Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#321

Post by mdorazio » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:24 AM UTC

nordsieck wrote: post #259

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't see why. Currently, drivers are being paid by the ride, not by the hour. If they aren't available for a ride, they don't get paid for the ride. If Uber wants that kind of exclusivity, they're probably going to have to pay drivers for idle time.

> If Uber wants that kind of exclusivity, they're probably going to have to pay drivers for idle time. I don't think that's true. There are many sales employees who are compensated almost exclusively on a commission - per sale - basis. None of them can work for multiple companies concurrently.

It gets complicated. See [1]. Basically, if Uber wanted to prevent employees from also taking rides for Lyft it would have to provide several minimum guarantees that would significantly increase driver costs. Namely, total comp regardless of rides provided needs to meet or exceed minimum wage and worked overtime would need to be paid as such. In other words, to prevent a driver from accepting Lyft rides for 8 hours, Uber would either have to pay the driver for any time they are not driving fares around during those 8 hours or increase payment until the drivers get the equivalent of minimum wage.

If this were to happen in practice, you would most certainly see a drop in the number of drivers and an increase in per-mile costs to customers.

[1] https://sbshrs.adpinfo.com/blog/pay-rules-commissioned-tippe...

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

#322

Post by subsaharancoder » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

MAGZine wrote: post #96

jedberg wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Not all contractors set their own rates. Sometimes they bid on an already published rate. Which is what happens here. Uber/Lyft tell you what you will make before the ride starts. If you accept, you just set your own rate.

except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.

> except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.

Factually incorrect for Uber drivers in CA, the platform no longer penalizes drivers for declining trips and now allows them to pick and choose trips without any impact on driver rating. (I worked in Uber Eng up until the 5/18 layoffs)

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

#323

Post by root_axis » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

chrisseaton wrote: post #307

root_axis wrote: post #270

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 pay…

Uber drivers don't have the option to set their rates. They cannot "ask for any price they want from Uber", they agree to accept the rates explicitly set by Uber: that's the contract; not every employment contract meets the legal definition of "contract employment"

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

#324

Post by missedthecue » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:26 AM UTC

tempsy wrote: post #197

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…

lol you're literally just regurgitating Uber's talking points since like 2009

Just because someone said something doesn't make it wrong.

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

#325

Post by jacobsenscott » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

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…

I can wait tables part time at multiple restaurants.

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

#326

Post by subsaharancoder » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:28 AM UTC

taftster wrote: post #100

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 get what you're saying, but I don't think "setting their own rates" has anything to do with it. Any driver would be able to set their own rates by going at it alone, completely independent from a ride share company. They would create their own service and charge what they want. However, because the drivers choose to participate in the Uber/Lyft marketplace and benefit from the network affects that they have created…

> Drivers are not setting the price directly with the customers, they are getting paid by Uber/Lyft, but that doesn't make them employees.

Uber in CA launched a feature allowing drivers to set their own fares https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ so there is inbuilt flexibility.

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

#327

Post by dnautics » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

sanderjd wrote: post #273

dnautics wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

no. There's no reason why you couldn't do both. There's plenty of apps where you both pay for entry and pay a cut out of each transaction.

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

#328

Post by afiori » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

taftster wrote: post #159

popinman322 wrote: post #120

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In your lawn care example you used the word "mutually". That is a difference between the Lyft/Uber relationship with drivers and your relationship with the lawn care contractor. Maybe if Lyft/Uber allowed drivers to bid on rides drivers would become more contractor-esque? But then the latency would be much higher for users. The system would likely also regress to the proposed price, as well, since drivers would likel…

You are expecting that Uber/Lyft creates an "auction" environment in order for their drivers to be considered contractors? In my world view, an auction is not requirement for a driver to be considered independent. Drivers can: - drive on their own schedule - drive for competing ride share services (concurrently even) - drive for themselves - not drive at all Seems very independent contractor. Uber/Lyft created a mark…

Part of the whole argument is not only whether drivers are technically employees or contractor but also whether Uber/Lyft are stretching those category so much that neither is a good fit for the situation.

As far as I understand one of the problems is that the drivers' market is so saturated that both Uber and Lyft can act as if they where monopolies (or maybe monopsonies). They can technically move to a competitor but that applies no pressure on the market.

Again, what makes this situation tricky is that it is essentially creating a new kind of employement-like relationship that current laws and regulation do not really account for.

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

#329

Post by hn_throwaway_99 » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:29 AM UTC

aeturnum wrote: post #315

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…

> "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…

> I can imagine Uber offering jobs v.s. contractor positions with differing levels of support, remuneration, and expectations.

Legally, in California, they can't do that. As outlined in the article, the 'ABC test' is the legal test for determining whether someone is an employee or a contractor. The 'B' part of that test is "The worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity's business." If you are an employer, you could not have one group of drivers that you classify as employees and the other you classify as contractors, not if they're basically doing the same work.

Note this is common in a lot of different businesses, and there have been many lawsuits where contractors who DID want to be classified as employees argued that they were basically doing the same work as employees. There was a fairly famous case involving Microsoft 2 decades ago: https://www.computerworld.com/article/2589538/it-personnel-m...

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

#330

Post by TheColorYellow » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 12:30 AM UTC

sangnoir wrote: post #265

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?

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…

What autonomy would Uber need to provide?