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

#111

Post by tick_tock_tick » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

droidno9 wrote: post #18

The relevant statute:[0] 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free…

Other than the spirt of the law being drafted to explicitly target Uber/Lyft the letter explicitly clears them.

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

#112

Post by root_axis » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:35 PM UTC

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

Pfhreak wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> If they can decline work below a given rate then that's equivalent to setting their own rate

It is clearly not equivalent since uber literally determines the rate. Yes, they can refuse to work below a certain threshold but they aren't in-fact "setting the rate".

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

#113

Post by alex_young » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

Uber wants you to believe that the cost of paying drivers as employees is that you won’t be able to get a car in most places.

This can’t be true.

Uber replaced a poorly run system that actually covered most places and employed it’s labor force.

If Uber and other car services were forced to recognize their workforce as employees, there would be market incentives to support doing so.

American taxpayers pay for Uber and Lyft driver’s subsidized medical plans and other public benefits they receive because they are not paid as employees with the right to organize. Your ride may seem cheap, but you pay for it in your tax bill.

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

#114

Post by [deleted] » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:36 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.

[deleted]

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

#115

Post by erichocean » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

MAGZine wrote: post #96

jedberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all contractors set their own rates. Sometimes they bid on an already published rate. Which is what happens here. Uber/Lyft tell you what you will make before the ride starts. If you accept, you just set your own rate.

except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.

How is that any different from Patreon suspending user accounts due to ToS violations? Are companies free to suspend accounts for any reason or not?

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

#116

Post by cjlars » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:36 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #103

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #71

If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa. If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.

IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[ ] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [ ] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.

Mostly it's been people working for both at the same time, and then taking the best fare as it comes up. Employers can definitely prevent them from doing that, and then there would be additional friction over who gets to schedule drivers for rush hour.

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

#117

Post by skybrian » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

MAGZine wrote: post #96

jedberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all contractors set their own rates. Sometimes they bid on an already published rate. Which is what happens here. Uber/Lyft tell you what you will make before the ride starts. If you accept, you just set your own rate.

except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.

It seems like changing that would be an easier and less disruptive fix?

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

#118

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

microtherion wrote: post #103

cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #71

If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa. If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.

IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[ ] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [ ] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.

But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber.

If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so that they won't take a Lyft call when there's an Uber passenger nearby, for example. This effectively means lockin.

Also, Uber (or lyft) may even compensate these behaviors by giving the drivers base salary as long as they don't take their competition's calls. Of course, this is until one becomes the dominant player and the other goes out of business.

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

#119

Post by three_seagrass » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

marcrosoft wrote: post #107

LargeWu wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You’re right except exploitation occurs as crony capitalism. “You rub my back, I’ll make your competition run through red tape”. Nobody is forcing these workers to do ANYTHING. Regulation would force action.

Exploitation isn't limited to quid pro quo or antitrust corruption.

It's easy to sit from a seat of having a salaried ~40 hour week job with health benefits and safety standards, which were fought for from past generations, and then scoff when similar people are trying to fight for the same.

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

#120

Post by popinman322 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 10:37 PM UTC

taftster wrote: post #100

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.

I get what you're saying, but I don't think "setting their own rates" has anything to do with it. Any driver would be able to set their own rates by going at it alone, completely independent from a ride share company. They would create their own service and charge what they want. However, because the drivers choose to participate in the Uber/Lyft marketplace and benefit from the network affects that they have created…

In your lawn care example you used the word "mutually". That is a difference between the Lyft/Uber relationship with drivers and your relationship with the lawn care contractor.

Maybe if Lyft/Uber allowed drivers to bid on rides drivers would become more contractor-esque? But then the latency would be much higher for users. The system would likely also regress to the proposed price, as well, since drivers would likely just accept the price proposed by the platform to save time.