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

311–320 of 781 posts

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

#311

Post by jkaplowitz »

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…

There's nothing in the law that prevents employers from giving their permission to remain available for competitive work at the same time. Indeed, isn't that quite close to the dynamic of a union hiring hall situation, where union members are simultaneously available for jobs from any of the employers with contracts with that union?

Of course, one wouldn't be actively working for two employers at the same instant, but neither would one be simultaneously driving an Uber ride and a Lyft ride.

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

#312

Post by schemy »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #296
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 c…

Yes and?

If I owned slaves and called them unpaid indefinite interns the law would rightly disagree. You can call the relationship whatever you like, but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone. That it's taken Uber so long to play by the same rules as everyone else is a travesty and should take a billion dollar law suit or two for damages to sort out.

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

#313

Post by nilsbunger »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #22
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…

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.

What if Uber adds an option where a driver can set a minimum rate per mile or per estimated minute, does that shift the balance back to making them contractors again?

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

#314

Post by specialist »

ekianjo wrote: post #148
specialist wrote: post #123

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber drivers invest $20k for opportunity to earn $15/hr. How much do your contracting friends invest? What's their compensation?

So are you claiming Uber drivers buy cars solely for the purpose of becoming Uber drivers?

Yes? Is this a trick question?

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

#315

Post by aeturnum »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #281
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…

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…

> "it is important to understand that you never really get to 'choose' whether you're a contractor or an employee, it's determined solely as a function of the type or work you do and the nature of your relationship to the employer"

I don't understand what you're trying to say here. In my experience, on both sides of this, a good deal of thought is put into what kind of position to seek / offer. I think employers and workers think a lot about which legal arrangement would work better and there is a great deal of choice involved.

For instance, I can imagine Uber offering jobs v.s. contractor positions with differing levels of support, remuneration, and expectations. That they don't do so seems like a choice to me?

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

#319

Post by missedthecue »

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.

Why not just raise taxes because either way, it's the consumer paying. Not Uber.

It would take much less effort

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

#320

Post by abvdasker »

The consequences of this ruling are probably not going to be known for a while. This is certainly bad for Uber & Lyft insofar as it will greatly increase their operating costs. The question is what effect the ruling will have on drivers.

Uber is not a profitable company with fat margins like Google, Facebook, Amazon, Apple or Netflix. I don't see any way for Uber to absorb the increased costs that come with full employment without reducing the number of drivers and increasing the cost of rides in California.

The change in employment classification means that drivers will no longer be able to choose when they work. Uber will choose when they work, and for how long. The barrier to becoming an Uber driver will increase. Currently, in most cities it's possible to sign up to drive entirely online and basically just requires a license and a completed background check. Going forward people who want to drive for Uber will have to interview like any other job, probably in-person with a resume, and jump through the many hoops which that process entails.

My guess is that for new drivers who can pass the interview and existing full-time drivers who don't get laid off this will bring a big improvement in quality of life and provide some much-needed financial security and benefits. The rest will be out of a job.

I think it's unfortunate that some kind of compromise couldn't be reached which would have provided some economic security for these workers while accounting for the real differences between gig work and regular employment.

Post reply on HN