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

271–280 of 781 posts

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

#271

Post by dfdz »

crooked-v wrote: post #246
dfdz wrote: post #209

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

True, but when 100k uber drivers (contractors) in California are reclassified as employees, it seem fair to say a "dispute" is happening.

For the record, I am not saying the ruling is incorrect, but it does make me feel uneasy because:

1) I think that Uber does provide a public good (increased efficiency compared to a taxi) 2) If all drivers are employees, the business does not seem sustainable

I think that new laws are needed rather than using pre-sharing-economy labels like employee, but that the ruling by the judge may be correct given the current laws.

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

#272

Post by sabujp »

I'm sure someone has thought of this, but why don't we have ridehailing apps where the contract literally is between the driver and the passenger(s)? The app can merely suggest a rate but the driver can set whatever price they want. The app takes a very small finder's fee.

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

#273

Post by sanderjd »

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…

For #2, are you suggesting that the drivers would then get the full fare in exchange for the payment for the app? If so, yes, that would clearly be a great, extremely driver-friendly change that would defuse the employee vs contractor controversy... But, I suspect it would also result in layoffs and perhaps lawsuits from the shareholders.

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

#274

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

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?"

Typically, you're employed by the contracting agency (with benefits), they work out a deal with the business and take a cut off the top, though we informally refer to this as contracting.

If you were to set up an agreement with the software company yourself, then it'd be conventional contracting.

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

#275

Post by Karunamon »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #268
gok wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

People are deserving of respect, arguments less so. I see no reason to grant any particular deference to a sentence.

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

#276

Post by ideals »

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…

There is a very similar thing happening with UFC fighters. There are currently class action lawsuits ongoing for this topic.

I wonder how this decision will play out to other businesses

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

#277

Post by throw_m239339 »

lhh wrote: post #236
fcsp wrote: post #173

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist

Uber/Lyft business model has just been deemed illegal. let's see if it now can be both legal and sustainable.

Uber/Lyft only existed up until now because they were violating employment laws.

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

#278

Post by root_axis »

flak48 wrote: post #227
radicaldreamer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Sure, but in this example the situation only happens because the dispatcher controls all the prices, if the drivers could set their own prices then they would have no reason to decline.

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

#279

Post by baddox »

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…

Regarding #2, that's just generally not how the law works. There may be some cases where legal technicalities are successfully argued, but in general the legal system doesn't put up with someone sticking their finger a millimeter from its face and saying "technically I'm not touching you."

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

#280

Post by keenmaster »

momokoko wrote: post #223
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…

Why don't we legislate a new category of taxation for gig economy companies like Uber? Make them pay more taxes and support a new social safety net (especially universal healthcare) without changing their business model.
Post reply on HN