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

191–200 of 781 posts

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

#191

Post by stale2002 »

threepio wrote: post #186
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'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point, which is that everyone should respect the worker's decision to be an employee or contractor. Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors (or both), or that drivers should, in principle, be able to choose what status they hold. The problem is that Uber currently exerts so much control over its "independent contractor" relationships that they ha…

> The problem is that Uber currently exerts so much control over its "independent contractor" relationships that they have become, as a matter of law, employment relationships.

Sure, this could be true.

But people should recognize that a possible solution to this, is for companies to provide more flexibility and control to these people, such that they stay contractor but also get the additional contractor benefits, as opposed to forcing the employee relationship.

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

#192

Post by jcims »

three_seagrass wrote: post #119
marcrosoft wrote: post #107

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

It’s also easy to sit in that same seat and interfere with an arrangement to satisfy your own moral stance without actually being affected by the outcome. All of these Uber drivers have phones, why are they always absent in these conversations?

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

#193

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

jedberg wrote: post #84
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.

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.

To my understanding, at least for the public sector, is that the government will post a project. Organizations will then place 'bids' (that includes their contractor's price, time to complete the project, a general plan for how the project will be completed), and then the government will choose one of the bids.

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

#194

Post by bdcravens »

favorited wrote: post #181
KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #171

It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders patte…

Isn't the other time bomb that they aren't profitable?

Ensuring that the only options aren't time bombs is the responsibility of whoever came up with the business plan.

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

#195

Post by devalgo »

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

I'm sure the flexibility is nice when you are making $100+ per hour but drivers make a tenth of that and struggle to get health insurance

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

#196

Post by lhh »

phatfish wrote: post #172
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?

Yup, it's definitely Uber and their billion dollar investors that need the government assistance here, and not their below minimum wage workforce.

I'm not saying the companies need government assistance. I'm saying they and their drivers should be able to come to whatever agreement they want to come to (or not).

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

#197

Post by tempsy »

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…

lol you're literally just regurgitating Uber's talking points since like 2009

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

#198

Post by Panini_Jones »

nordsieck wrote: post #174
AnimalMuppet wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well... many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. But Uber and Lyft are direct competitors. I have a clause in my contract that forbids me working for a direct competitor, but I'm a software engineer and I have knowledge of trade secrets. A driver? Not so much. So I think that a court would find a restriction that you couldn't work for bo…

> many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. Sure. But employers can prevent you from working for someone else at the same time as you are working for them. So if you wanted to do a 6 hour shift for Uber and then after that do another 4 hours for Lyft. That would almost certainly be legal. But the common practice today is to run both apps…

I think Uber can also 'terminate' you if you choose to work for a competitor. IANAL, but if I work for Google, Google most certainly wouldn't let me work at Facebook as well even if I was spending 8 hours a day working for each.

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

#199

Post by cwhiz »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #171

It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders patte…

Uber has never made money. They haven’t even come close to making money. It’s hard for me to have any sympathy for investors who keep funneling money into a company that defines “success” by lowering their quarterly loss to a mere billion.

It’s not as if this information isn’t public. Everyone can see that Uber can’t make money.

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

#200

Post by jcims »

Pfhreak wrote: post #102
marcrosoft wrote: post #87

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Abuse?? Nobody is forced to work anywhere in the U.S. If they can find a better situation they should. Why hurt their situation with regulation?

> Nobody is forced to work anywhere in the U.S. Starvation and rent suggest otherwise. We're not so sufficiently advanced that anyone can choose not to work and expect meals and a roof over their head.

You can’t drive for Uber without a car. People starving to death in the US don’t have cars.
Post reply on HN