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

51–60 of 781 posts

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

#51

Post by heavyset_go »

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 have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours

Those legal protections can be enforced by those who have the means to hire a lawyer. Yes, white collar contractors often get to enjoy the legally enshrined protections to decide how, when and where their work is done. They are often paid twice as much or more than their salaried peers to make up for the increased costs of self-employment and lack of employer provided benefits.

Blue collar workers working as contractors are almost always doing so not for their own benefit, but for the economic benefit of their employers. The workers get little say in how, when or where their work is done. Their pay does not reflect the increased cost of self-employment, and they are not offered benefits.

Uber drivers can't even set their own rates.

As an aside, there are plenty of people employed as employees with flexible hours and schedules in the US.

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

#52

Post by ceejayoz »

jy1 wrote: post #37
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 neither decrease your rating / deplatform you if you decline work.

They do, though.

https://help.uber.com/driving-and-delivering/article/what-ar...

https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013077708-Accepta...

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

#53

Post by munk-a »

Cookingboy wrote: post #32
munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

Sorry, I'm really confused, how is moving from contractors to employees supposed to make covering certain periods of the day harder for uber?

Normal businesses with normal benefits that hire for off-normal shifts generally pay higher for those shift slots or find an employee that values that shift higher than mid-day and employers absolutely can have an expectation of business hours and fire people for failing to meet that. They can also choose to allow their employees to work more flexible hours but this choice is entirely disconnected from contractor vs. FTE.

In the service industry in particular (as you noted above) showing up to work outside of core hours isn't likely to result in any productive work - maybe that waiter could run inventory or do some prep (and actually 3 AM isn't insanely early if you get a big breakfast rush) but that's entirely disconnected from uber saying: "Darn - we wanted to give them flexible hours, but now that they're employees I guess we can't let anyone work after 5PM" that's just BS PR from the company.

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

#54

Post by cycrutchfield »

munk-a wrote: post #17
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 think the core issue as to why employeeship is favored is that those folks that want the freedom of contracting have more personal power and are less disadvantaged compared to the employer. If you are choosing to favor the flexibility of your own hours over other work benefits then you have a much more secure source of income than a lot of working Americans. I think that ensuring that those poorest off have the abi…

Then that is for the government to provide, not for a company to provide.

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

#55

Post by ericsoderstrom »

Cookingboy wrote: post #32
munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 sh…

Yeah but drivers currently are free to choose their hours however they like. Surely allowing them to continue to do the thing they already do and the platform is designed to allow them to do isn't going to cause the same problems as a waiter not showing up during normal meal hours...

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

#56

Post by c3534l »

I'm not surprised. Uber and Lyft try co classify their workers as contractors when it comes to taxes and benefits, yet undermine workers abilities to actually be independent contractors when it suits them to do so. If you want to be a platform that helps connect drivers with passengers, then be that app. You can't then go in and set rates, not pay per client, not give contractors the ability to work for the customers they want, etc. These companies have such a strange culture of hubris and trying to skirt the law, its only a matter of time for that to catch up with them.

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

#57

Post by nknealk »

So I think the biggest question here is whether, as an employee, Uber/Lyft can set hours for a driver. Some specific implications:

* Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example.

* Can not arriving to shifts on time be grounds for dismissal?

* Can refusing a shift be grounds for dismissal?

* Can incurring unapproved overtime be grounds for dismissal?

* If a driver is incurring overtime, is that reflected in the pricing that consumers pay?

* Can Uber/Lyft systemically set employee hours to like 29 per week to avoid FTE status?

* Will multihoming (ie working for multiple "gig" apps) be grounds for dismissal as a conflict of interest?

I see a lot of ways Uber/Lyft could retain significant power over drivers.

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

#58

Post by gok »

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.

I don't know where this meme started. Taxi drivers have never set their own rates and have always been contractors.

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

#59

Post by heavyset_go »

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. As far as I'm aware, Uber and Lyft drivers are not able to set their own rates on the platforms.

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

#60

Post by jliptzin »

macspoofing wrote: post #36
munk-a wrote: post #19

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 gri…

They are both just placeholders until we have robotaxi networks. 5-10 years max.
Post reply on HN