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

191–200 of 887 posts

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

#191

Post by maerF0x0 »

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.

> national healthcare

Let me anecdotally tell you that a large healthcare program has not been good in my experience. Single Payer maybe good though so long as there is choice and competition.

Another consideration is that the US has been setup to allow a sort of localism where states can design their own solutions. It might be best for each system to be setup as a state level item.

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

#192

Post by yaur »

jacobn wrote: post #28

We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.

I think it's more like "gig workers" were created to try to do an end run around hard won protection for workers. The idea that someone driving (or waiting for pickups) 40+ hours a week is somehow different is different than somehow different than someone (e.g.) doing tech support for 40+ hours a week is absurd.

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

#193

Post by thewebcount »

dehrmann wrote: post #124
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…

> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.

No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.

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

#194

Post by chrisco255 »

vkou wrote: post #185
macspoofing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and systems to adhere to this law - which takes time.

It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.

Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?

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

#195

Post by secretasiandan »

dreamcompiler wrote: post #51

There is zero barrier to entry for a rideshare service. (Just ask the city of Austin.) Absent COVID, competitors would be coming out of the woodwork to supply this market with fairly-paid drivers. That means the cost of a ride will double, but that simply means we'll be paying taxicab rates for much better service than taxis provided in the past. We've known all along that Uber's prices were too low to be sustainable…

Have unicorns created an implicit threat of gambler's ruin with Uber taking the role of the house in this instance?

Let's call it "startup's ruin".

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

#196

Post by GoodJokes »

merpnderp wrote: post #9

Want to be free to have a random part-time gig you can pick up whenever you want? Nope, do-gooders are going to do-good you into a wage slave job like everyone else.

Yes this lawsuit was about outlawing gig work. My partners band will now have to be employees to play shows.

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

#197

Post by dsl »

jeffbee wrote: post #80
mayneack wrote: post #58

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's surely what they're doing. Of course, they probably chose a bad time for this. If those customers are social distancing, probably fewer of them will be inconvenienced than before. I share one car with two people, so used uber a lot pre-pandemic, but haven't needed one at all since March.

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.

No, it isn't. If you look at Uber's latest earnings report, in Q2 Uber Eats did more adjusted net revenue than rides did pre-COVID.

Your 20 min pick up time is because drivers don't want to accept the fares. Both for health and earnings reasons.

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

#198

Post by chrisco255 »

function_seven wrote: post #129
ianleeclark wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I lived through this in Austin. It's happening again.

Doesn't Austin have a local rideshare service that's popular? I thought I remembered them filling the void created when Uber left.

There were 2 or 3, but they weren't even half as good as either Lyft or Uber. The rides were more expensive and took longer to route for pick up.

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

#199

Post by ak217 »

vkou wrote: post #185
macspoofing wrote: post #178

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and systems to adhere to this law - which takes time.

It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.

AB5 has not achieved its intended effect and has had a number of unintended consequences, including collateral damage in industries such as freelance journalism and other contract jobs where "full-time" employment results in the employer going bankrupt. Being familiar with some of these industries, I estimate that AB5 has led to a net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement in CA, again without achieving its stated aims. As an example, AB5 further stresses small local newspapers/news sites, which are a key vehicle for public accountability and civic engagement.

A likely outcome now is that Uber/Lyft will carve out an exemption for taxi drivers (like a few other industries with effective lobbying operations have already done) while distressed small employers continue to suffer from AB5's effects.

I think it's quite fair to call AB5 a bad law.

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

#200

Post by jquery »

sneak wrote: post #177
ghaff wrote: post #43

Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement

Isn’t that democracy working as intended? If the law is there and they can’t operate within it, shutting down is the legal thing to do.

That’s the rule of law working as intended. I don’t remember voting to shut Uber down, despite my representatives trying to do so again and again over the years because Uber exposed their corruption and incompetence.
Post reply on HN