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

61–70 of 126 posts

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

#61

Post by throwaway1777 »

pfooti wrote: post #58
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…

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, an…

So you’re saying Uber should have to pay drivers more so that you have to pay less taxes? Sounds like everyone is acting in their own self interest and the market is working just fine...

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

#62

Post by williamDafoe »

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.

In Japan the cabs cost NOTHING, like Uber and Lyft when they have a sale; I spent the 2nd half of June in Japan and never exceeded $10 in fare.

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

#63

Post by bsder »

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.

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

Making companies pay these benefits will actually drive them to start lobbying for just that, no?

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

#64

Post by kisstheblade »

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…

"great way to make money".

Do they really make enough money to pay for their food, housing in the city they work, health care, pension, kids and kids education?

If not these sorts of jobs (or with this pay) should be banned. Else it's just subsidies from taxpayers who need to pay for these things through government "subsidies".

Where I live (a nordic country) eg. taxi drivers used to be able to live a very comfortable life with their pay. And the taxi service was excellent. Not even that expensive if you think about having a private chauffeur driving you around.

Now they changed the rules (to enable "gig economy") and most of the taxi drivers don't pay proper taxes or know any address without gps, and they don't get paid nearly enough to get by without government handouts/social security, or have any pension accruing so they will need even more government/tax money when they are old.

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

#65

Post by Skunkleton »

conanbatt wrote: post #36
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.

I have left my house empty every time I have stayed in an AirBnB. Anecdotal? Sure, but I am not the only one.

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

#66

Post by [deleted] »

jonny_eh wrote: post #59
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

[deleted]

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

#67

Post by williamDafoe »

ImprovedSilence wrote: post #24
markdown wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 o…

You can't get a Lyft to the airport At 4:15 am ($30 fare). Been there, failed that.

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

#68

Post by mikekchar »

jonny_eh wrote: post #60
TuringNYC wrote: post #53

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I think that the objection is not that the bill is unclear about this situation. It's that the increased cost of treating Uber drivers (or similar work) as employees will mean that it is infeasible to hire people as they do now. The bill doesn't address (I assume -- I haven't read the bill) because it's not a think the bill is intended to address. If I understand correctly, the bill is intended to address the situation where large companies are avoiding paying employment tax and benefits because they hire the majority of their employees to do piecemeal work.

Will it really result in the side effect that piecemeal work will cease to exist if workers have to be hired as employees? I don't know, but I think that's what's being suggested.

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

#69

Post by vikinghckr »

One thing not mentioned here is how it will impact customers, and who these customers are. These regulations will result in higher fares for customers and those customers overwhelmingly tend to be people who can't afford to buy and maintain a car. Affluent people already have cars and those on the fence will choose to drive more if fares go up. So the main impact would be on people in the service industry who rely on Uber/Lyft for their daily commutes.

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

#70

Post by jerrre »

vikinghckr wrote: post #69

One thing not mentioned here is how it will impact customers, and who these customers are. These regulations will result in higher fares for customers and those customers overwhelmingly tend to be people who can't afford to buy and maintain a car. Affluent people already have cars and those on the fence will choose to drive more if fares go up. So the main impact would be on people in the service industry who rely on…

How can owning a car be more expensive than having someone else own a car and paying them for it, while also paying them to drive it, while also the app gets a share? Is the base cost of owning a car so high? Do the apps subsidize so much?
Post reply on HN