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

391–400 of 781 posts

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

#391

Post by jkaplowitz »

dnautics wrote: post #331
jkaplowitz wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Judges have lots of experience at (and precedents for) figuring out when employees are on the clock in many contexts, including ones where employees have some degree of ability to select whether and when to accept a given work shift. Guidance does exist.

I don't know California law on this specifically, but any state would definitely include time when actively serving as a driver for a ride, many would include time driving to pick up an accepted passenger, some might include time when logged in as a driver.

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

#392

Post by fastball »

hypersoar wrote: post #382
fastball wrote: post #345

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hmm, maybe I just don't know enough people, but I don't know any employee (with benefits and such) that can just stop working for their company for 12 months with no prior notice, and then pick it back up whenever. And infinite variations on that refrain.

I also don't know any employee who gets paid money by the customer to do a job, of which a small portion is taken by the company. For every "employee" I know, it works in exactly the opposite way.

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

#393

Post by chrischen »

Seems like crux of this disagreement is that there is a large group of drivers that do it full time as their primary source of income, and they want protection from all the part time gig workers that flood the market and depress their earnings.

Changing to employee model will result in fewer drivers (better protected), but lose out on the gig workers or even those doing multiple jobs just to make ends meet.

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

#394

Post by pb7 »

satya71 wrote: post #360
pb7 wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can't forbid you from working in your off time but now you're their employee -- you work 8 hours straight during which you're not allowed to work for a competitor or you're fired. If you want to work for Lyft for another 8 hours after that, go ahead. But Lyft isn't going to let you work for 2 hours and pay you benefits.

Most part-time employees do not get any benefits. So no big change there.

That wasn’t the point. The point is you won’t be able to work for Lyft because they won’t take someone on to work 2 hours a day because it costs too much. So you will work for one or the other and you will have zero flexibility in the matter.

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

#395

Post by blisterpeanuts »

The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job.

An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired.

Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. The company counts on an oversupply of such drivers to meet demand and does not need to manage the supply other than to continually recruit more people.

I suspect this ruling will be overturned, if not in the Ninth Circuit Court of Appeals, then in the Supreme Court.

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

#396

Post by sudosysgen »

fastball wrote: post #362
sudosysgen wrote: post #286

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm, to say the very least, not sure that the Sherman Anti-trust Act prevents collective bargaining.

Given that the price in question is put on consumers and Uber only takes a cut, this indeed sounds more like price-fixing than collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is always price fixing on the price of labour. So is the minimum wage. It also explicitly legal, and generally good for the common person.

In general, price fixing of the cost of labour is only found to be illegal price fixing when the people fixing the price are not (or not only) employees/workers. Which isn't the case here.

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

#397

Post by jdm2212 »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #395

The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job. An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired. Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time a…

California law is pretty clear on the matter. You don't have to like the law (it's a dumb law), but the law is clear.

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

#398

Post by blisterpeanuts »

sg47 wrote: post #25
marcrosoft wrote: post #5

This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.

The way for Uber to defeat this is to fight for single payer health insurance and universal basic income.

UBI would kill the gig economy. No one will drive 40-50 hours a day when they can get 50-75% of the same remuneration just sitting at home.

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

#399

Post by fastball »

sudosysgen wrote: post #396
fastball wrote: post #362

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Given that the price in question is put on consumers and Uber only takes a cut, this indeed sounds more like price-fixing than collective bargaining.

Collective bargaining is always price fixing on the price of labour. So is the minimum wage. It also explicitly legal, and generally good for the common person. In general, price fixing of the cost of labour is only found to be illegal price fixing when the people fixing the price are not (or not only) employees/workers. Which isn't the case here.

Collective bargaining applies when you are demanding things from an employer. But in this case, drivers colluding to not accept ride-shares under a certain price would be demanding a price from the consumer (which again, ride-share companies are only taking a fraction of, so it really is a price-fix on the consumer). And under such a scenario where that was allowed by the Ubers/Lyfts of the world, drivers would certainly be private contractors, and therefore business entities in their own right. So price-fixing.

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

#400

Post by octodog »

abvdasker wrote: post #320

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 empl…

The whole point is that Uber isn't actually treating its drivers like contractors. Any theoretical benefit to being a contractor is not really relevant if they don't have those rights in practice.
Post reply on HN