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

401–410 of 781 posts

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

#401

Post by mullingitover »

heavyset_go wrote: post #390
stickfigure wrote: post #295

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 bec…

The feds seem satisfied to allow Uber to classify workers as contractors so far, and California doesn't, so yes, the rules do vary.

People who work for Uber as contractors can accept or decline rides, and only accept rides at a rate they want, so yes they are setting their rates. Just as a software contractor can accept or decline a job based on the rate offered. You're entitled to accept work at a rate you want, but you are not entitled to be guaranteed work at the rate you want.

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

#402

Post by [deleted] »

jojobas wrote: post #381
maxk42 wrote: post #373

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

[deleted]

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

#403

Post by jcims »

three_seagrass wrote: post #299
jcims wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s also easy to sit in that same seat and interfere with an arrangement to satisfy your own moral stance without actually being affected by the outcome. All of these Uber drivers have phones, why are they always absent in these conversations?

Maybe help me understand how having a phone means you're present in a conversation? There have been class action lawsuits filed by uber and lyft drivers.

This conversation has been going on for years. I rarely see Uber or Lyft drivers participating and when i do they generally just want the company to take a bit less out of the deal, that’s it.

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

#404

Post by mkoubaa »

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…

given that progressives, myself included, tend to believe healthcare and retirement should be assured with or without employment I am baffled that some are against gig work in principle. with those two entitlements gig work is the most worker friendly approach to employment. What am I missing?

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

#405

Post by google234123 »

throw_m239339 wrote: post #277
lhh wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist, thus providing an additional option for potential workers. With the additional option, maybe that option is better than some people's alternative options. We can surmise that it probably is for a lot of them, as evidenced by their choice to be drivers for these companies. If they had a better option, they would presumably take that instead. Your proposition that…

> Uber/Lyft/etc create jobs that otherwise didn't exist Uber/Lyft business model has just been deemed illegal. let's see if it now can be both legal and sustainable. Uber/Lyft only existed up until now because they were violating employment laws.

Illegal in one state with a vendetta against them

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

#406

Post by emteycz »

root_axis wrote: post #256
emteycz wrote: post #219

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There are other market players than Uber, and Uber is in no way a taxi monopoly. You could say this about literally any marketplace and especially about any taxi company (nearly all taxi companies have independent drivers-contractors, usually driving their own but branded cars - at their own expense , and with exclusivity contracts; taxis all over the world work this way), but only the more modern marketplaces are fo…

> There are other market players than Uber, and Uber is in no way a taxi monopoly True, but not relevant to my point which is that uber explicitly sets the rates, not drivers, and not the market. I understand why they do this, but it's simply false to say that drivers having the option to sometimes pass up on rides is the equivalent of setting their own rate.

Let's consider me, an IT contractor. I have a profile with IT staffing agency. They offer me contracts with a predetermined rate that I can accept or decline; I was offered an exclusivity contract for additional 5% income, but I declined. Why is me, an Uber driver so different that I am to be forced to be an employee?

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

#407

Post by sudosysgen »

fastball wrote: post #399
sudosysgen wrote: post #396

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 certa…

Two things.

Firstly, if you consider that Uber is only an intermediary and nothing else, then the consumer is the employer. Making this collective bargaining, Employers are consumers in the labour market. Price fixing is always against the interests of a pure consumer, including collective bargaining. Unions are beneficial because (and only if) the vast majority are workers much moreso than consumers.

Secondly, as we have seen, since the money is paid to Uber, and Uber decides how much the rides cost and to who they are assigned when, as well as the fact as Uber pays drivers, and in combination with the fact that drivers are the core business of Uber, they are indeed employees, and this is collective bargaining.

In both cases, it is collective bargaining. If the consumer is the rider, and they directly pay with a cut to Uber the fare, as well as decide the price they are offering and control how the ride goes, then the driver is the employee. In the real world and according to California statute, the driver is the employee (of Uber).

Therefore, it is collective bargaining.

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

#408

Post by abduhl »

poizan42 wrote: post #231
drusepth wrote: post #189

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>> Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, >This is, of course, illegal. What law does this break?

In the US, I think it's Section 1 of the Sherman Antitrust Act. It's referenced from the Wikipedia article: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Price_fixing

That’s an interesting question actually. Can a third party who technically has no say in setting the actual price of a product be said to be engaging in price fixing by refusing to enter into a market, even if done collectively?

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

#409

Post by mullingitover »

cwhiz wrote: post #199
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…

Uber has never made money. They haven’t even come close to making money. It’s hard for me to have any sympathy for investors who keep funneling money into a company that defines “success” by lowering their quarterly loss to a mere billion. It’s not as if this information isn’t public. Everyone can see that Uber can’t make money.

Amazon has gone very long stretches without making money, too. They're still a trillion-plus dollar company and nobody seems to care.

I was under the impression that the markets that are mature for Uber were profitable, and they've been plowing capital into growth, hence the losses. Feel free to correct me if you have sources that show otherwise.

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

#410

Post by jy1 »

ceejayoz wrote: post #52
jy1 wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Gig platforms neither decrease your rating / deplatform you if you decline work.

They do, though. https://help.uber.com/driving-and-delivering/article/what-ar... https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115013077708-Accepta...

Did you even read these? Give me a single line that supports your assertion here.
Post reply on HN