Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#231

Post by poizan42 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

drusepth wrote: post #189

xyzzyz wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. What law does this break?

In the US, I think it's Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's referenced from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

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

#232

Post by AnimalMuppet » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:23 PM UTC

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 don't see why. Currently, drivers are being paid by the ride, not by the hour. If they aren't available for a ride, they don't get paid for the ride.

If Uber wants that kind of exclusivity, they're probably going to have to pay drivers for idle time.

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

#233

Post by dan-robertson » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

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?

The argument which won was not that there is some legal reason Uber can’t have both independent contractors and employees, but rather that the relationship between Uber and it’s drivers is de facto employment and should therefore be subject to employment law.

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

#234

Post by throwaway987978 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

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…

There's no reason why you can't be an employee but also be in control of your own hours. It's not much different from a part-time job that I had while going to school. I'd provide my manager a list of times that I was available to work for the week and he'd slot me into shifts.

Technology has decreased the lead time needed to let someone know that you're available to work to 0. There's absolutely no reason why that should mean that you can't be an employee.

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

#235

Post by ghaff » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

pb7 wrote: post #220

ghaff wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I would actually love to be wrong but nothing I can see convinces me that I am. I don't see the path to getting door-to-door in congested areas with pedestrians and cyclists that isn't even more dangerous for them than it is today.

I actually do think highway driving can be automated relatively easily but that still assumes a competent licensed driver behind the wheel.

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

#236

Post by lhh » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

fcsp wrote: post #173

lhh wrote: post #143

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Would it though? How do you get to that conclusion? My understanding is that many drivers for those companies do it as supplemental income because their regular jobs seem to be unable to cover their living expenses. But doesn't that then lead to additional economic pressure for everyone else because i.e. now there's more renters willing to pay inflated prices, so more people get economically desperate and need to get…

Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist, thus providing an additional option for potential workers. With the additional option, maybe that option is better than some people's alternative options. We can surmise that it probably is for a lot of them, as evidenced by their choice to be drivers for these companies. If they had a better option, they would presumably take that instead.

Your proposition that if one person makes more money then other people are worse off has an element of truth to it, since, sure, more demand for a given item (like housing) will tend to increase its price, all else equal. But I think that's the wrong way to think about the situation. Wealth creation is not zero sum.

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

#237

Post by inopinatus » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

ajhurliman wrote: post #88

foogazi wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do contractors really set their own rates?

The answer for contract software engineering is: "Technically, but not really". You interview, then they offer you a job/ contract which pays a certain hourly amount, and you can accept/decline/counter offer just like a full time job. The equivalent here would be something like, "Okay candidate, I offer you a job as a contractor and the contract says you get paid based off of this algorithm. Accept or decline?"

This is only true at the start of your career. I’ve been consulting and contracting for decades; customers call me following word-of-mouth recommendation and ask me what my rate is.

Even when I was starting out, years ago, the palette of contract work offered was vast. I was never obliged to follow a cab-rank rule.

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

#238

Post by zaksoup » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

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 the CA Judge disputed that Uber could have a relationship with drivers that was legally structured as "independent contractor" but rather that the relationship Uber currently has with drivers does not meet the legal requirements to be classified as "independent contractor". If Uber wanted to change the requirements they place on drivers nobody is saying they couldn't be contractors under different circumstances.

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

#239

Post by freeone3000 » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

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…

Sure, it would be beneficial if they had this flexibility, and nothing here prohibits this. Literally nothing prevents an employer allowing an employee from setting their own hours.

This ruling is a reclassification - the work that they have been doing in the manner they've been doing it is already employment. Or, in other words: the current relationship doesn't have to change a single bit, they just get additional benefits.

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

#240

Post by afiori » Mon, Aug 10, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

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…

Your argument is right in principle, but it hides a proving-too-much fallacy.

By a similar reasoning one could claim that waiters/factory workers should also be independent contractors. If they don't like the pay in one business they can go work in another marketplace.

By this contrived example I mean to say that your analysis applies only to the superficial structure of the concept of employment. Ultimately social structures are not axiomatic field and should be treated accordingly.