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

31–40 of 781 posts

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

#31

Post by toomuchtodo »

foogazi wrote: post #27
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests).

This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).

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

#32

Post by Cookingboy »

munk-a wrote: post #19
Cookingboy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, but since now they have the added cost of health insurance, minimal wage, etc, it would make more sense for them to arrange pre-set shifts for the drivers to optimize for supply/demand based on time of the day. Some drivers would like that arrangement, especially if that's their full time job. But some drivers who do this for supplemental income may not be able to meet the demand of the new fixed schedule se…

I think Uber & Lyft are just using flexible hours as a red-herring. They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees - no where does it say "Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders". They're just griping that they need to start paying benefits.

>They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees - no where does it say "Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders".

I don't think you understand how a business like this works. For a customer serving business, they need to make sure they are staffed appropriately.

Would it make sense for a restaurant to offer all of their staffs "flexible hours"? Is it ok for the waiter to show up at 3am when he has trouble sleeping and just get paid doing nothing?

It's not about 9-5, but it's about when the customers show up.

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

#33

Post by carlosdp »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #31
foogazi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do contractors really set their own rates?

Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests). This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).

> Gig platforms take that power away.

Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?

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

#34

Post by sparrish »

I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company’s business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving?

Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.

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

#35

Post by aeternum »

legulere wrote: post #9
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.

How is that similar to the medallion taxi system at all?

Medallions were first implemented based on the idea that medallion regulations would improve things for both taxi drivers and taxi riders. Limited medallions meant drivers would make more, and riders would be safer as the driver would be known by the city and invested in the medallion.

Instead, they had the opposite effect as taxi conglomerates quickly emerged and cornered the medallion market due to economies of scale. Individual drivers could not compete with medallions priced based on 24-hour usage.

Most drivers became low-paid employees of these conglomerates. Users suffer because drivers no longer had much incentive to keep the shared company cars clean. The conglomerates lobbied to reduce the supply of medallions to protect their now sizable investment and eliminate potential competition.

In this Uber/Lyft case we are also adding regulations which make barrier to entry higher for any incumbent companies. The complication of having thousands of salaried employees is more than most startups can handle, so we are basically cementing the established players Uber/Lyft as the only options.

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

#36

Post by macspoofing »

munk-a wrote: post #19
Cookingboy wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Nothing, but since now they have the added cost of health insurance, minimal wage, etc, it would make more sense for them to arrange pre-set shifts for the drivers to optimize for supply/demand based on time of the day. Some drivers would like that arrangement, especially if that's their full time job. But some drivers who do this for supplemental income may not be able to meet the demand of the new fixed schedule se…

I think Uber & Lyft are just using flexible hours as a red-herring. They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees - no where does it say "Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders". They're just griping that they need to start paying benefits.

>They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees

They can't guarantee flexibility and full-time employment. That's the point.

>"Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders".

If there is no demand or there is over-supply at some particular time in some particular area, you can't will a job into existence.

>They're just griping that they need to start paying benefits.

Are they griping? The costs are going to be passed down to the consumer. They will still be more competitive than taxis (which are still abysmal with customer service). And by raising regulatory costs and requirements, you're making it harder for any new entrants to come in and compete. Sounds like Uber and Left break-even, and everyone else loses. Alternatively, if this new regulation kills Uber and Lyft, then everyone loses.

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

#37

Post by jy1 »

toomuchtodo wrote: post #31
foogazi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do contractors really set their own rates?

Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests). This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).

Gig platforms neither decrease your rating / deplatform you if you decline work.

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

#38

Post by newacct583 »

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 don't see where you're getting that "bias" accusation. The subtitle of the article is literally written from the company's perspective ("A stunning court ruling puts Uber and Lyft in a tight spot"), and not the drivers'. In fact the benefits to drivers as employees don't even get treated until the end of the second paragraph, after the author has explained things like the already-filed appeal.

Honestly, I think objectively I'd look at this as very much sympathetic to the employers, if I had to assign bias (though honestly it's fairly neutral).

As far as the law goes: this result was coming for sure, the only surprise here is the fact that it happened via injuction. The California "AB5" law under which the suit was filed is a new law from last year, and it was very much written with the intent to make gig economy positions into "employee" relationships. There's a link in the article to this explainer, which is pretty good:

https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...

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

#39

Post by toomuchtodo »

carlosdp wrote: post #33
toomuchtodo wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes? Who else would set them? Pedantically, the market sets the rates, but the contractor is the one with the power to say yes or no. Gig platforms take that power away (either through a reduction in rating or deplatfoming if you decline work requests). This is simply closing a loophole gig platforms were built on (misclassifying workers in violation of labor law).

> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?

Based on court cases these articles are reporting on and modifications platforms have been making to driver interfaces due to AB5, no.

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

#40

Post by Daishiman »

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.

This doesn't sound reactionary or uninformed at all. There's a decision that the benefits of stable employment are more important than flexibility. You can be free to argue whether it's better or worse bit it's not about ignorance.
Post reply on HN