Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

21–30 of 781 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#21

Post by yingw787 »

rdgthree wrote: post #7

It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…

Are they software contractors making a couple hundred an hour, or Lyft/Uber drivers making a $25 an hour? I think the problem some people see is many Lyft/Uber drivers don't have that wealth of choice.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#22

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

rdgthree wrote: post #7

It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…

Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#23

Post by linuxftw »

rdgthree wrote: post #7

It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…

I'm an employee, I pretty much decide my own hours. Sometimes it's 20 hours per week, sometimes it's 60, most of the time it's around 40. I can work Saturday and not Monday, I can work 4-10's and take Friday off, etc.

Uber and Lyft employees are paid on commission. Uber and Lyft don't call it commission, but that's exactly what it is. You get X% of your sales, with bonuses, etc.

For me, price was never the primary motivator of using Uber or Lyft. It's the convenience and having a well known brand that will more likely than not actually come pick me up.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#24

Post by carlosdp »

henryfjordan wrote: post #15
bpodgursky wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.

That's not a reason why Lyft and Uber couldn't just reclassify everyone. That's a consequence of the reclassification, but that's a distinction those companies don't want to make because they'd prefer their drivers be confused. Even if you drove 2 hours a week, there's still 1 reason to prefer being an employee over a contractor: Minimum wage. Uber drivers might only make peanuts once you factor in gas, car payments,…

I highly doubt Uber or Lyft will allow an employee on their payroll to work for only 2 hours a week...

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#25

Post by sg47 »

marcrosoft wrote: post #5

This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.

The way for Uber to defeat this is to fight for single payer health insurance and universal basic income.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#26

Post by munk-a »

criddell wrote: post #11
bpodgursky wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.

Sounds like something universal health care could fix. It seems crazy that access to health care is connected to your employment status.

Yea - this is a real employment advantage up here in Canada. Due to lifetime healthcare Canadians tend to cost less in emergency procedures over their lifetime and employers don't need to worry about standard healthcare for employees (drug coverage is still a thing and WorkSafe (basically OSHA) can still end up costing a lot for on-the-job accidents though).

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#27

Post by foogazi »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #22
rdgthree wrote: post #7

It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…

Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.

Do contractors really set their own rates?

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#28

Post by ars »

criddell wrote: post #11
bpodgursky wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because benefits like healthcare are gated on the number of hours worked. Uber isn't going to (and can't possibly afford to) pay healthcare for someone who drives 2 hours a week.

Sounds like something universal health care could fix. It seems crazy that access to health care is connected to your employment status.

Universal healthcare is not the only way to fix that....

You could use the existing healthcare exchange, and just give people a certain percent of their salary that can only be used to buy healthcare. Then let them buy as they choose.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#29

Post by linuxftw »

rogerdickey wrote: post #20

It seems inevitable that the government will make reactionary, uninformed decisions. The question is, how do we revert to normal (a freer market) and begin to teach those in power some basic economics lessons? I'm not hopeful that an op-ed by Uber's CEO will help. Perhaps it needs to look more like a grass-roots movement.

For the vast history of humanity, "Normal" was little more than serfdom or outright slavery. I'm not sure what "normal" you're actually implying, but if you're referring to the post-War era as normal, that's really just a microcosm.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#30

Post by nickff »

LargeWu wrote: post #13
marcrosoft wrote: post #5

This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.

Regulation, in general, exists primarily as a response to exploitation. If drivers felt they were getting paid equitably, had fair dispute resolution, had access to benefits, etc., there wouldn't be a need for this.

The parent's point brings up the fact that the medallion system wasn't particularly beneficial to all drivers (or riders); medallions are good for medallion-holders, which are usually taxi companies.
Post reply on HN