank you for sharing.

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

#49
post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Are they indentured servants?

Yup. In Florida, many of them are illegals, many of them are hobos with cars, and others are indentured to crime rings where one vehicle is swapped out with several drivers whose faces apparently all look alike to the rideshare company management. Here’s an example for you: today, Tuesday, MCO is closed, yet the rideshare staging lot has over 25 vehicles in it. Yesterday, Monday, FLL was closed for weather, and the rideshare staging lot had over 55 vehicles parked in it with their homeless drivers sleeping through the hurricane to get first crack at inbound flights once they resumed. Nice work if you can get it.

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

#50

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.

Uber is a marketing company. The Uber business model is nearly identical to the taxi business model it is replacing — except taxi drivers don’t have to lease or rent cars from Uber as they did with the taxi company. You also don’t have mobster-controlled “Medallions” as a means to artificially constrict supply. I think a lot of people have no idea how the old taxi business worked.. it was far worse than Uber — it was…

I fail to see how "this is not bad because this other thing is also bad" is a valid argument. Sure, the medallion taxi system has bad things about it. But then Uber

- Pays low, doesn't pay benefits, yadda yadda. All the stuff I assume people generally mean when they talk about "the kids hating on Uber"

- Went into towns and actively broke the law (bypassing the current taxi system). Sure, "civil disobedience" and all that, but the people that actually paid any real price for that disobedience (https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/No-fair-say-Ube...)

- Uber is burning money in order to corner the market. Eventually they're going to either go under or change their entire pricing structure. Nobody is going to win when that happens. There's a reason countries wield financial weapons when other countries start dumping like that; it's bad for everyone involved but the dumper.

Post reply on HN