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

111–120 of 126 posts

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

#111

Post by noego »

> ride-hailing companies would be responsible for half (6.2%) of employees' Social Security and Medicare (1.45%) tax, as well as the costs for administering any employee benefits (e.g., health care and 401ks)

The changes described in the bill seem surprisingly minor. As long as Uber isn't expected to pay its drivers a fixed salary, or control their work hours, I don't see how "better benefits" will fundamentally destroy their business model. It is fundamentally no different than raising the rates paid by riders, and passing those increased rates along to drivers in the form of better benefits.

As long as it is applied consistently to both Uber and Lyft, neither of them will lose market share. Ridership will decline incrementally when rates are raised incrementally, but the majority of Uber riders aren't going to take buses instead just because prices went up 15%.

I've long been a fan of the gig economy and of companies like Uber/Lyft, but the new regulations described above sound pretty reasonable. Saying they will devastate Uber's business model sounds like clickbait on the part of BI, and FUD on the part of Uber.

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

#112

Post by michaelmrose »

stochastic_monk wrote: post #101
michaelmrose wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>...traits in very short supply in an era where people that literally sweep floors think that work is worth $15 per hour. The move to increase the minimum wage to 15 is presented by the uninformed as a cash grab by the lazy. The truth is 15 dollars just isn't much nowadays. The old often have a hard time forgetting about the nominal value and considering the actual buying power. Lets ignore the fact that minimum wage…

More concisely, while wages have stagnated wrt inflation, they’ve fallen significantly once the consumer price index (CPI) is accounted for.

The CPI doesn't even take into account the cost of health care and housing you know what people often spend most of their money on.

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

#113

Post by michaelmrose »

TuringNYC wrote: post #109
michaelmrose wrote: post #92

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If its not legal to drive uninsured and your insurance wont cover you driving commercially why is it OK for you to drive in such a way such that if you hurt someone they are screwed because you can't pay and your insurance wont? I think most of planet earth only wants to work 1 gig or at most 2 for somewhere between 20 and 40 hours. I doubt people who want to work a tiny number of hours make up a meaningful proportio…

Uber drivers definitely have to have their own auto and liability insurance. The benefits being discussed are health insurance.

Their auto insurance probably doesn't actually cover commercial driving. They are covered if they commit insurance fraud.

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

#114

Post by dwild »

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.

> Like why would they hire managers and set schedules

Most probably it would be machine learning that would decide that

> when it gives no benifit to Uber?

An employee works for an hourly rates. It would benefit them in the sense that they wouldn't have to pay someone for an hour where he does nothing.

Why do your job give you a schedule?

> This is not like if a contracted a builder to renovate my kitchen.

I don't know for where you live, but here in Quebec you would usually contract a general contractor for that. Would that means that guy is now employing people and he should pay them benefits too and pay their taxes for them?

Uber is between you and the contractor, sure, but he is still a contractor, he is contracted for a single job (taking you to your destination) and the amount paid cover that job.

The contractor is free to decide when, where and for how much he works.

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

#115

Post by HALtheWise »

Does anyone know how this works for drivers that today drive for both Uber and Lyft at the same time? I see many cars with both stickers on the windshield, and it seems like a very powerful force preventing one or the other from gaining a monopoly status in the city. When a driver using both apps is waiting for a ride, whose time are they clocking under? Does that create legal incentives for drivers to drive for one company, and in doing so make it very hard to sustain minority competitor in the ride sharing space?

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

#116

Post by malandrew »

m463 wrote: post #51
WalterBright wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Your statement applies to pretty much all jobs.

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

#117

Post by walshemj »

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...

Yes why should I pay taxes to support a private company that is not profitable without taxpayer support

I am in the UK so I don't mind paying to support Medical Training, and training in stem skills those jobs are a net benefit to the state.

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

#118

Post by walshemj »

amundsentb wrote: post #87
mantas wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why should tax payers subsidise Uber?

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

No its not that is exactly what is happening, that's why previous UK Tory chancellors where keen on increasing the minimum wage - to reduce the £ spent on tax credits.

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

#119

Post by WheelsAtLarge »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #71
WheelsAtLarge wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

I’m kind of a techie social activist myself, and you’re very right about technology not being the whole solution. I think people forget that no technology can solve all of our problems. The technology is a tool but we also need to organize with one another in the human sphere and decide what is fair and what is not - what rules we want to play by. And I’m with you that we should question whether we want to live in a…

>Have you ever read Murray Bookchin?

I have not but it sounds like it's someone I should. Thx.

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

#120

Post by walshemj »

PunksATawnyFill wrote: post #89
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.

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... i…

Only up to a point there is a lot of legal case law that defines what an employee is and uber is on the wrong side of this.
Post reply on HN