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

751–760 of 781 posts

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

#751

Post by piva00 »

tasubotadas wrote: post #745
piva00 wrote: post #652

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ok, so [0]: slavery noun slav· ery | \ ˈslā-v(ə-)rē \ Definition of slavery 1a: the practice of slaveholding b: the state of a person who is a chattel of another 2: submission to a dominating influence 3: drudgery, toil Or [1]: slavery in British English (ˈsleɪvərɪ ) NOUN 1. the state or condition of being a slave; a civil relationship whereby one person has absolute power over another and controls his or her life, l…

I like how delusion you are to pick maybe 3rd or 4th entry to prove your point while 1st and 2nd prove you wrong in almost every dictionary you've posted here.

I really don't get what you say, the definitions are there, the ordering isn't important and they match the meaning I meant.

Don't project your delusion just because you want to be right, you aren't and the most polite approach is to admit it instead of doubling down.

I don't expect this pathetic behaviour from HN posts.

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

#752

Post by WC3w6pXxgGd »

aggie wrote: post #254
cocktailpeanuts wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair, the founder didn't want to do IPO and according to rumors that was the reason why he was kicked out. All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool to make it happen more easily. Also, it's a public market. No one is "holding the bag". This may be true if Uber crashed before the IPO because private investors can't easily sell, but once on the public and liquid market, it is the public investor's…

> All the toxic workplace stuff was just a narrative tool That's a pretty bold claim. What of all the reports of a toxic workplace? I've heard first-hand accounts.

OP is half correct. There was no toxic environment. NYTimes really decided to go after Uber because they don't like how the drivers have the freedom to work as they see fit. That's why they hired Susan Fowler.

At the same time, the execs truly didn't see the rise of SJW culture and were caught off guard. That was their true downfall.

Source: I worked at Uber when this was all going down.

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

#753

Post by scarface74 »

2OEH8eoCRo0 wrote: post #750
scarface74 wrote: post #659

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You know the entire purpose of the company that runs this site is to fund businesses that aren’t profitable enough to exist? Only two companies that YC has funded have gone public.

Where is the site guideline which states that I must fellate VCs?

So do you feel that none of the money losing startups deserve to exist either?

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

#754

Post by chrischen »

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…

I don't think they're necessary treating them like "slaves" because they want to. It's a tradeoff between more jobs or fewer jobs and better pay.

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

#755

Post by michaniskin »

huntertwo wrote: post #691
WC3w6pXxgGd wrote: post #564

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If these companies can’t turn a profit while complying with the law then they don’t have a viable business model Are you seriously telling me that if people don't interact freely in the way bureaucrats want them to interact, then those people should, by law, not be allowed to interact? Big Brother knows best, huh.

What is a minimum wage?

A minimum wage is nothing more than a mechanism higher skilled workers use to command higher wages at the expense of lower skilled workers.

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

#756

Post by clusterfish »

xapata wrote: post #640
clusterfish wrote: post #633

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

No, it just means that contractors are treated as businesses rather than as people, because that's what contractor status is for.

If you hire a company to fix your car or build you a shack, they are not your employee, they are your contractor. You are not responsible for their healthcare or minimum wage or sick days. They are a business, they provide healthcare and all that stuff to their own employees who actually do the work. And this is perfectly fine, everyone ends up happy.

The problem is when individuals try to be a business, working as independent contractors. There is no "minimum profit" similar to "minimum wage", and you are essentially your own employer. Government can't force you to pay yourself minimum wage as a business owner because you'll be able to fudge it easily if you wanted to, being both the employer and employee.

What the government can do however is disallow corporations from hiring contractors for roles and in situations where in reality the contractors are businesses only on paper, where they actually are functionally just employees, like in Uber's case.

Would it be great if healthcare was paid by income taxes rather than employer? Yes, but since we don't have it yet, and since there are other issues differentiating employees from contractors / businesses, this seems like a decent approach.

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

#757

Post by unishark »

aspenmayer wrote: post #744
unishark wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I do see your point, though I disagree. I'm not clear what point you are referring to. It's possible for all sides in a story to be wrong in their actions.

I’m ending this conversation for violating HN guidelines about argumentative behavior. Flagged.

Now I'm completely confused. There's an argument going on? Does it involve me?

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

#758

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

chrisseaton wrote: post #190
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Agreeing to a rate != setting your rate, and having the counter-party agree or disagree to your rate.

Every software contract I've ever seen offers $x a day, or hour, or whatever. They don't just let you go in demanding whatever you want. There's a limit to what they want to pay. Just like Uber.

When it comes to standard W2 employment, an employer can also list $X/hr or an annual salary.

You can absolutely go in and demand whatever you want. If you ask for 3x, you probably won't get the job. But 5% or 10% over x? It's possible. I don't see how contracting is 'locked in'. You are certainly free to negotiate, unlike on Uber or Lyft's platform.

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

#759

Post by kwanbix »

ghaff wrote: post #664
kwanbix wrote: post #637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

It sounds like you'd be happy with a premium service (like Uber originally was). You pay more than a taxi but you get all the other benefits you list. Problem solved.

Taxi´s companies have existed for a while. Compared to Uber the differences are: customer support is shitty, good luck getting a refund, you need to know the phone numbers or have the apps installed of all of the cities in the world. It is more complicated. Uber is uber internationally. It is only one app, only one (relatively good) support. By the way, I don´t "love" Uber, is just that I see the value on it.

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

#760

Post by [deleted] »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #758
chrisseaton wrote: post #190

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Every software contract I've ever seen offers $x a day, or hour, or whatever. They don't just let you go in demanding whatever you want. There's a limit to what they want to pay. Just like Uber.

When it comes to standard W2 employment, an employer can also list $X/hr or an annual salary. You can absolutely go in and demand whatever you want. If you ask for 3x, you probably won't get the job. But 5% or 10% over x? It's possible. I don't see how contracting is 'locked in'. You are certainly free to negotiate, unlike on Uber or Lyft's platform.

[deleted]
Post reply on HN