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

211–220 of 781 posts

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

#211

Post by stale2002 »

xyzzyz wrote: post #177
TeMPOraL wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 plat…

There is no stick; they already have to do that. If the drivers don’t like the rates and think they earn too little, they quit. Uber has to ensure that drivers make attractive rates if it wants retain them. And indeed, it offers lots of bonus pay, special deals etc precisely for that reason. > Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, This is, of…

"> Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X,

This is, of course, illegal."

Although I am not 100% certain on this, I think that these kinds of anti-trust laws only apply when certain companies have huge amounts of market power. I believe that certain "anti-competitive" behavior would not be illegal, if done by a whole bunch of small contractors.

The obvious example would be unions that do this. But it is possible that this is a special exception to the law.

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

#212

Post by larksimian »

erichocean wrote: post #115
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.

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?

Yeah, but if they suspend you for a certain bundle of reasons then that makes you an employee.

An employee is just a contractor with additional rules.

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

#213

Post by zackmorris »

Funny, unlike whatever these busybodies in California are doing, I'm actively working to go the opposite direction in my own life - from full time work to the gig economy. I'm hoping to write about this some more, but so far so good a year and a half in. Here are a few directions I'm working towards:

  - 40 hours -> 20 hours or less
  - boss -> employee-owned
  - office -> remote or shared workspaces
  - set schedule -> set our own schedule
  - being on call -> tech to free us from obligation
  - brands -> anonymity
  - benefits -> societal evolution towards public healthcare
  - egalitarianism -> shared prosperity
  - job security -> a scalable job market in the gig economy
  - scraping by to make rent -> substantial cashflow (donating plasma, Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, Airbnb, etc etc etc)
I think that last point is the one that the status quo will go after, since they always start with the $$$. I'm dismayed that California has chosen to go this route, as they used to be at the forefront of tech and innovation.

The above points are loosely based on concepts from Burning Man (although I've never attended, sadly). Mostly regarding humanism and decommodification.

Can anyone think of some more points to add, or other sources of cashflow?

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

#214

Post by loceng »

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.

From my experiences I've heard they prefer Uber solely because of surge pricing, so they can make more money. Many drivers only drive Lyft because Uber attracted early on the more price conscious users, who initially likely checked both apps for cheapest price and cancelled more expensive ride; Uber subsidized rides to a higher amount and in more markets AFAIK.

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

#215

Post by pb7 »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #139
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.

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…

They can't forbid you from working in your off time but now you're their employee -- you work 8 hours straight during which you're not allowed to work for a competitor or you're fired. If you want to work for Lyft for another 8 hours after that, go ahead. But Lyft isn't going to let you work for 2 hours and pay you benefits.

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

#216

Post by root_axis »

emteycz wrote: post #142
root_axis wrote: post #112

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Uber does not determine the rate, the market do

Not true. Uber's algorithm sets the rate within certain profitability margins which are determined by uber, "the market" is very artificial since customers only ever see the rates that uber decides they should see rather than what some drivers would actually offer.

> 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.

Right... uber deliberately structures the market through their explicit control of the price. The price is only "too low" or "too high" with respect to uber's business goals not with respect to what the actual market would do.

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

#217

Post by lawguy »

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…

Interesting that you picked "mow my lawn" as an example.

In California, gardeners are considered employees. The only reason most people don't have to deal with employment taxes, payroll, insurance, etc., is because they typically hire gardening companies that actually employ the workers.

https://edd.ca.gov/Payroll_Taxes/Household_Employer.htm

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

#218

Post by Shivetya »

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…

Going to be the big reason is that is makes it easier to reach into their deep pockets when one of the drivers does something bad. Where there is an overtly obvious benefit to one group it usually means someone else is using it as a cover, that is going to be the trial lawyers.

I am in the group that says if you want to be a contractor and the employer agrees so be it. I have a good number of friends doing uber after hours aimed at specific purchases and the flexibility is what sold them. Not the life for me but for some it is a good alternative.

Plus the biggest benefit was the kick in the pants traditional taxi services got so they now how to treat their "drivers" better. How they get off with how that business is run and Uber and Lyft get called out should tell you the priorities here.

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

#219

Post by emteycz »

root_axis wrote: post #216
emteycz wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Uber does not determine the rate, the market do Not true. Uber's algorithm sets the rate within certain profitability margins which are determined by uber, "the market" is very artificial since customers only ever see the rates that uber decides they should see rather than what some drivers would actually offer. > Uber won't find drivers if the rate is too low, for example because it's lower than the costs, lower t…

There are other market players than Uber, and Uber is in no way a taxi monopoly. You could say this about literally any marketplace and especially about any taxi company (nearly all taxi companies have independent drivers-contractors, usually driving their own but branded cars - at their own expense, and with exclusivity contracts; taxis all over the world work this way), but only the more modern marketplaces are forced to modify their relationships. I both as a customer and a occasional driver hate this, thankfully I am driving in Czechia where no such law would ever pass, the traditional taxi lobby is not as strong - but they're trying hard.

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

#220

Post by pb7 »

ghaff wrote: post #208
three_seagrass wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo started publicly testing level 4 cars last year, and reportedly has 600 cars testing level 5. It isn't decades away anymore.

I find it somewhat amusing there are still people bought into the self-driving hype other than in limited circumstances. Does anyone actually believe these companies at this point? Who actually aren't saying much any longer. I'd be far less surprised if Google shutdown Waymo in a year or two than if they actually introduced a door-to-door driving service in an urban area without a safety driver present.

You lack imagination. Only 66 years passed between the first manned flight on Earth and man stepping foot on the Moon.

And technology is accelerating at a much faster rate today.

Post reply on HN