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

611–620 of 781 posts

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

#611

Post by piva00 »

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…

To be fair, that is the investors' risk and part of their return. Uber very likely didn't lie about their risks in their investment prospects so everyone buying UBER should be aware of the inherent regulatory risk for the business.

I don't agree that investors should be protected from this (or from TSLA assertions), if you are investing you should be more sophisticated than buying stocks blindly, there is a risk to any investment and, obviously, that is why it can be so profitable.

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

#612

Post by dragonwriter »

fastball wrote: post #343
dan-robertson wrote: post #233

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The argument which won was not that there is some legal reason Uber can’t have both independent contractors and employees, but rather that the relationship between Uber and it’s drivers is de facto employment and should therefore be subject to employment law.

Huh? The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors. So no, they cannot have independent contractors, unless you mean for the operations side of their business, which nobody is talking about so I hope not.

> The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors.

It's not (as a matter of what the law generally mandates), because it's a preliminary injunction, not summary judgement.

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

#613

Post by jacquesm »

neetrain wrote: post #578
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…

Meanwhile in Japan, We never get sick pay (treated as leave pay) nor usually leave pay even when employed...

The fact that Japan is abusive to its workers doesn't in any way reduce the OPs point.

Japan should - and I realize that this won't make any difference - get with the times and start treating people like they are something else than lemons that need to be squeezed. It's a cultural problem.

No reason why they both can't be fixed. At least this judge got it right.

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

#614

Post by dustinmoris »

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…

This is a straw man argument. Only because other jobs also have issues doesn't mean we shouldn't try to start improving somewhere at some point. Also customers NEVER want to pay more for anything, so that is hardly an argument to treat some people like slaves.

It is the duty of the strong to fight for better treatment of those who can't fight for themselves because they lack financial security or for other practical reasons. Law is exactly doing that.

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

#615

Post by jojobas »

seankimdesign wrote: post #573
jojobas wrote: post #351

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>drivers will no longer be able to choose when they work Why? Uber is still free to let them choose if they choose so. >Going forward people who want to drive for Uber will have to interview like any other job Why? Uber would be free to hire without interview. >this will bring a big improvement in quality of life That's the point. >The rest will be out of a job It was deemed that this kind of a job is not worth havin…

What a tasteless and tortured analogy. I'm sure the slaves hated being freed as much as my brother will be when they tell him that he needs to drive X minimum hours a week to keep his employment status with Uber/Lyft. More realistically, there probably won't be an Uber/Lyft left to drive for if this ruling sticks. God knows they're already bleeding funds as we speak. There's no way they'll stay afloat. No matter how…

Freed Russian serfs were indeed distressed in many cases, which doesn't make their emancipation any less moral.

Uber pays less than minimum wage for many, which can't stand.

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

#617

Post by true_religion »

piva00 wrote: post #609
jquery wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Slavery doesn't come only through the form of physical subjugation, if so there wouldn't be classifications of work analogous to slavery. Don't be so shallow minded...

Not direct physical subjugation but if force isn’t uses somewhere along the responsibility chain then it can’t be called slavery.

Debt slavery for example, relies on debts being permanent and the state jailing people who do not pay.

If a debt can be discharged in an easy bankruptcy, you can simply do that instead of becoming a slave to someone.

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

#618

Post by dragonwriter »

Gunax wrote: post #370
fastball wrote: post #343

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Huh? The whole point is that the California judiciary is literally saying that legally Uber cannot classify drivers as contractors. So no, they cannot have independent contractors, unless you mean for the operations side of their business, which nobody is talking about so I hope not.

I don't think so... The ruling is that the relationship as it is in employment. The test is: A) the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and C) the worker is customarily engag…

> B) the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business;

This seems to be the insurmountable point; the judge seems to be inclined to see drivers as within the usual course of business, which means nothing changing on A and/or C would matter, and, assuming the strong statements in the injunction reflect the eventual ruling on the merits, Uber would have no means other than radically changing the business they are in to have drivers-as-contractors.

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

#619

Post by tasubotadas »

piva00 wrote: post #609
jquery wrote: post #592

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Slavery doesn't come only through the form of physical subjugation, if so there wouldn't be classifications of work analogous to slavery. Don't be so shallow minded...

>Slavery doesn't come only through the form of physical subjugation

from dictionary:

slavery - the state of being a slave.

slave - a person who is _the legal property of another_ and is forced to obey them.

The fact that you use "slavery" as a synonim to hard work and/or high dependance, doesn't make "doesn't come only through the form of physical subjugation" true.

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

#620

Post by mercer »

piva00 wrote: post #607
mercer wrote: post #595

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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/customer…

> 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. It's part of the current US economical ideology where individual responsibility is taken as a mantra. I completely agree with you, it's a good soundbite that any simple analysis and some thinking show ho…

Divide and conquer is very effective when the unit of measurement is the individual. I'd say this is core to what separates the 'left' in the US from the 'liberals' or 'liberal left'. For better and worse.
Post reply on HN