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

241–250 of 781 posts

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

#241

Post by pb7 »

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…

Because they're already losing money, and they would lose money even faster if they have the same inefficiencies while also paying for new costs. They would eliminate flexibility to capitalize on reducing costs by having fewer employees with fixed costs that reliably cover the clock efficiently based on demand.

In other words, the same reason why restaurants don't allow a waiter to show up to work for 2 hours at 4AM.

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

#242

Post by zaksoup »

stale2002 wrote: post #191
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…

> 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, a…

> Sure, this could be true

To be fair, given that a judge has ruled on it, it now is true as a matter of law until repealed or otherwise changed by a higher court...

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

#243

Post by websight »

lhh wrote: post #125
ccday wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regardless of whether this decision is correct or not, Uber's financial situation is of their own making and shouldn't factor in to the ruling.

Fair enough, the court's job is just to interpret the law; it's the law I object to. But a lot of people advocating for these types of laws make the moral argument that companies are exploiting workers. Given the evidence, I think that's a pretty difficult case to make in good faith.

It seems like a very easy case to make. Regardless of whether the abstract corporate entity is losing money, Uber's founders, employees, and early investors have all done very well for themselves.

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

#244

Post by google234123 »

fcsp wrote: post #135
twblalock wrote: post #122

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.

Well maybe the unemployed masses in that situation will vote for universal basic income or better distribution of wealth to fix that? Full employment as an economic goal or even a feasible tactic has been obsolete for a long time if I understand correctly

This seems to be the goal of these politicians.

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

#245

Post by fernandotakai »

lhh wrote: post #169
willio58 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker or society. Lower classes are currently forced to work for survival, there’s a lot of room for improvement. Poor management of investments on Uber/Lyft’s end is a burden the lower classes should not be forced to take on.

> A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker That strikes me as a pretty condescending point of view. Shouldn't adults be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives?

right? i mean, i'm a software developer contractor. should i be able to keep doing it so, or am i too dumb to realize that "my situation is actually bad"?

i get it, gig jobs are not perfect -- but for a lot of people, it's the only job they have. do california lawmakers think that no job is better than a shitty job?

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

#246

Post by crooked-v »

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?

> What about the California judge?

Nothing about the ruling prevents Uber from having contractors. It prevents them from having employees (as determined by California law) that they label as contractors in order to skirt around legal requirements for employees.

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

#247

Post by cocktailpeanuts »

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…

To be fair, the founder didn't want to do IPO and according to rumors that was the reason why he was kicked out. All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool to make it happen more easily.

Also, it's a public market. No one is "holding the bag". This may be true if Uber crashed before the IPO because private investors can't easily sell, but once on the public and liquid market, it is the public investor's own choice to invest or divest in these companies.

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

#248

Post by dilandau »

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…

Doesn't understand the difference between free-lance software engineer and indentured gypsy cab driver.

...not going to make it.

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

#249

Post by taftster »

lawguy wrote: post #217
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…

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

Yeah - and admittedly I don't know California law at all. So it could very well be the State of California looks at this differently than other states and possibly different than the IRS, which might be throwing me (and maybe others) off.

Thanks for the link, that's interesting.

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

#250

Post by lhh »

ogre_codes wrote: post #153
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 opini…

> 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.

True. But it's also hard to have sympathy for taxi medallion companies.

> It's not even an argument.

? It is, though. It's an argument that adults should be able to agree to whatever they want to agree to (or not). It's an argument for freedom.

Post reply on HN