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

51–60 of 126 posts

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

#51

Post by m463 »

WalterBright wrote: post #33
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.

That's a self-selecting sample, and possibly you've not talked to people who have had problems and/or quit working for uber

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

#52

Post by notfromhere »

api wrote: post #13
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.

Taxis cost as much as uber's if you're traveling in a major city under about 1.5 miles. I prefer taxi's to uber's if im next to a hotspot and you can just give directions by cross-street.

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

#53

Post by TuringNYC »

jaaron wrote: post #41
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 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 employe…

Ok but let’s consider the left end of the distribution — someone who drives four hours a week — is it really sensible for Uber it any gig platform to pay benefits? What about a single Amazon Mechanical Turk hIt — would that also carry benefits? This wouldn’t be cost effective.

I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic.

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

#54

Post by TuringNYC »

jaaron wrote: post #45
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…

"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…

The law may not state it but economics does. Even the cheapest insurance plans cost 500/mo. If you drive an hour a month and earn $100 for the month, it is not cost effective to issue a full health plan for that. There is a break even point of course. But that break even point will not allow driver flexibility.

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

#55

Post by sneak »

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.

That’s already the case; drivers choose to sell their services to Uber at the rate Uber has offered, versus selling their services to anyone else that participates in the unskilled labor market.

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

#56

Post by JumpCrisscross »

dmix wrote: post #20
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 st…

> The solution is to update laws that reflect the future (ie, giving contractors better rights and better temporary unemployment social support)

Agreed. Classifying them as employees, per this bill, doesn’t do this.

Employment classification comes with a myriad of fixed costs. Particularly in California. Contractors lack these fixed costs—it’s all variable. That’s what makes them attractive for unpredictable workloads.

We need a third category, a low fixed-cost zone between contractors and employees, that includes some employee rights but not others, and confers some employee restrictions but not others. That would be transformative to our economy, and strengthen it to boot. Unfortunately, that’s is not what the California legislature is discussing. (Surprise.)

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

#57

Post by SOLAR_FIELDS »

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’ve been wondering this lately: when it comes to Uber contractors vs employees, it’s always presented as an all-or-nothing kind of option. I wonder if Uber might one day offer both an employee and contract option to satisfy both needs

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

#58

Post by pfooti »

dmix wrote: post #20
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 st…

This isn't about protecting the taxi industry- as you rightly point out, many taxi drivers are also contractors. Instead, this is about properly pricing labor. The gig economy works now because companies like Uber (and many others) externalize the real cost of hiring labor.

It doesn't make sense to pay people low wages to the point where they need governmental assistance in the form of food stamps and BMR housing, and then pass on the savings to private companies who do their best to avoid paying the taxes that fund those programs. It ends up being other, traditionally employed FTEs who subsidize this business model via their own tax bills.

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

#59

Post by jonny_eh »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56
dmix wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 st…

> The solution is to update laws that reflect the future (ie, giving contractors better rights and better temporary unemployment social support) Agreed. Classifying them as employees, per this bill, doesn’t do this. Employment classification comes with a myriad of fixed costs. Particularly in California. Contractors lack these fixed costs—it’s all variable. That’s what makes them attractive for unpredictable workload…

> I agree with this. But classifying them as employees doesn’t do this.

Umm, I think you both agree. There's no disagreement that I see.

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

#60

Post by jonny_eh »

TuringNYC wrote: post #53
jaaron wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 employe…

Ok but let’s consider the left end of the distribution — someone who drives four hours a week — is it really sensible for Uber it any gig platform to pay benefits? What about a single Amazon Mechanical Turk hIt — would that also carry benefits? This wouldn’t be cost effective. I think over half these problems go away with government issued healthcare. Companies and workers can be more dynamic.

Is that addressed in the bill?
Post reply on HN