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

221–230 of 781 posts

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

#221

Post by CarbyAu »

Look to history to see why Uber/Lyft/gig-economy is a backwards step for society. We've been here already.

Historically low wage rise. People lining up hoping to be picked for the next piece of work.

It ended up with the labor movement to fight for 40 hr weeks, protections for employees etc.

Uber hasn't done anything new in terms of labor use. Merely communication and organisation.

But society judged the labor use to be a poor outcome in the past so where do we think it will go now?

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

#222

Post by waheoo »

dfdz wrote: post #209
threepio wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

>I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit. > Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors What about the California judge?

I don't think they stated it does have merit on those points, but they certainly laid out a pretty solid argument that does.

Maybe address that instead of hand wringing the conversational communication style used on every forum ever?

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

#223

Post by momokoko »

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…

You realize there are tons of jobs with employees that allow employees to chose their own hours.

There is nothing in this ruling that prevents Uber from allowing people to chose rides _exactly_ as they are doing it now.

The changes are:

1. Uber needs to pay into unemployment insurance.

2. Uber needs to pay into workers compensation.

3. Uber needs to pay into social security.

4. Uber needs to collect payroll taxes in advance.

5. Uber cannot discriminate based on protected classes such as race or gender.

6. Uber must comply with the WARN if large scale layoffs occur.

7. Uber has to provide for heath insurance depending in accordance with local and federal laws.

8. Uber needs to verify the legal working status of their drivers

9. And many other things all other businesses pay into and rules they have to follow.

We make businesses pay into this because the general public is ends up footing the bill anyway. Like right now where we’re providing Uber drivers with unemployment benefits even though Uber cheated their responsibility. And when a driver gets in an accident and we have to pick up the bill of unpaid hospital bills and disability payments.

Flexibility has nothing to do with it. Paying into the system everyone else has to and following the rules everyone else needs to follow is.

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

#224

Post by totony »

YawningAngel wrote: post #175
erichocean wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

You are free to fire a contractor for any reason, but if you consistently fire contractors for doing things that you would prefer that they not do but which you cannot mandate they not do because they are not employees, then you undermine the claim that they are in fact contractors.

If a contractor always overcharge you it seems normal to stop business with him, how is this different?

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

#225

Post by stale2002 »

henryfjordan wrote: post #170
twblalock wrote: post #109

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because operating costs increased substantially because of the requirement to provide benefits to workers.

Why would increased operating costs mean they can't offer flexible hours to drivers? Setting and maintaining a new schedule would ADD to operating costs (gotta pay someone to administer the calendar), so there has to be some other reason. Is there some magical cost per-driver that nobody (even the Uber CEO) seems to be able to articulate? Stuff like withholding for W2s seems to scale really well. The only cost I can…

> Why would increased operating costs mean they can't offer flexible hours to drivers?

Because in no universe does it ever make sense to pay healthcare and numerous other benefits to an "employee" who is working 2 hours a week. Thats why.

> Is there some magical cost per-driver

Yes. It is called fixed costs. Full time employees have a certain level of fixed costs. The obvious example being healthcare.

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

#226

Post by fernandotakai »

TeMPOraL wrote: post #154
skybrian wrote: post #117

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 plat…

>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).

drivers already have those groups btw. they use to coordinate a LOT of stuff. i've seen a driver on a huge whatsapp group where they basically tried to set some areas to surge so they could earn more money.

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

#227

Post by flak48 »

radicaldreamer wrote: post #66
carlosdp wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?

If you don't accept nearly every ride, you are kicked off the platform...

If I had a dispatch company that phoned/radioed possible drivers in some round robin order, if driver number 4 always tends to decline I would stop wasting my time and my rider's time in contacting him again, after a point

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

#228

Post by mav3rick »

crobertsbmw wrote: post #136

I kind of hope that both companies just decide to not shut down the app in California. Otherwise I’m nervous that other cities might end up subsidizing the California market.

CA subsidized others before. Time's up

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

#229

Post by [deleted] »

danepowell wrote: post #207
threepio wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

This is an argument against treating drivers as contractors, but it's not an argument against the OP's point, which is that a contractor relationship might be beneficial for some non-negligible part of the population, even if it's not beneficial more generally. And the fact that articles don't acknowledge this is notable.

[deleted]

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

#230

Post by alkonaut »

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…

It seems to me that in the larger perspective it could erode workers rights in other places

I’m guessing many would rather see Uber drivers all be forced to be employees even if 99% don’t want to, than a spreading erosion of workers rights.

Post reply on HN