Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#501

Post by tomerico » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:36 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #304

droidno9 wrote: post #18

The relevant statute:[0] 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free…

This seems to pretty conclusively result in Uber drivers being employees, then. Specifically, in B. It's going to be hard for Uber to argue that driving cars is outside of the usual course of Uber's business.

I actually don’t think that point B is the ones they failed off. They claim that they are in the business of facilitating a connection between drivers and riders, in the same way that Youtube connects creators to viewers without employing them.

The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers. For example, they don’t allow users to choose their own drivers. They also don’t allow drivers to price their ride.

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

#502

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

nagispringfield wrote: post #333

sanderjd wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For #2, are you suggesting that the drivers would then get the full fare in exchange for the payment for the app? If so, yes, that would clearly be a great, extremely driver-friendly change that would defuse the employee vs contractor controversy... But, I suspect it would also result in layoffs and perhaps lawsuits from the shareholders.

I'm currently interning at a startup called Empower. This is their exact business model, the company provides software, the driver can set their own rates and they get the full fare. The drivers pay a monthly subscription free.

Sounds great, hope it works out!

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

#503

Post by all_blue_chucks » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:37 AM UTC

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…

It should be illegal to pay any form of wages, whether gig work or 9to5, without paying into social security, medicare, medicaid, and unemployment insurance.

This pandemic has proven that EVERYONE needs unemployment insurance, and it is already well-known that everyone needs income and healthcare in retirement.

Sp sure, let people do gig work on their own time, but don't let them opt out of the basic social safety nets we all need to survive.

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

#504

Post by sanderjd » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:40 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #327

sanderjd wrote: post #273

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For #2, are you suggesting that the drivers would then get the full fare in exchange for the payment for the app? If so, yes, that would clearly be a great, extremely driver-friendly change that would defuse the employee vs contractor controversy... But, I suspect it would also result in layoffs and perhaps lawsuits from the shareholders.

no. There's no reason why you couldn't do both. There's plenty of apps where you both pay for entry and pay a cut out of each transaction.

Ah, then the reason this wouldn't work is that the court would still deem them to be employees, after seeing through this incredibly transparent and cynical facade.

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

#505

Post by aspenmayer » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:42 AM UTC

unishark wrote: post #456

shrimpx wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. D…

> 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? The AB5 law has only been in effect since Jan 1. The federal rules are already very strict. Generally contractor…

I am saddened to be reminded of the story in your link, as I read it at the time it was posted, and was also saddened then.

I’m not convinced you have adequately eliminated other potential reasons he may have done the uncharacteristic thing he did. Even if he was in his right mind, I’m not convinced he had anyone’s interest at heart but his own personal one, as jobs are a form of social control. He desired to be free of this control. Even if individual liberty is worth fighting for, the Constitution doesn’t grant you the right to the job you want on the terms you want. That’s what the courts are for.

This guy was wrong to do what he did in every way but for the right reasons in a very minor way that is more a matter of principle rather than tax law. No matter his beef, it was just his own, and as such, it doesn’t justify so much as slapping someone’s hand, let alone the stunt he pulled.

I do see your point, though I disagree.

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

#506

Post by LudwigNagasena » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:44 AM UTC

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.

How does allowing flexible work arrangement imply “race to the bottom”?

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

#507

Post by Firehawke » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:45 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #332

baddox wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Regarding #2, that's just generally not how the law works. There may be some cases where legal technicalities are successfully argued, but in general the legal system doesn't put up with someone sticking their finger a millimeter from its face and saying " technically I'm not touching you."

okay, let's make the price higher. Let's make it $150/mo. Now we're about 10 centimeters away from your face, and not too far off from what taxicab companies do.

They already do it. I've spoken to several drivers who rent their vehicles through the ride sharing company just like a Taxi driver does, and the price per day is about the same as the local cabs.

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

#508

Post by sytelus » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:47 AM UTC

This has been going back and forth too much. I am not even sure why single person (judge) wants to make such sweeping decisions. These drivers work on their own whims. They may decide to show up or not. They can cut short day anytime. Uber or Lyft don’t require them to start their shifts and work 40 hours a day. The drivers don’t commit to any full time work schedule. So at best things are muddy and lawmakers needs to come together instead of individual judges start writing laws according to their individual whims and philosophy. This will most definitely be get challenged and ultimately SC will not want to hear this anyway so it’s just massive waste of time for everyone. Only lawyers are getting rich in the process.

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

#509

Post by eru » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:48 AM UTC

schemy wrote: post #312

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #296

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You might want to check what you consider "adversarial" when it comes to a discussion forum. The issue is that the comment I responded to seems to be under the false notion that workers (or employers, for that matter) get to "choose" how they want to be classified, and that's what this debate is about. My point is that, when it c…

Yes and? If I owned slaves and called them unpaid indefinite interns the law would rightly disagree. You can call the relationship whatever you like, but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone. That it's taken Uber so long to play by the same rules as everyone else is a travesty and should take a billion dollar law suit or two for damages to sort out.

> [...] but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone.

What makes you think so?

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

#510

Post by aspenmayer » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 4:49 AM UTC

p1necone wrote: post #500

lackbeard wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

Your analogy doesn't map to this situation. Google and Apple would be the people you're driving around, not Uber. The company that employs you as a plumber maps to Uber, which of course would just be you if you were self employed.

Many service companies are passed down in the family, or bought out for plum rates by star employees. Others are sole proprietorships. The service worker analogy is problematic because of the storied history of regulatory capture in the taxi industry, and the century of bad legal rulings that allowed it to continue. I guess licensed professions and gatekeeping like the AMA does to limit residency spots are the closest analogues I can think of off the cuff, but I also think those things are wrong for similar reasons, so moving on.

Now that the app driving companies turned over the apple cart by essentially cyber-squatting on the legal system while backed by high power lawyers paid by VC cash, the driving companies themselves want to cry foul when they don’t get the way they bought and paid for. I guess what they didn’t foresee is the long view of judgeship, and their concomitant dim view of cheaters, no matter the problem domain.

It’s too ironic to be believed. The judges apparently agree with me.