Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California • Hacker News Board

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

#271

Post by dragonwriter » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

hangonhn wrote: post #218

Aunche wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, even if they wanted to follow the law in good faith, they'd need to completely restructure their business. Until they can do so, they'd need to be shut down.

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? Or does it have to be done ASAP? The latter seems sort of infeasible. Curious about how these judgments are resolved. My feeling is that judges and the government aren't out there to hurt anyone since compliance is t…

> Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"?

No, except perhaps as a settlement offer, but because the law gives specific rights to workers which State executive officials don't have the authority to bargain away, I don't know that would be effective except against any fines, etc, that might be due to the State; individual workers would still have claims until they complied.

> Or does it have to be done ASAP?

It has to be done from the effective date of the legal requirement to avoid legal penalties; for the preliminary injunction, it has to be done on whatever timeline (which may be immediately) is specified in the injunction once any stay on the injunction ends (this one was stayed for 10 days during which Uber is attempting to appeal to have it lifted) to avoid contempt penalties for defying the injunction.

> The latter seems sort of infeasible.

Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law.

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

#272

Post by TheMagicHorsey » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:44 PM UTC

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

That’s silly.

They are literally forbidden by the court to operate as they have been. They need to make their drivers into employees.

You think they can do that overnight?

And why do you think it’s economically feasible to do so even if they could do it? Do you think users have an appetite to pay 2X or more per ride?

It’s possible the regulatory burden makes this an infeasible business. That’s certainly the case with a lot of other economic activity such as private city buses, affordable daycare, etc.

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

#273

Post by zaroth » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:45 PM UTC

ianmobbs wrote: post #255

ak217 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 achievin…

This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"

It’s not akin to that at all, because child labor laws concern minors and this law concerns adults.

Unless your argument is that there’s nothing an adult should be able to do that a child shouldn’t be able to do?

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

#274

Post by ericmay » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

dehrmann wrote: post #135

bpfrh wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

The genius of early (Uber X) Uber was that it launched a service that was illegal, but got away with it and paved a road to legality because it was significantly better than its competitors, liked by customer (read: voters), and displaced competitors no one had much sympathy for.

Sounds like democracy to me. There's more than one way of voting, and often times laws are made without really much public consent or awareness.

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

#275

Post by NationalPark » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #207

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.

ACA (in particular the forced care provision) was extremely unpopular and it led to the formation of the Tea Party, which swept the House in 2010. There's many good reasons to avoid nationalized healthcare. Have you been to the post office or the DMV?

The ACA has always hovered around 50% favorability and 40% unfavorability nationally, so "extremely unpopular" isn't accurate. Additionally, support among voters for Medicare for all is about 70%.

The Tea Party predates the ACA and was more a general anti-Obama movement than specifically motivated by one policy.

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

#276

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #207

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.

ACA (in particular the forced care provision) was extremely unpopular and it led to the formation of the Tea Party, which swept the House in 2010. There's many good reasons to avoid nationalized healthcare. Have you been to the post office or the DMV?

A single-payer system isn't a state healthcare system.

It's a public-private healthcare system in which a single entity pays all healthcare providers for health services rendered.

Individual providers would still be free to negotiate their own rates with the single-payer entity.

Individual providers would still be free to provide concierge medical services or other non-covered medical services (for example, most plastic surgery).

Individual providers would still be free to distinguish themselves on the basis of patient service.

And with all due respect, the problem with the post office is that the GOP requires it to pay for decades of upfront expenses now rather than when those expenses are incurred, unlike a private business, and the GOP won't actually let the post office operate anything like a private business. If the post office could operate like a private company it would shut down every rural post office in America, since those are just money drains that detract from the profitable urban and suburban facilities. If the post office could operate like a government agency again (like it did before Reagan), it would run as smooth as butter.

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

#277

Post by jimbokun » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:46 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #232

hangonhn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? Or does it have to be done ASAP? The latter seems sort of infeasible. Curious about how these judgments are resolved. My feeling is that judges and the government aren't out there to hurt anyone since compliance is t…

Not a lawyer, but as a citizen why would we expect a company to be allowed to violate a law for an extended period of time after a court has ruled that the conduct is illegal? That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws.

Because it might be better for all stakeholders, employer, employees and customers?

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

#278

Post by danans » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #216

gamblor956 wrote: post #182

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system. However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all t…

Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?

The biggest factor encouraging Californians to move out of state is high cost of housing, not the higher taxes.

For example on a household income of $100,000 with members married filing jointly, California effective state income tax rate is about 3%, or in this case $3,000.

Moving to a zero state income tax state like Washington or Texas will only save you that much in state taxes but will probably save you a huge amount more in lower housing costs - for a common single-family home perhaps on the order of 20 to $30,000 a year.

If you want to place blame anywhere, place it on restrictive zoning laws that limit the construction of new housing, and on proposition 13 which has disincentivized the building of residential real estate in favor of commercial, and allowed untold numbers of properties to multiply and value over the decades without paying anything near an equivalent increase in property taxes.

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

#279

Post by twblalock » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:48 PM UTC

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.

The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if that was true, a new law would not have been needed.

The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.

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

#280

Post by rainyMammoth » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:49 PM UTC

And once again, Uber is trying to socialize the losses and privatize the profits. We should all be shocked by this company losing billions a quarter but still paying its execs and (initial) shareholders way above what they produce.

The difference here is that by having drivers as contractor, Uber is making us ALL pay social security, medicare etc for the drivers [1] .

Uber should fail as it has proven numerous time that its business model simply doesn't work at scale. I will say it once more but there was a good reason why taxis were expensive...

I find it embarrassing that so many urbanites, socialites, and other coastal elites got tricked into rooting for Uber's success by getting artificially cheap rides.

Also, Uber is losing billions each quarter with no clear view on ever being profitable. Why is that stock still so high?

[1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/12/16/is-uber-cheat...