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

331–340 of 781 posts

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

#331

Post by dnautics »

jkaplowitz wrote: post #311
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…

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, bu…

So when lyft is liable for meeting a minimum wage, how is time calculated? Based on logged-in time? Based on in-ride time? What if I'm in ride and I leave the other app on, and get a ride on the tail end of the ride I'm in (I've seen a driver do this).

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

#332

Post by dnautics »

baddox wrote: post #279
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…

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."

okay, let's make the price higher. Let's make it $150/mo. Now we're about 10 centimeters away from your face, and not too far off from what taxicab companies do.

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

#333

Post by nagispringfield »

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.

I'm currently interning at a startup called Empower. This is their exact business model, the company provides software, the driver can set their own rates and they get the full fare. The drivers pay a monthly subscription free.

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

#334

Post by op00to »

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 am a w2 employee and I choose my own hours.

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

#335

Post by aeturnum »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #329
aeturnum wrote: post #315

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> "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…

Gotcha - so a company can choose to use employees or contractors for a given type of work, but must be consistent within that type of work?

So, for instance, you might hire initially a contractor to create the encrypted part of your product, but once you had hired someone to do that work full time you would be legally barred from hiring additional contractors to do that?

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

#336

Post by dnautics »

jacobsenscott wrote: post #325
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…

I can wait tables part time at multiple restaurants.

not at the same time, you can't, unless you're talking about a taco bell/kfc joint.

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

#337

Post by brudgers »

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…

If all drivers are employees, the business does not seem sustainable

Uber lost $19,000,000,000 in 2019. It lost money last quarter. Uber is already unsustainable. Despite its labor practices, Uber has been unsustainable since its founding. And it’s not like Amazon’s early days where lack of profits was offset by acquisition of physical infrastructure. Uber loses money on via unit economics.

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

#339

Post by keenmaster »

missedthecue wrote: post #319
keenmaster wrote: post #280

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Up to a certain point, corporate taxes do have a marginal benefit to society as a separate source of taxation. Generally speaking you want to spread your sources of tax revenue to minimize distortions and maximize revenue. This advice breaks down for small tax haven countries of course, and I think that larger countries should mitigate their most disruptive schemes. Citizens of large countries should not be deprived of a great avenue for taxation because of financial acrobatics devised by smaller countries. That all being said, I also think that income taxes should be increased at the higher end to support a greater safety net.

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

#340

Post by dnautics »

kangaroozach wrote: post #264
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…

1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. 2. Interesting idea, but then all companies could just do this and make the same claim that their employees/contractors/vendors are just customers too! Not gonna fly.

2. Just FYI, this is basically what the taxicab companies do. And a lot of companies that you interact with basically do this, except at a higher level of organization: namely franchises. A manager at a mcdonald's is not typically an employee of mcdonald's, and is responsible for paying a lot in fees (and has to fulfill a lot of XYZ requirements to maintain the franchise).
Post reply on HN