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

421–430 of 781 posts

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

#421

Post by fastball »

sudosysgen wrote: post #407
fastball wrote: post #399

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 w…

So if you live in a town with three welders, and those three welders come together and agree that they will not ever weld for below $X/h in the town (which is significantly above market price of nearby, equivalent towns), then that is not price-fixing, because the people that want welding services are suddenly "welder employers" because they are buying a service? I... don't think that's right.

The price of rides is determined by the market. Uber arguably has the least say of the three stakeholders – their goal is to merely "make the market". Riders demand low-prices, drivers demand high ones. Uber doesn't really "choose" a price, they just find the happy medium that the market demands.

Uber pays drivers in the same way that Stripe "pays" me when I make a sale of my app – that is to say, not at all. Stripe pays me, but they are clearly not my employer. Uber is collecting payments and then disbursing them, as literally any marketplace does. Does Steam "employ" all the game developers that sell on their platform? Does Etsy employ all the independent makers? Apple's App Store? Twitch? Amazon? Patreon?

The core business of Uber is an app/marketplace for transport, not drivers. This is obvious when you consider the fact that Uber also provides things like scooters and e-bikes through their app (and in London, now boat services!), which obviously don't involve mostly independent driver-contractors.

To compare this to Steam again – the core business of Steam is not "game developers", even though their core business would not exist without game developers. Their business is a marketplace. I actually really like the Steam comparison because it literally ticks all the same boxes you are ticking for Uber: they set prices, accept/disburse payments, and wouldn't exist without 3rd parties and their labor. But nobody is claiming that Steam should start paying health/holidy/etc benefits for all the indie game developers that sell games on their platform.

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

#422

Post by shrimpx »

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…

> argued that they were basically doing the same work as employees

I think that's case by case though. Contractors usually do finite focused projects and don't want to be employees. I myself was self-employed for 5 years doing specific contracts as a software engineer. I was "writing code" which is "the same work" as employees. Were all those companies breaking the law?

> Legally, in California, they can't do that.

Definitely wrong.

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

#423

Post by sk5t »

Gunax wrote: post #356
kangaroozach wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

In terms of legality I agree with the judge. In practical terms, this is trivial for uber to dodge. All they need to do is transform from a company offering rides, to a company connecting riders to drivers. It sounds like a big difference but I susoect very little about the user experience would change. For instance they could allow riders to offer different rates, but heavily favour (through ui and other soft incent…

I submit that it's not trivial, in that Uber will have to either let drivers set their own rates, or let drivers cherry-pick without penalty the contracts they wish to accept. Either change constitutes a monumental change to the rider experience.

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

#424

Post by erik_seaberg »

flak48 wrote: post #227
radicaldreamer wrote: post #66

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you don't accept nearly every ride, you are kicked off the platform...

If I had a dispatch company that phoned/radioed possible drivers in some round robin order, if driver number 4 always tends to decline I would stop wasting my time and my rider's time in contacting him again, after a point

Do taxi dispatchers track how often a driver accepts a request but never shows up? It sounded really common back when I was driving airport shuttles.

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

#425

Post by shrimpx »

lackbeard wrote: post #364
Gunax wrote: post #342

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is in a legal grey area. They are independent contractors in the sense that they can choose how much and when to work. They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates. I don't think it's so clear cut.

> They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates. Hmm... How is an Uber driver different from a plumber here? Let's say Google needs some pipes fixed at one of its offices and they tell me how much they'll pay, refusing to budge from that figure. That doesn't make me Google's employee. I can choose to do the work for that price, or I can go fix Apple's pipes instead. What am I missing?

You're not missing anything.

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

#426

Post by ClumsyPilot »

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…

1) In Victorian Britain, child labour provided a great many public goods. 2) After it was outlawed, many of businesses that relied on it became unsustainable.

I don't think it is sensible to justify exploitation with "but the public benefits from it' and 'without it the business might go under'. By that logic we'd still have Victorian workhouses, 12-hour workdays, and there'd be no health & safety.

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

#427

Post by reaperducer »

dnautics wrote: post #377
reaperducer wrote: post #341

Earlier quoted context omitted.

not at the same time, you can't Just as a ride hailing driver can't simultaneously have an Uber and a Lyft passenger in his car. What's your point?

A lyft driver can have the uber and lyft apps on at the same time during the phase when you don't have a passenger in the car. This is basic driver strategy 101. It's generally good etiquette to turn it off when you get pinged for a passenger, but that doesn't always happen[0], and for sure I have seen drivers flip the other one back on towards the end of their ride. This is critical question for employment law becau…

A lyft driver can have the uber and lyft apps on at the same time during the phase when you don't have a passenger in the car.

I'm well aware of this. If you look in my comment history, you'll see that I drove for Uber and Lyft, too.

But the point stands — You can't earn money from both at the same time, just like someone can't earn money from waiting tables at two different restaurants at the same time.

uber had a really stupid and un-thought-out halloween weekend bonus

Ick. Don't get me started about Uber's promotional games. Like making everyone sign up for a big promotion during a big event, and then there are no qualifying rides.

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

#428

Post by root_axis »

zaroth wrote: post #415
root_axis wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Sure, but in this example the situation only happens because the dispatcher controls all the prices, if the drivers could set their own prices then they would have no reason to decline.

Economically the result is identical. The driver “sets their rate” above the market rate and drivers with lower rates get all the rides.

No, it is not at all identical because riders only get to see the prices that uber wants them to see rather than all the rates that would be available if drivers could set their own rates, thus "the market rate" cannot escape a threshold that is contrary to uber's business prerogatives.

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

#429

Post by shrimpx »

This debate seems to be about what's a user vs. a contractor vs. an employee. Does the fact that I walk a Google device around enabling Google to record rich profitable data, in exchange for extracting some value from their services, make me a contractor or an employee? Because for sure it doesn't sound like it makes me a user.

Edit: spelling.

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

#430

Post by ummonk »

fastball wrote: post #363
ummonk wrote: post #346

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Turning down a ride request is not the same as not submitting a bid.

Why not?

It's equivalent to submitting a lower bid.

(The point is moot though because apparently Uber rolled out a feature that allows drivers in California to set their rates).

Post reply on HN