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

281–290 of 887 posts

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

#281

Post by dragonwriter »

ghaff wrote: post #130
aqme28 wrote: post #91

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber isn't the only company who provides this commodity. If Lyft continues to operate, that certain class of urbanites will switch to Lyft before they complain to their reps.

Lyft certainly has the option to comply with the law and jack up their prices to compensate. There are probably fewer "frivolous" reasons to use ride-sharing at the moment anyway and a decent percentage of that class of urbanites aren't all that price sensitive.

> Lyft certainly has the option to comply with the law and jack up their prices to compensate

They also have the option, if they can find the financing, to comply with the law and burn money building an entrnched user base before jacking up prices to compensate.

I mean, even on the old model, that's how Uber got itself entrenched and hard to displace.

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

#282

Post by twblalock »

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"

Not really. AB5 hurts a lot of small businesses that weren't doing anything wrong. It's a classic case of unintended consequences.

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

#283

Post by Grimm1 »

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"

Except these are adults of sound mind willingly entering into the agreement. I absolutely loathe these types of arguments first because its false equivalence and secondly, because why do you know better than the Freelance Journalists who were hurt by this? Stop nannying.

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

#284

Post by gamblor956 »

jquery wrote: post #214
thewebcount wrote: post #193

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities . Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn ca…

I don't think you actually understand how fast food restaurants operate.

You actually can take several months off from McDonalds if you want and come back. Many employees do, especially the ones that work at college-town McDs...

Moreover, you can switch shifts at will, so long as you find another employee to exchange shifts with.

Pretty much the difference between fast food and Uber is that fast food is a minimum 8 hour shift and Uber can be as short as a 1 minute ride.

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

#285

Post by steffan »

gamblor956 wrote: post #167
santoshalper wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

True, but to be fair, that is a huge freedom, and one many people want or need. Yes, driving Uber is a shit job, but for many people it is far better or more compatible with their lives than waiting tables or working retail, which are the realistic alternatives for most Uber drivers.

People waiting tables or working retail make more than Uber drivers on an hourly basis...

Yet Uber was able to attract people who voluntarily chose to participate in their business model. There must have been something compelling about it.

The simplest explanation is that for whatever reason, those better-paying retail or food service jobs were not an option.

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

#286

Post by jimbokun »

tanilama wrote: post #180
gamblor956 wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber Eats has a number of competitors for food delivery services in CA. And since UberEats's drivers already tend to work for their competitors as well, the effect of Uber pulling out of the market probably wouldn't even be noticeable.

It is not like the competitors is going to have a good time dealing with this any easier. And they have even lesser cash to burn. The delivery price is already a significant chunk of the order, and if the price goes up significantly, I guess the option for people is to stop ordering food and cook at home. Which is good and probably saving me a lot of money anyway once I get used to it, but I don't think drivers will…

> I guess the option for people is to stop ordering food and cook at home.

Or the restaurants can just go back to hiring their own delivery drivers and taking orders over the phone.

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

#287

Post by twblalock »

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.

> That seems like the definition of capriciously applying laws, and would seem like it would create more problems arising from unequal application of laws.

AB5 is a case of capriciously writing laws. The state wrote a new law that was specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it.

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

#288

Post by nrmitchi »

manfredo wrote: post #203
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirements for contractors are (known as the ABC test)[0][1]: 1) Part A of the test requires that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and 2) Part B of the test requires that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s busines…

1) Uber drivers are totally at liberty to set their own hours, and drive in location of their choice ( destination are chosen by Uber, but a worker is at liberty to drive in San Jose one day and San Francisco the next). 2) The drivers are outside of Uber's business. Uber is a software and technology company, not a taxi service. 3) Drivers are independent workers, in business for themselves. 4) Same as above. With the…

> 2) The drivers are outside of Uber's business. Uber is a software and technology company, not a taxi service.

This seems like _quite_ a stretch. With that logic you can make any modern company a "technology business" or a "logistics business", and suddenly everything a company does is outside of their core business.

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

#289

Post by teachrdan »

typest wrote: post #120
lghh wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

It would likely coerce poor Americans into selling their kidneys to the wealthy so that they could pay off their student debt. Is coercing the poor to sell their organs to the rich a net benefit for society?

For anyone who thinks this is hyperbole, ProPublica has done excellent work investigating how lenders use the court system to imprison Americans who can't pay back their debts: https://www.google.com/search?q=propublica+debtors+prisons

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

#290

Post by TuringNYC »

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 current solution is also a tax, just in a different form.

A broader solution would not be one-more-tax, it would be net-zero. The current proposal is also a tax -- it forces a cost on Uber (which will be passed onto customers) to solve the problem on a micro level. Whether I pay an "Uber regulatory recovery fee" or some other tax is all net zero. But I'd love to see a broader solution that solves the problem more universally (if not at the federal level, then at least at the state level).

Post reply on HN