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

301–310 of 781 posts

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

#301

Post by Franciscouzo »

ghaff wrote: post #208
three_seagrass wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo started publicly testing level 4 cars last year, and reportedly has 600 cars testing level 5. It isn't decades away anymore.

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.

Most driving is in limited circumstances, of course they're not going to offer self-driving rides when it's snowy or raining heavily.

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

#302

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

MattGaiser wrote: post #292
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

To further clarify, the germane risk (the topic of the post) was mentioned:

> Our business would be adversely affected if Drivers were classified as employees instead of independent contractors.

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

#303

Post by three_seagrass »

ghaff wrote: post #208
three_seagrass wrote: post #101

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Waymo started publicly testing level 4 cars last year, and reportedly has 600 cars testing level 5. It isn't decades away anymore.

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.

There's a difference between believing in start up hype and looking at the evidence on the ground. It's an even larger leap in claiming it's decades away while the technology is in testing right now.

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

#304

Post by sudosysgen »

droidno9 wrote: post #18

The relevant statute:[0] 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free…

This seems to pretty conclusively result in Uber drivers being employees, then. Specifically, in B. It's going to be hard for Uber to argue that driving cars is outside of the usual course of Uber's business.

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

#305

Post by marcrosoft »

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…

Free choice to work and free choice to pair drivers with riders is as close to a free market as you can find. It works great. As soon as regulation enters the room the dynamic changes.

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

#306

Post by jkaplowitz »

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 is no legal obstacle to Uber/Lyft continuing to allow drivers all of the flexibility they currently allow, even if they have to treat them as employees. That can even be legally protected in an enforceable way by the employment contract if desired, as can any other current Uber/Lyft driver flexibility you're referencing.

The only thing that is being lost here is the inability of Uber/Lyft to pay less than a minimum wage and otherwise deprive the drivers of the benefits that employees are entitled to.

Anyway, it's not like Uber/Lyft were giving drivers the choice whether to be contractors or employees so that the drivers could pick the status they prefer - nor does the law ever truly allow that except when the genuine nature of the services relationship is adjusted based on the answer to legitimately conform to the desired status. They're forcing everyone to pick the status that's generally more expensive and precarious for the worker.

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

#307

Post by chrisseaton »

root_axis wrote: post #270
chrisseaton wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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.

The drivers can ask for any price they want from Uber. Uber can either accept it or not. That’s a negotiation. What more do you think it needs to be a negotiation? That’s just like a normal contract. I may want my fence painted but I’m not paying over £500. If I won’t go below that is it no longer contracting?

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

#308

Post by [deleted] »

microtherion wrote: post #178
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber. If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so t…

> A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. Under an employee model, they would do this while on the clock of a particular company (and being paid by it). Sure, Uber could choose to employ a driver for 16 hours a day, but they'd have to pay for that time.

[deleted]

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

#309

Post by drewmol »

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…

2. Contractors can also be customers.

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

#310

Post by dmode »

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…

The thing is that the option to be a contractor can always exist, along with having an option to be a full time employee. Generally, I agree that a company shouldn't be an entity that its core workforce is a bunch of "temps"
Post reply on HN