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

541–550 of 781 posts

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

#541

Post by Mirioron »

neuroanalysis wrote: post #447
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…

Profitability should have no bearing on whether drivers are classified as employees or contractors. If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model. That is entirely their problem. Furthermore, the assumptions you make regarding future hiring practices are unfounded. Nothing stipulates that resumes or interviews, let alone in person, would be required t…

There might be no stipulations, but do you really expect Uber to be completely different to every other company when hiring actual employees? People that you are legally liable for?

>If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model. That is entirely their problem.

But let's completely ignore the part where companies lobby for laws that protect their market. Can't wait to go back to the old taxis.

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

#542

Post by droidno9 »

tomerico wrote: post #501
sudosysgen wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 a…

> The main thing they failed on is that the court thinks that they exert too much control on the drivers.

No, the court didn't address prong A at all because it found that Uber/Lyft could not possibly satisfy prong B of the ABC test.

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

#543

Post by jordanbeiber »

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…

Are your contractor friends lower-wage workers?

It’s quite a different story being a specialist contractor compared to a easily replacable minimum-wage earner.

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

#544

Post by himinlomax »

eru wrote: post #511
nl wrote: post #476

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You set the price that the customer pays (via Apple) though. That isn't the case for Uber drivers.

You think, if Uber let drivers bid on customer fares, they could classify the drivers as contractors again?

Not sure about California, but here in France it's the kind of difference that would change the nature of the relationship. Although it would be evaluated as a whole, and would be under a lot of scrutiny to determine whether this change wasn't meaningless for practical purposes.

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

#545

Post by MAGZine »

subsaharancoder wrote: post #322
MAGZine wrote: post #96

Earlier quoted context omitted.

except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.

> except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice. Factually incorrect for Uber drivers in CA, the platform no longer penalizes drivers for declining trips and now allows them to pick and choose trips without any impact on driver rating. (I worked in Uber Eng up until the 5/18 layoffs)

Thank you for the clarification—I'd edit my comment if I could.

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

#546

Post by Akababa »

lhh wrote: post #169
willio58 wrote: post #145

Earlier quoted context omitted.

A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker or society. Lower classes are currently forced to work for survival, there’s a lot of room for improvement. Poor management of investments on Uber/Lyft’s end is a burden the lower classes should not be forced to take on.

> A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker That strikes me as a pretty condescending point of view. Shouldn't adults be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives?

This is part of a super generic tradeoff between liberty and public good that differs from case to case depending on your culture and values. For example, should we ban smoking? What about meth? And so on.

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

#548

Post by Mirioron »

c3534l wrote: post #523

Before just randomly spouting out whether you personally feel like Uber and Lyft are employers, it might be helpful to look at the ELI5 criteria California lists at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm > Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions: > The worker is free from the c…

That's the bill that cost hundreds of freelance journalists their jobs in California, right? I wonder what the full consequences of it are going to be.

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

#549

Post by eru »

himinlomax wrote: post #544
eru wrote: post #511

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You think, if Uber let drivers bid on customer fares, they could classify the drivers as contractors again?

Not sure about California, but here in France it's the kind of difference that would change the nature of the relationship. Although it would be evaluated as a whole, and would be under a lot of scrutiny to determine whether this change wasn't meaningless for practical purposes.

I suspect that in practice there seems to be a political consensus in Californian that Uber is evil. The rest is just trying to find ways to punish them.

If the existing laws can be interpreted to punish them, they will be used. If not, the coalition against Uber will look into getting new laws passed. (As they already have.)

Thus rendering any discussion about whether existing laws can justify punishment somewhat moot.

(Of course, even a moot discussion can be interesting. Just like people can have fun arguing whether the Stark Trek Enterprise would beat a Star Wars Destroyer.

The legal discussion is also very important to Uber lawyers. Even if they lose in the end, any delay is worthwhile.)

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

#550

Post by Gibbon1 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #296
TheSpiceIsLife wrote: post #290

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What is the point of this comment? You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You've effectively restated the grandparent's points, but tried to do so in an adversarial manner.

> 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…

Quibble, far as I understand the law in California doesn't force you to be a contractor. But it's hard nosed about when someones an employee. If the law allows you to be a contractor you're free to choose whatever. Currently I'm an employee being paid twice a month. I could get overtime if I ever worked that much, which I don't.
Post reply on HN