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

481–490 of 781 posts

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

#481

Post by d0gbread »

x0 wrote: post #365
d0gbread wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That isn't remotely what the comment you're replying to said. I agree that thinking about the gig economy as a different type of worker opens to door to a "how might we" conversation where everyone has the opportunity to win.

> thinking about the gig economy as a different type of worker opens to door to a "how might we" conversation where everyone has the opportunity to win. We, the readers of Hacker News, are going to fix the gig economy! Everyone, download a copy of your local laws and send a pull request to your country's highest Court. But seriously, I think having a discussion, working out a perfect system where we'll all be better…

I mean, you joke, but if we all took a more active role in forming educated opinions and voting, we'd all be better off. There isn't much of a reason to not find the time to familiarize with local laws and send a letter to representatives, vote on policy over party, have more nuanced conversation with family and friends, etc.

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

#482

Post by Cakez0r »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #274
ajhurliman wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The answer for contract software engineering is: "Technically, but not really". You interview, then they offer you a job/ contract which pays a certain hourly amount, and you can accept/decline/counter offer just like a full time job. The equivalent here would be something like, "Okay candidate, I offer you a job as a contractor and the contract says you get paid based off of this algorithm. Accept or decline?"

Typically, you're employed by the contracting agency (with benefits), they work out a deal with the business and take a cut off the top, though we informally refer to this as contracting. If you were to set up an agreement with the software company yourself, then it'd be conventional contracting.

Would the contractor be an employee of the contracting agency in this scenario?

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

#483

Post by ehsankia »

momokoko wrote: post #223
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…

You realize there are tons of jobs with employees that allow employees to chose their own hours. There is nothing in this ruling that prevents Uber from allowing people to chose rides _exactly_ as they are doing it now. The changes are: 1. Uber needs to pay into unemployment insurance. 2. Uber needs to pay into workers compensation. 3. Uber needs to pay into social security. 4. Uber needs to collect payroll taxes in…

Can they

1. Work for the competitors

2. work as much or as little as they want

3. Take as much vacation time as they want

4. Leave with zero advance notice

Also, should Twitch streamers and Youtube creators also become employees? What about Etsy/Ebay sellers or AirBnB hosts?

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

#485

Post by totony »

ClumsyPilot wrote: post #440
totony wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If a contractor always overcharge you it seems normal to stop business with him, how is this different?

If by overcharging you mean billing for more hours than were in fact done, that's fraud and is a different matter entirely. Obviously you may stop working with a person if their prices are too high or because quality of their work is shit. However if you use this as a pretence for firing contractors, but the real reason you are firing them is because of their sex / gender / race - that would be illegal. In the same v…

>In the same vein, if you fire contractors for doing things that are none of your business

Like what?

I'm pretty sure you can put all the terms you want in a contractual relationship. Even things that are none of your business (as long as not protected class).

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

#486

Post by sabujp »

umvi wrote: post #374
sabujp wrote: post #272

I'm sure someone has thought of this, but why don't we have ridehailing apps where the contract literally is between the driver and the passenger(s)? The app can merely suggest a rate but the driver can set whatever price they want. The app takes a very small finder's fee.

What if drivers can't make a living wage using such an app because there is too much supply driving prices down? The app will be crucified for "exploiting drivers"

Why would there be any more or less supply than what's available via uber or lyft and why would the app be at fault when decisions are made by the driver? Now there are more choices you can be your own contractor or work for uber/lyft as an employee. People who have older cars and can charge less may drive down prices but I think there will always be a market for being driven in newer cars, suv's, luxury cars, etc. You can schedule rides ahead of time and set contract breakage penalties. All these can be suggested by the app but again it's up to the final decision made between the customer and driver.

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

#487

Post by Cakez0r »

blisterpeanuts wrote: post #398
sg47 wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, but they might drive a couple of hours a day for some extra pocket money on top of their UBI

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

#488

Post by rdtwo »

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?

That google and apple talk and have chosen not to compete

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

#489

Post by DeonPenny »

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…

Poeple shouldn't be protecting investors. It's literally public market job and only job to access risk and pick stock. Why are we protecting them from their only job.

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

#490

Post by jccooper »

ogre_codes wrote: post #126
nknealk wrote: post #57

So I think the biggest question here is whether, as an employee, Uber/Lyft can set hours for a driver. Some specific implications: * Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example. * Can not arriving to shifts on time be grounds for dismissal? * Can refusing a shift be grounds for dismissal? * Can incurring unapproved overtime be grounds for d…

> Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example. > > Can not arriving to shifts on time be grounds for dismissal? > > Can refusing a shift be grounds for dismissal? If Uber requires someone to work a "Shift", then they have to pay them for that shift regardless of miles driven. Uber doesn't want that. I don't believe the state is requiring Ub…

> I don't believe the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly and Uber almost certainly doesn't want to pay people hourly either so none of this is relevant.

Pay may be calculated based on metrics other than time, but must be at least the minimum wage, which is based on time at work. For employees, if you want to pay on trips/widgets/sales/whatever, you have to also track hours. So, yes, the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly.

Uber may allow flexibility of when you're on the clock, though they won't have to, but you can bet they'll require a certain amount of productivity.

Post reply on HN