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

261–270 of 781 posts

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

#261

Post by brightball »

dnautics wrote: post #251
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…

Having been a driver for 1.5 years my questions for you are these: 1. If Uber and Lyft allow their drivers to choose, would it be reasonable for them to make "having the other app on at the same time" cause for dismissal? I know of no other employee that is allowed to simultaneously bill time on a competitor. Contractors, absolutely. Employees, no. 2. What if Uber, instead, charged $1.00/mo for the drivers to use the…

Point 1 is big. So many Uber drivers are also Lyft drivers.

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

#262

Post by Proven »

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…

Blame it on the statist-dominated HN (and not just HN).

State is supposed to order about individuals how to manage their relationships because individuals are too stupid to figure out how to arrange their affairs.

In the case you wonder who should decide on behalf of State, of course it's the experts, such as readers of HN. Never leave it to free individuals what can be decided by state-appointed experts.

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

#263

Post by lhh »

websight wrote: post #243
lhh wrote: post #125

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

How does it follow that someone was exploited for that to have happened?

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

#264

Post by kangaroozach »

dnautics wrote: post #251
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…

Having been a driver for 1.5 years my questions for you are these: 1. If Uber and Lyft allow their drivers to choose, would it be reasonable for them to make "having the other app on at the same time" cause for dismissal? I know of no other employee that is allowed to simultaneously bill time on a competitor. Contractors, absolutely. Employees, no. 2. What if Uber, instead, charged $1.00/mo for the drivers to use the…

1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties.

2. Interesting idea, but then all companies could just do this and make the same claim that their employees/contractors/vendors are just customers too! Not gonna fly.

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

#265

Post by sangnoir »

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 Carlifornia judge also agrees, just that the definition of a contractor is based on more than flexible hours. If Uber truly wants to have contractors, they'll have to cede more decision-making/autonomy to drivers; or alternatively have 2 classes of drivers and have them choose to be employees or honest-to-goodness contractors with full autonomy (or enough autonomy to cross the line between employee and contractor).

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

#266

Post by MattGaiser »

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…

> then leave public investors holding the bag.

Their labor issues are hardly new. If you did not know about them when you invested in Uber, you didn't even read the news articles, yet alone the filings. You were supposed to price that in to your investment if you purchased.

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

#268

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

gok wrote: post #58
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 don't know where this meme started. Taxi drivers have never set their own rates and have always been contractors.

This is an interesting flavor of ad hominem. While the post isn't a personal attack, it severely degrades the argument by calling it a 'meme'. Omitting the first sentence, and leaving the second, would be far more effective.

https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7512/15985103560_ed7985fc2a_o...

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

#269

Post by kangaroozach »

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…

“I’m afraid your repeating _____‘S talking points.”is a logical fallacy that proves you’re brain has been corrupted. I bet you use this same fallacious argument in political discussion. Try refuting arguments directly rather and you will find the truth much faster by exiting the neurological loop you are stuck in.

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

#270

Post by root_axis »

chrisseaton wrote: post #188
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".

But isn't that like all contracting? A software contract offers $50 an hour. I can either take it or leave it. Uber offers $x an hour (or mile, or however it works.) Drivers can either take it or leave it. What do you think is the essential difference here? Do you think software contractors can somehow force clients to accept any rate they want? No. If they client doesn't want to pay above $x then there's nothing you…

> What do you think is the essential difference here?

The essential difference is that the role of uber is absent from your analogy.

> Do you think software contractors can somehow force clients to accept any rate they want

I'll just assume that's a sarcastic quip in rhetorical question form rather than what you actually think I believe. Obviously, a software contract is negotiated between two parties, unlike in the case of Uber where all possibility of negotiation is eschewed for a price explicitly set by uber. If a driver wants to offer their services for more or less than uber decides, they cannot, and are forced to lower or raise their price in order to gain access to the market.

Post reply on HN