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

#631

Post by luckylion » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:33 AM UTC

mercer wrote: post #595

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…

> 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.

But that's not quite it, I believe. The point isn't that customers choose the cheaper of two options, it's that non-users don't become users of a service until there's a super cheap option. Taxis/Yellow cabs were a thing before Uber, but they're more expensive than what lots of people were willing to pay.

It's not "do I want to buy X for $5 or $2?", it's "I won't buy X unless it's $2 max".

If you increase Uber's prices to those of Taxis, few people will use them. That's not necessarily a bad thing, but it's a thing.

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

#632

Post by kungato » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

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 mean in a EU country a male haircut costs 6€. In another EU country a male haircut costs at least 30€. People can live on both wages. These number are relatively arbitrary as they make sense in the ecosystem of housing and other prices. California can compensate in many ways for the fact that "people don't want to pay the gig workes more". Free/social healthcare, education and housing via progressive taxing etc. Since people in the USA don't want to be "slaves of communism" or whatever, they are wage slaves

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

#633

Post by clusterfish » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:37 AM UTC

mercer wrote: post #595

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…

> 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…

Businesses want more profit. Consumers want to pay less. Workers want to earn more. Pretty much always.

This doesn't always result in an optimal outcome. Market power, externalities, information asymmetry, etc.

This is why we have regulations. Forcing the society and Uber to pay for drivers to be treated as employees seems like a very reasonable outcome. If they don't like it they can hire less drivers, but the ones that remain will at least have some minimum standard of living that developed countries pride themselves for.

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

#634

Post by murgindrag » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:41 AM UTC

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…

There is no such thing as "society is not willing to pay the higher prices for drivers to be treated as employees." Society isn't a brain which thinks. There is emergent behavior.

* I am glad to be forced to pay more to have Uber/Lyft drivers treated well. I think we should have worker's right protections.

* I am unwilling to pay more myself as a one-off (e.g. through tipping). It's a Prisoner's Dilemma. That's what regulations are for.

If everyone were like me, we'd end up exactly where we are. Do I think everyone is exactly like me? No. But I think it's a similar model.

That said, the concept of treating gig workers as employees is dumb as rocks. It's reusing in 1920 mechanism to accomplish a 2020 goal. My goal is for gig workers to have health care, vacations, and so on, not that they be employees; they're not. The gig workers I know appreciate being able to jump from Uber to Instacart to other life constraints. A half-dozen 1/12th time jobs is just a bad system.

And the medallion cab system was far more abusive of drivers than Uber/Lyft ever was. The power there sits with the medallion investors. The drivers were getting shafted.

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

#635

Post by afiori » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:46 AM UTC

Jommi wrote: post #556

afiori wrote: post #328

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the whole argument is not only whether drivers are technically employees or contractor but also whether Uber/Lyft are stretching those category so much that neither is a good fit for the situation. As far as I understand one of the problems is that the drivers' market is so saturated that both Uber and Lyft can act as if they where monopolies (or maybe monopsonies). They can technically move to a competitor b…

This is not true, moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure and keep both companies in check.

This is only true if either company ever risk running out of (good) drivers. As I understand it currently there are more workers than jobs, so if a driver decides to cut ties with one of the oligopsies they are unable to get the same amount of work from the competitor.

So: "moving to a competitor definitely applies pressure" -> true; "keep both companies in check" -> false

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

#636

Post by masonic » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:53 AM UTC

kangaroozach wrote: post #264

dnautics wrote: post #251

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Having been a driver for 1.5 years my questions for you are these: 1. If Uber and Lyft allow their drivers to choose, would it be reasonable for them to make "having the other app on at the same time" cause for dismissal? I know of no other employee that is allowed to simultaneously bill time on a competitor. Contractors, absolutely. Employees, no. 2. What if Uber, instead, charged $1.00/mo for the drivers to use the…

1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. 2. Interesting idea, but then all companies could just do this and make the same claim that their employees/contractors/vendors are just customers too! Not gonna fly.

  CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties.

Indentured Servitude is a voluntary working relationship between two parties. Is it wrong that it's illegal in CA?

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

#637

Post by kwanbix » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 10:56 AM UTC

luckylion wrote: post #631

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. But that's not quite it, I believe. The point isn't that customers choose the cheaper of two options, it's that non-users don't become users of a service until there's a super cheap option. Taxis/Yellow cabs were a thing before Uber, but they're more expensive than what lots of…

I don´t know how is it in all of the world, but in many countries/cities, the problem with Taxi drivers is that there is no control, they treat you like shit, there is no one else to complain, they take you to the longest route, many have their "clocks" (that is what we call the machine they use to charge you the fare) fixed so that they charge more, and there are illegal taxis that steal from you (as in real robbery). Uber is good because you can complain to Uber, you get refunds, if drivers get bad ratings they are no longer part of Uber, and in general, it is safer than taxis. I was some days ago in another country. I didn't know any Taxi phone number, but I had my uber app, so I just requested an uberx, and it came. Problem solved.

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

#638

Post by nix23 » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 11:01 AM UTC

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...

I really hope for the Japanese people that this changes with a new generation where family is family, and business is business, and that the former is more important than the latter.

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

#639

Post by cocktailpeanuts » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 11:04 AM UTC

neuroanalysis wrote: post #452

belval wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think he was arguing that the execs at Uber didn't really care about the toxic workplace stuff until Uber's founder said he didn't want to IPO, then they used it as a way to kick him out. So basically the workplace is toxic, but that's not the real reason why he was kicked out (according to the comment you were replying to).

He effort you have him ousted was led by Bill Gurley of Benchmark and several other VC investors in Uber. Essentially the board asked him to step down and he did.

If you look it up, there are plenty of articles of rumors saying that the VCs schemed to kick him out because they wanted to IPO and the founder didn't.

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

#640

Post by xapata » Tue, Aug 11, 2020, 11:10 AM UTC

clusterfish wrote: post #633

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…

Businesses want more profit. Consumers want to pay less. Workers want to earn more. Pretty much always. This doesn't always result in an optimal outcome. Market power, externalities, information asymmetry, etc. This is why we have regulations. Forcing the society and Uber to pay for drivers to be treated as employees seems like a very reasonable outcome. If they don't like it they can hire less drivers, but the ones…

What does it mean to be "treated like an employee"? I'd like regulation to give everyone healthcare. Are non-employees not worthy?