Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#61

Post by nomad543 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

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.

Uber can say that drivers can set their own rates but they can only afford certain rate. Wouldn't this work?

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

#62

Post by gruez » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

sparrish wrote: post #34

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.

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

Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".

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

#63

Post by munk-a » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #46

carlosdp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Agreeing to a rate != setting your rate, and having the counter-party agree or disagree to your rate.

In actuality these actions aren't so different, I could offer my services to Microsoft at 200k an hour and they're free to decline me.

I think the real issue here can't be resolved by an examination of terms - it involves a power dynamic where Uber contractors are extremely at disadvantage when it comes to being able to set your own rates. I don't know if Uber even has someone on staff that's qualified or expected to negotiate with independent drives that are interested - they have a posted rate that you either accept or they walk away. And, the worst part, they change that posted rate for BS reasons constantly in a way that people can't predict, it makes for an unreliable and misleading income.

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

#64

Post by three_seagrass » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

alextheparrot wrote: post #42

criddell wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

The existence of employment tied health insurance isn’t that surprising historically. Some of the first companies to offer healthcare were risky jobs where the job could cause harm and then it became more standard as a non-wage perk under wage controls enacted during the second world war. This timing also coincides with the rise of modern medicine as we know it today (Labor, eduction, and R&D intensive). The truly cr…

You're right. Health insurance was originally fought for by the unions, which was why they are historically provided by employers in the US. Other nations underwent similar demands from their people, but it ended up being tied to government provision, not corporation.

With employee unions being neutered in the past century, and exponential privatized healthcare cost increases, you start to see broad swaths of employees go without insurance in the US, while other countries nationalized their healthcare to keep costs down and continue providing it to their people.

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

#65

Post by henryfjordan » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:20 PM UTC

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, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions.

What "legal protections" are you talking about? Uber can put out a notification right now that if you don't take 1 ride in the next hour that you are banned from the platform and there's nothing your friends could do about it.

A contractor gets to work w/e hours they want because they are their own boss and collect their own contracted work. Uber basically forms a new contract with a driver per-ride. There's no promise of future rides, and Uber has every right to withhold new rides for whatever reason, including that they do not like your schedule.

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

#66

Post by radicaldreamer » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

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?

If you don't accept nearly every ride, you are kicked off the platform...

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

#67

Post by AnthonyMouse » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

Pfhreak wrote: post #48

carlosdp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Pedantically, sure. Ethically, maybe? Legally -- we'll see how this case goes. I think it's reasonable to argue that because the contractor had no input into the rate, and if they decline too many rides they might be removed from the service, that they do not have the power to set rates.

Having no input into the rate is meaningless. If they can decline work below a given rate then that's equivalent to setting their own rate -- the rate is set at the point where they start declining work. Obviously that may mean they don't get as much work, but setting your own rate doesn't grant immunity from supply and demand.

What would make this a lot easier is if the apps would just allow you to set a rate below which you're not willing to accept work. The reason they punish you for declining too often is that they don't want the rider to have to wait for multiple drivers who regularly decline all offers before finding one willing to accept it, so that would solve that because you wouldn't even get the offer.

I'm curious to see how this shakes out in the end, because we keep getting these decisions where they say they're employees because X, but then won't they just change X to make them contractors again?

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

#68

Post by henryfjordan » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

carlosdp wrote: post #24

henryfjordan wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Why not? They currently do just that...

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

#69

Post by ylyn » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

ceejayoz wrote: post #52

jy1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

His point is that Uber and Lyft are not like normal gig platforms because of this.

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

#70

Post by rdlecler1 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:21 PM UTC

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.

You set your own rate by accepting the ride or not?