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

151–160 of 781 posts

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

#151

Post by jdeibele »

It would be interesting to let passengers have a slider that let them show how price sensitive they were and the drivers were able to set a minimum price for total (driving to passenger + driving to destination). Maybe you'd be willing to wait for 15 minutes if Driver B would be cheaper than Driver A, even though Driver A was 3 minutes away.

Even better (if drivers are really treated as contractors) would be to show you the rates from Driver A, Driver B, and Driver C and you can pick one:

Driver A: 23 minutes, $20 Driver B: 35 minutes, $15 Driver C: 30 minutes, $18

The issue for Uber/Lyft is they're focusing on the ride and that's nice - I don't know that drivers rejected me since they're just showing the ride cost from Point A to Point B. But that ignores actual driving time for the drivers, plus that they might end up in an undesirable area.

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

#152

Post by ekianjo »

chx wrote: post #91
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 thought flextime is totally a thing.

Flextime does not mean you can work 5 hours per week.

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

#153

Post by ogre_codes »

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?

>Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing.

Uber has spent their entire existence dancing in legal gray areas. It's hard to have a ton of sympathy for them when their over-generous re-interpretations of the law bite them in the ass on occasion.

> Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?

This is the argument used against every single labor law ever passed. It's not even an argument.

Our government and current economy is poorly equipped to handle the gig-economy. This decision doesn't really help it, but maybe it will motivate some lawmakers to try and address it longer term.

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

#154

Post by TeMPOraL »

skybrian wrote: post #117
MAGZine wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Imagine the fun metagames this would cause. If the government took Uber's stick away, the company would be forced to find a rate at which they'd have enough drivers to allow for reasonably short pickup time. Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, thus forcing Uber to raise their rates to $X (+ Uber's cut).

(While dropping drivers from the platform if they refuse too many rides doesn't make such collusion impossible in theory, it introduces enough individual risk to make such coordination unlikely in practice.)

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

#155

Post by nabla9 »

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…

> flexibility to decide their own hours

That is possible for employees as well. Part time employment is also possible. What is different is ability to set rates etc.

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

#156

Post by three_seagrass »

marcrosoft wrote: post #121
Pfhreak wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Has anyone suggested the solution to this is to make another medallion system? It seems like the OP was putting the cart before the horse.

The medallion system was regulation at its worst. I’m suggesting we look to our past so we don’t repeat it.

How is California enforcing it's laws a repeat of a medallion licensing system?

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

#157

Post by redorb »

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.

Isn't selecting their own job - at least a bit related to selecting their own rate..

I guess uber could put the jobs up for bid.. to address that.

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

#158

Post by mlthoughts2018 »

ekianjo wrote: post #148
specialist wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

That is true of most drivers who depend on the income for a living.

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

#159

Post by taftster »

popinman322 wrote: post #120
taftster wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 likel…

You are expecting that Uber/Lyft creates an "auction" environment in order for their drivers to be considered contractors? In my world view, an auction is not requirement for a driver to be considered independent. Drivers can:

- drive on their own schedule - drive for competing ride share services (concurrently even) - drive for themselves - not drive at all

Seems very independent contractor. Uber/Lyft created a marketplace; drivers are agreeing to drive within the constraints of that marketplace. They can also create their own customer relationships and ride share marketplace if they choose.

If Uber/Lyft imposed restrictions on things like who a driver could give rides to or restricted concurrent ride share engagements, then that starts to feel like an employee. Rates have very little to do with it, in my humble opinion.

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

#160

Post by d0gbread »

behringer wrote: post #144
dahfizz wrote: post #110

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

That isn't remotely what the comment you're replying to said. I agree that thinking about the gig economy as a different type of worker opens to door to a "how might we" conversation where everyone has the opportunity to win.
Post reply on HN