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

381–390 of 781 posts

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

#381

Post by jojobas »

maxk42 wrote: post #373
jojobas wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>drivers will no longer be able to choose when they work Why? Uber is still free to let them choose if they choose so. >Going forward people who want to drive for Uber will have to interview like any other job Why? Uber would be free to hire without interview. >this will bring a big improvement in quality of life That's the point. >The rest will be out of a job It was deemed that this kind of a job is not worth havin…

To answer your first "Why?" it's because employees have to be paid much more when working over 40 hours / week. Drivers will no longer be able to work an extra 5 hours when they need extra money: They'll have to have a second job. Similarly, there are certain minimum costs associated with each employee above and beyond the costs of a contractor. This may mean Uber is forced to favor drivers who commit to a certain mi…

Basically you're arguing that the race to the bottoms is good for everyone involved.

From a country that has hard fought-for USD16/hour minimum wage, paid 10 sick leave and 20 annual leave days per year, this doesn't appear true at all.

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

#382

Post by hypersoar »

fastball wrote: post #345
TheColorYellow wrote: post #330

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What autonomy would Uber need to provide?

Yes I would like to know this too. I know a guy that drives more than full-time for Uber (50+ hours pw). I have a friend that drives approximately 8 hours pw for Uber. How are drivers not choosing their own hours, exactly? That seems to be exactly what they are doing. And when I say "Uber", I actually mean Uber/Lyft. And obviously in some parts of the US there are other apps and drivers use those too.

Being an independent contractor is about more than "choosing your own hours". you can be an employee and have flexible hours. You can be a contractor and have fixed hours. There are plenty of examples of both in the tech industry.

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

#383

Post by bsanr2 »

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.

Those sales positions are generally not remote/distributed. They don't work for multiple companies concurrently because it's impossible.

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

#384

Post by dnautics »

gamblor956 wrote: post #369
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) if they forced that requirement on drivers, that would 100% indicate an employment relationship. But note that it is generally regarded as fraud to double bill multiple clients for the same unit of time. 2) irrelevant to the employee/contractor determination. It is possible for an employee to also be a contractor, see for example restaurants...

Ok, so we are saying

#1, If you pick to be in a contractor relationship you can do whatever with regards to having both apps on simultaneously.

#2 If you pick to be in an employee relationship, uber and lyft have a right to exclusivity during all phases of the ride. Of course a driver can choose to work for both, but lyft can terminate a driver if they find that a driver is online for uber, and vice versa.

Or #3, the state can decide that the "employees" are "not working" unless they are in the phases where they are going towards an accepted ride or have a passenger in the car.

The state will almost certainly not go with #3. Between #1 and #2, I can tell you which option 90% of drivers will take. It's not #2. So we will be back to square one.

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

#385

Post by jojobas »

nostrebored wrote: post #372
satya71 wrote: post #354

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think Uber already chooses when they work and for how long. Uber will have to cap the hours at 8 hrs a day to save on overtime. But the "new employees" can work multiple jobs if they want. Are there employment laws I'm not aware of that require "interviews"? Most fast food works can become employees by just walking in the door, I think.

This is just untrue. Drivers are free to choose when they want to drive.

Sure, but Uber varies rates so they want to drive when Uber needs them.

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

#386

Post by mullingitover »

fernandotakai wrote: post #226
TeMPOraL wrote: post #154

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Imagine the fun metagames this would cause. If the government took Uber's stick away, the company would be forced to find a rate at which they'd have enough drivers to allow for reasonably short pickup time. Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, thus forcing Uber to raise their rates to $X (+ Uber's cut). (While dropping drivers from the plat…

>Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, thus forcing Uber to raise their rates to $X (+ Uber's cut). drivers already have those groups btw. they use to coordinate a LOT of stuff. i've seen a driver on a huge whatsapp group where they basically tried to set some areas to surge so they could earn more money.

They've pulled this stunt at LAX before. I got off the plane and suddenly all the Uber rides were over $100. Googled around and apparently this was a game they were playing to drive up rates.

I took a flyaway to Union Station and then got an Uber from there for $15.

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

#387

Post by mrnobody_67 »

bzb4 wrote: post #253
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…

Aren’t investors supposed to research what they’re investing in?

The Hertz investors clearly didn't :)

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

#388

Post by closeparen »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #289
Karunamon wrote: post #275

Earlier quoted context omitted.

People are deserving of respect, arguments less so. I see no reason to grant any particular deference to a sentence.

Saying an argument is false because it's a meme isn't a rational way to argue against a thought. You argue against things with facts and evidence. It's more disrespectful of the opposition if that's the strongest remark the opposition can make. I suppose the great-grandparent is more an 'appeal to emotion' fallacy rather than ad hominem.

The word "meme" isn't doing any argumentative work here. It's just a handle for the claim that's being contested, with some extra connotation that the claim is typical or customary rather than unique to this thread.

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

#389

Post by sangnoir »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #330
sangnoir wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

One part of the "ABC test"[1] used to check the "contractorness" under law requires that "...the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work..." - Uber controls every minute of drivers work time, so this will be a high hurdle to clear.

Part B is similarly challenging, because it requires that the contractor & the work they are doing not be in the same line of business as hiring entity

1. https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...

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

#390

Post by heavyset_go »

stickfigure wrote: post #295
heavyset_go wrote: post #205

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> If the rules vary by jurisdiction

They don't. The distinction between a contractor[1] and employee[2] has a broad rule at the federal level[3]. Contractors decide their rates and how they're paid, and they determine how, when and where their work is done.

People who work for Uber outside of a part of a single state can't set their rates or how they're paid, nor can they determine how or where their work is done because Uber only allows drivers to use certain vehicles.

[1] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[2] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

[3] https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...

Post reply on HN