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

81–90 of 126 posts

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

#81

Post by mantas »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #61
pfooti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why should tax payers subsidise Uber?

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

#82

Post by mschuster91 »

throwaway1777 wrote: post #61
pfooti wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

That depends on how you determine if the market works "just fine".

From the pure view of the 30 year old customer: obviously. Low prices, decent quality.

From the view of society: not so much, as society has to now take on the costs that were previously paid by the employer (and indirectly the customer)... think food stamps or social security funded by taxes instead employer contributions to an unemployment insurance, or healthcare given that normal employment would have health insurance but many contractors don't.

From the view of the 70 year old customer living on pension and depending on taxis e.g. to go to dialysis treatment: not so much, as Uber, Lyft etc. have wildly variable pricing, compared to the regulated price of a taxi.

From the view of a customer or a third party involved in an accident: Taxis have proper commercial insurance that picks up medical costs of people involved. Uber/Lyft/other companies? Not neccessarily and either people are left with the medical bill alone or society has to pick it up.

The "gig economy" is only so cheap because a lot of cost factors that made the regular services so expensive are now picked up by society at large.

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

#83

Post by qtplatypus »

briandear wrote: post #42
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.

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…

That doesn’t respond to the comment I made.

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

#84

Post by saimiam »

saimiam wrote: post #27

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 exa…

Yep, unpopular.

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

#85

Post by distances »

docker_up wrote: post #47
whyenot wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> That's the point if they are forced to take full-time employees

Where does it say this?

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

#86

Post by d1zzy »

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 do not work for Uber or Lyft.

I remember those taxi experiences because those were the only 3 times I needed a taxi in the first few years in the Bay Area, so quite easy to remember. If I had needed to take many rides/often then likely I won't remember as many details.

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

#87

Post by amundsentb »

mantas wrote: post #81
throwaway1777 wrote: post #61

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why should tax payers subsidise Uber?

your disingenous use of subsidize leads me to believe your argument is weak

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

#88

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

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…

"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."

Thereby driving them out of business and eliminating this form of employment (which is clearly contractual and not "regular").

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

#89

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

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.

No. Uber has presented work for which they will pay a particular rate. Individuals can accept that rate and submit themselves as candidates for the job, or do something else with their time.

If someone posts a classified ad for a handyman to fix their stairs and offers $50, I can take it or not. But taking it and then whining that I didn't get benefits... and being abetted in that whining by clueless politicians... is disgraceful.

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

#90

Post by PunksATawnyFill »

WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #38
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 f…

Everyone continues to ignore a glaring problem in the USA: Your health insurance should have nothing to do with your job.

When people carp about "benefits," that's really what they're talking about, isn't it? And it's an anachronistic result of incompetent legislation from the WWII era.

Fix THAT. Then we can all have "benefits" without any dependence on a particular job.

Post reply on HN