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

591–600 of 781 posts

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

#591

Post by 2OEH8eoCRo0 »

jasode wrote: post #589
dustinmoris wrote: post #577

Lots of HN comments are here like "I know people who prefer to be contractors", "My sister's neighbours little brother actually doesn't want to be treated with respect by Uber", blah This is utter nonsense. Being a contractor means being self employed. You don't get paid leave or sick pay. It's a risk taking and doesn't make any sense in the gig economy where the wages are close to minimum rates. If you are truly sel…

>All gig workers are slaves and we should treat each other with more dignity and upgrade them to employees. It's our bloody duty as a decent human being. Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay . E.g. even though yellow medallion taxis often cost…

>Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay

Then the business is not profitable enough to exist. Simple as that.

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

#592

Post by jquery »

dustinmoris wrote: post #577

Lots of HN comments are here like "I know people who prefer to be contractors", "My sister's neighbours little brother actually doesn't want to be treated with respect by Uber", blah This is utter nonsense. Being a contractor means being self employed. You don't get paid leave or sick pay. It's a risk taking and doesn't make any sense in the gig economy where the wages are close to minimum rates. If you are truly sel…

Slaves, mmm.... yes I remember the first day that jackbooted thugs from Uber forced me to drive for the company. Every day that I felt like driving instead of doing literally anything else, these Uber slavemasters would show up with their chains and their whips. The horror... I hope Uber goes out of business so I can finally go back to my old life...

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

#594

Post by pjc50 »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #291
momokoko wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Current employment law really isn't well suited for cases where someone can be an "employee" of 4 or 5 companies at a time, and stop and start on a whim as they see fit. I mean, just look at unemployment insurance. When the nature of the job is essentially a bid out to people willing to do the work, what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around? Flexibility…

> what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around?

As we've seen with the pandemic, unemployment can mean withdrawal of healthcare and eviction.

Really the question here is risk. Who takes the risk that employees can get sick? Who takes the risk that levels of work coming in can vary?

Should it be the individual employees, who generally have a couple month's income saved or less, or should it $50 billion market cap company? Which is better able to absorb risk? Or should the risk instead be handled by the state or federal government?

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

#595

Post by mercer »

jasode wrote: post #589
dustinmoris wrote: post #577

Lots of HN comments are here like "I know people who prefer to be contractors", "My sister's neighbours little brother actually doesn't want to be treated with respect by Uber", blah This is utter nonsense. Being a contractor means being self employed. You don't get paid leave or sick pay. It's a risk taking and doesn't make any sense in the gig economy where the wages are close to minimum rates. If you are truly sel…

>All gig workers are slaves and we should treat each other with more dignity and upgrade them to employees. It's our bloody duty as a decent human being. Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay . E.g. even though yellow medallion taxis often cost…

> I believe what this really comes down to is that society is not willing to pay the higher prices for drivers to be treated as employees. Same situation as not willing to paying higher prices at hair salons so hair stylists are full employees (instead of being contractors) with healthcare. It does seem like constantly blaming Uber for mis-categorizing employees conveniently shifts the blame from the society/customers. The extra money to pay the drivers comes from the passengers.

Generally I'd argue that society/customers, and in particular employees/'contractors' don't have all that much leverage over big companies, especially ones that capture a market. That's why we have regulation.

Blaming the customers for not keeping track of everything and going for the cheapest option is like blaming climate change on the consumer. It's technically sort of true, but practically speaking it makes no sense.

Consumers will keep buying cigarettes, marketeers will keep marketing them via entertainment channels, and tobacco companies will keep rolling in the money and do everything they can to encourage all this. But taxes, anti-smoking campaigns and government-enforced restrictions on where you can smoke have made a /ton/ of difference over the years.

There seems to be a trend to have 'flex-workers' (contractors) where in practice they all quack like employee ducks, without many of the benefits and guarantees. It mostly feels like a loop-hole and /of course/ the average consumer will go for cheap and convenient when they can. doesn't mean it's a good thing for society (and in particular the workers).

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

#596

Post by bohm »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #591
jasode wrote: post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>All gig workers are slaves and we should treat each other with more dignity and upgrade them to employees. It's our bloody duty as a decent human being. Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay . E.g. even though yellow medallion taxis often cost…

>Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay Then the business is not profitable enough to exist. Simple as that.

People still need transportation.

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

#597

Post by Gasp0de »

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…

Why does this have to be an exclusive or? I don't see how drivers would not be able to choose their own hours or the amount of work just because Uber has to treat them as employees? I live in Germany, I work when and as much as I want, and my employer still pays health insurance and I get sick leave and paid holidays, based on the average time I work.

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

#598

Post by jquery »

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…

That story is a perfect encapsulation of the faux-compassion mindset that seeks to stamp out all forms of entrepreneurship, including driving for Uber/Lyft instead of being an employee.

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

#599

Post by jerzyt »

I would agree that someone who drives for Uber about 40 hours a week is effectively an employee, however it leaves out a lot of drivers who only want to offer certain rides at certain time. For example, if every weekend I drive to my vacation home, which is in an area not practically reachable by public transport, and offer a ride, does that make me an employee? That's nonsense.

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

#600

Post by ethanbond »

bohm wrote: post #596
2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #591

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Lyft/Uber can upgrade them to employees but the arithmetic of bottom-up economics means Uber has to raise prices to cover full employment benefits. The raised fares conflict with what passengers are willing to pay Then the business is not profitable enough to exist. Simple as that.

People still need transportation.

If only there were examples of cities that operate just fine without boatloads of private car based transportation...
Post reply on HN