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

291–300 of 781 posts

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

#291

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

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…

Current employment law really isn't well suited for cases where someone can be an "employee" of 4 or 5 companies at a time, and stop and start on a whim as they see fit. I mean, just look at unemployment insurance. When the nature of the job is essentially a bid out to people willing to do the work, what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around? Flexibility DOES have a lot to do with it: I'm fine with the company not guaranteeing me a set number of hours per week if I can just choose to not work a particular week if that's what I want.

I agree with some other posters, I think a new categorization for "gig" workers is necessary, as I think a lot of your other points (e.g. paying workers comp) make sense.

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

#292

Post by MattGaiser »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #204
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…

Somebody chose to pay the IPO price. Nobody could've offered to buy at that price, or interested parties could wait for the price to fall (if the party felt the IPO price was unreasonable). Typically, the underwriters will ensure there's interest at a given price range, prior to the listing. The demand was there. I place some blame on the companies (and it is their responsibility to list potential risks in their publ…

The risks were/are in the filings.

https://d18rn0p25nwr6d.cloudfront.net/CIK-0001543151/f0dcd9a...

Page 34 (by PDF count).

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

#293

Post by jeffbee »

dfdz wrote: post #271
crooked-v wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

Uber has not ever been more efficient than the services it replaced. Better in many ways, definitely for riders and arguably for some drivers, but not efficient. Uber has simply been shoveling tens of billions of dollars in funny money into the maw of their attempt to corner a market, which has never worked.

This write-up from today sums up some of the story so far. https://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2020/08/hubert-horan-can-ube...

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

#294

Post by [deleted] »

poizan42 wrote: post #231
drusepth wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> 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

[deleted]

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

#295

Post by stickfigure »

heavyset_go wrote: post #205
Game_Ender wrote: post #162

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber drivers can set their own rates in some parts of CA [0]. It’s a pretty big change brought out by these lawsuits to make the drivers as independent as possible. 0 - https://www.npr.org/2020/01/28/800437791/due-to-new-californ...

That's a weird message for Uber to send, that Uber drivers are only contractors in some parts of California where judges are upholding the law, but in the rest of the US Uber drivers are employees.

Why is that weird? If the rules vary by jurisdiction, I expect compliance to follow suit.

I suspect that you're implying some sort of objective universal metaphysical state of "being an employee" or "being a contractor", but that's pretty clearly false.

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

#296

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #290
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #281

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comment is just wrong on so many levels: "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." I've never seen Uber argue that everyone should "respect the worker's decision to be an employee or contractor." I have seen them argue that drivers are contractors based on the flexibility in the job, but not that it sh…

What is the point of this comment? You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You've effectively restated the grandparent's points, but tried to do so in an adversarial manner.

> You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation.

You might want to check what you consider "adversarial" when it comes to a discussion forum.

The issue is that the comment I responded to seems to be under the false notion that workers (or employers, for that matter) get to "choose" how they want to be classified, and that's what this debate is about. My point is that, when it comes to employment law, a worker or employer's preference about how they are classified does not factor in at all about how the law classifies the job.

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

#297

Post by ramshorns »

keenmaster wrote: post #280
momokoko wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The term "dependent contractor" is sometimes used for this idea of a third category. Whether it actually provides workers with the benefits and protections that employees with similar working arrangements are entitled to remains to be seen.

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

#298

Post by anonunivgrad »

dfdz wrote: post #271
crooked-v wrote: post #246

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

But for Uber being allowed to seize the market with their ultra low prices, which are only possible because they class their labor as contractors, there would be companies more like Uber than like taxis but that treat their employees like employees.

The problem with taxis was the medallion system and other crazy regulations.

There is a middle ground. No medallions or other protectionist measures, but you have to treat your employees like employees.

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

#299

Post by three_seagrass »

jcims wrote: post #192
three_seagrass wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Exploitation isn't limited to quid pro quo or antitrust corruption. It's easy to sit from a seat of having a salaried ~40 hour week job with health benefits and safety standards, which were fought for from past generations, and then scoff when similar people are trying to fight for the same.

It’s also easy to sit in that same seat and interfere with an arrangement to satisfy your own moral stance without actually being affected by the outcome. All of these Uber drivers have phones, why are they always absent in these conversations?

Maybe help me understand how having a phone means you're present in a conversation? There have been class action lawsuits filed by uber and lyft drivers.

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

#300

Post by belval »

aggie wrote: post #254
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool That's a pretty bold claim. What of all the reports of a toxic workplace? I've heard first-hand accounts.

I think he was arguing that the execs at Uber didn't really care about the toxic workplace stuff until Uber's founder said he didn't want to IPO, then they used it as a way to kick him out.

So basically the workplace is toxic, but that's not the real reason why he was kicked out (according to the comment you were replying to).

Post reply on HN