Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 887 posts

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#111

Post by TuringNYC »

gamblor956 wrote: post #103
TuringNYC wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. If we offered national…

The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.

Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#112

Post by mrlala »

TuringNYC wrote: post #68
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.

I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. If we offered national…

>The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.

Because that's the way the stupid system currently works?

So it's both- Uber should be forced to work in the current confines of the system, and there should be questions like national healthcare

>If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal.

As others has said, it's not just healthcare.. payroll taxes, other benefits etc.. Uber is basically trying to avoid all of this by pretending that 100% of their workforce are "contractors" even though many work 40+ hours a week like a normal employee.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#113

Post by amscanne »

bpfrh wrote: post #38
ericmay wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healt…

Oh cmon, in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Just because you make a new app and don't follow the rules in the hope you get to big to fail doesn't mean it works. Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. They borrow money, set low prices and don't follow the law and then lobby to change them. Uber is a taxi ser…

> You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay.

Yes, but the driver is similarly offered the fare, and may choose to accept or not. This is actually one of the critical distinctions between employees and non-employees. If they were an actual employee, Uber would be able to just assign the fare to them.

This is also unlike taxis, where, if your light is on, it is illegal to not accept the fare. (Although violations of these rules are common and blatant, which ironically stopped me from using taxis altogether.)

It’s certainly true that Uber operates in a grey area. When cities have explicitly banned them, they stop operating (e.g. Vancouver). It seems like California has clarified some of the ambiguity around employment, and Uber may similarly stop operating.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#114

Post by omgwtfbyobbq »

deminature wrote: post #57
asa4akj wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

comparing uber and etsy is dishonest at best. The only freedom an uber contractor has is "when to work". All the pricing and trips are decided by uber, and they can't even reject properly. They are in fact an employees in everything but legal status. In etsy, you choose your prices, what you sell, and even to whom you sell to, it's definitely a market place.

Drivers have been able to set their own prices in California for some time now https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/

What Uber did likely isn't sufficient. Uber restricts the maximum drivers can set, only allows increases in 10% increments, does not allow passengers to see the rates of more than one driver at a time, does not let a passenger set their own rates, does not allow drivers to go below auto-pricing, and still sets surge pricing themselves instead of letting passengers and drivers set pricing when demand is high.

Starting Tuesday morning, drivers at the three test airports can either accept Uber’s original price for outgoing rides, or ask for up to five times more, in increments of 10%. After next week they will have the option to ask for less than Uber’s original price.

Essentially those drivers now are bidding against one another for riders. Uber passengers will see only the lowest proposed fare range. If that driver rejects their ride request, they could see a new, higher fare range, as Uber would then show the request to the next-cheapest driver.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-tests-lett...

Uber likely wouldn't be in this position if they stayed out of pricing/visibility and let passengers/drivers set whatever rates they wanted to. Just provide a platform for people to get rides and stay out of pricing entirely.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#115

Post by Shebanator »

gruez wrote: post #102
akiselev wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Where is the line? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. 40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. > The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how…

>40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. So uber can avoid this requirement by only allowing drivers to work for 40/30 hours per week?

Well, yes and no. They can avoid healthcare requirements by not allowing people to work 30+ hours per week (as Walmart and MacDonalds often do), but that doesn't get rid of their other obligations to employees (disability, unemployment, social security, payroll tax, etc.). They already provide these services for their non-driver employees, so the issue here is purely cost.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#116

Post by jeffbee »

senkora wrote: post #101
jeffbee wrote: post #80

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber is already effectively shut down in the East Bay. I idly wondered the other day and it was going to be 20 minutes before a car got to my origin in Berkeley.

Is that not normal? That’s been my typical experience with using Uber/Lyft outside of urban centers.

2-3 minutes was typical before.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#117

Post by Shebanator »

TuringNYC wrote: post #111
gamblor956 wrote: post #103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.

Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.

California has seriously discussed doing exactly that. But given the situation in DC, it is likely that they would be actively sabotaged by the federal government if they tried. So much for "states rights"....

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#118

Post by skapadia »

I don't know what kind of background checks and interviewing (if any) Uber drivers have to currently go through (beyond having a valid driver's license and good driving history?), but if I'm hiring someone as a full time employee, you better believe I'm going to be more rigorous and it will cost me more, and that will limit the number of available Uber drivers IMO, or the number Uber will allow to work for 40+ hours. In turn that lowers supply, driving up Uber prices even further. I don't know how this makes sense overall. If a driver chooses to Uber as their primary (or sole) source of income, that's their choice. Do drivers that hustle more for Uber get a larger cut? (I think that's fair).

This is not about Uber, but about how a government can force something on a business model. Something seems off about forcing a company that created massive opportunity for people in the first place. (I am in no way supporting Uber because I think their leadership and culture have very questionable ethics).

How much more are local, state, and federal governments going to reap from taxes once drivers are classified as full time employees?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#119

Post by chucknthem »

fooey wrote: post #92
cft wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I applaud the CEO for this decision. It forces at least a glimpse of understanding on the local voters that one cannot combine ideological utopia and a functional economy.

It'll force local municipalities to take care of their transportation needs directly instead of outsourcing it to disloyal mercenaries. The cities that will be hurt are the ones that over relied on a parasitic business instead of investing in essential infrastructure.

I think your views of local municipalities ability to provide transportation in california are way too optimistic. San Francisco currently operates the most expensive bus stop ever built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#120

Post by typest »

lghh wrote: post #100
XMPPwocky wrote: post #44

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Tragically, the state has also taken away my right to sell my kidneys for money, just trying to "protect" me. I'm an adult, if I want the money isn't it strictly better than I have the freedom to cash in on my human resources?

> I'm an adult, if I want the money isn't it strictly better than I have the freedom to cash in on my human resources? Yes.

To add onto this —- living with only one kidney rather than two only barely increases your risk of dying, and many people each year die due to lack of kidneys. So, creating a market here (regulated of course) would save a lot of lives.
Post reply on HN