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

141–150 of 781 posts

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

#141

Post by [deleted] »

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…

[deleted]

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

#142

Post by emteycz »

root_axis wrote: post #112
AnthonyMouse wrote: post #67

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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".

Uber does not determine the rate, the market does. Uber won't find drivers if the rate is too low, for example because it's lower than the costs, lower than the risk, or lower that the competition. Uber (and the driver too) won't find customers if the rate is too high.

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

#143

Post by lhh »

twblalock wrote: post #122
fcsp wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is it still voluntary if it happens out of economic desperation?

If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.

Exactly, the situation would be more desperate without Uber/Lyft/etc, not less.

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

#144

Post by behringer »

dahfizz wrote: post #110
rdgthree wrote: post #72

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is certainly the (fairly robust) legal argument. My hesitation is that I think a significant amount of drivers prefer and would benefit from the arrangement that Uber and Lyft have set up, and it's a shame that we aren't discussing how to write legislation to fit those people in. It just feels like forcing everyone to be an employee will box out a large number of happy part-time drivers who weren't too concerned…

I agree. I think the "gig-economy" is clearly a third type of worker - not quite and employee and not quite a contractor. It makes sense to embrace that and make sure everyone benefits the most, instead of shoving this new situation into an old leagl framework that doesn't quite fit.

So we can have a worker with even less rights than a contractor? Sounds absolutely terrible.

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

#145

Post by willio58 »

lhh wrote: post #50

Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?

A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker or society. Lower classes are currently forced to work for survival, there’s a lot of room for improvement.

Poor management of investments on Uber/Lyft’s end is a burden the lower classes should not be forced to take on.

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

#146

Post by tynpeddler »

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.

Drivers set their own rates via a reverse dutch auction. Uber offers a short term contract at a certain rate. If no contractor accepts that rate, Uber increases the contract rate until someone accepts.

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

#147

Post by three_seagrass »

specialist wrote: post #140
lhh wrote: post #50

Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?

What's Uber's path to profitable?

Apparently not obeying those pesky government laws.

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

#148

Post by ekianjo »

specialist wrote: post #123
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…

Uber drivers invest $20k for opportunity to earn $15/hr. How much do your contracting friends invest? What's their compensation?

So are you claiming Uber drivers buy cars solely for the purpose of becoming Uber drivers?

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

#149

Post by lotophage »

> labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation

This is the real problem that needs to be fixed. Most other developed nations have affordable, if not universal health care that isn't tied to their employment. The status of Lyft/Uber drivers wouldn't be as much of an issue if this was solved.

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

#150

Post by gjs278 »

fcsp wrote: post #135
twblalock wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.

Well maybe the unemployed masses in that situation will vote for universal basic income or better distribution of wealth to fix that? Full employment as an economic goal or even a feasible tactic has been obsolete for a long time if I understand correctly

or they will be kicked out to states that does allow these jobs
Post reply on HN