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

#301

Post by hobofan » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:56 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…

Since this is the result of a court case, where they should have been complying with the law already, no, there is no transition period.

The transition period was the ~2 months between AB5 being signed and it coming into effect (+ the year leading up to it, which they could've also used to prepare).

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

#302

Post by dnautics » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

cool_dude85 wrote: post #262

jquery wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Luckily for Uber, if they don't want their new employees working for Lyft while they're on the clock, they can make it a condition of employment. Bingo bongo, problem solved.

yeah, that's fine IF the drivers have the option to choose, but the judgement says that the drivers MUST be classified as employees.

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

#303

Post by learc83 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #198

function_seven wrote: post #129

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Were the rides more expensive because they weren’t using unsustainable VC money to subsidize fares?

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

#304

Post by thatguy0900 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:57 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #287

runako wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Isn't every law specifically intended to put a group of people in noncompliance with it? What's the point of making a law if everyone was going to comply regardless?

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

#305

Post by defterGoose » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:58 PM UTC

twblalock wrote: post #282

ianmobbs wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.

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

#306

Post by ceejayoz » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

steffan wrote: post #285

gamblor956 wrote: post #167

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> There must have been something compelling about it.

One of those compelling things is that it seems like a better deal. Uber relies on you not doing the expenses math on things like vehicle depreciation, car insurance, unpaid time spent waiting for fares, etc.

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

#307

Post by gamblor956 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

jamiequint wrote: post #266

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…

> in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Wrong > Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. Wrong ( https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city... and even more since then with Uber X expansion)

Back in 2014...when they were using billions of VC funding to undercut taxi rates.

Uber hasn't been that cheap in years. Uber is now roughly the same or more than using a taxi in LA, and that doesn't even include Uber's original and more expensive black car service.

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

#308

Post by zepto » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

kirykl wrote: post #261

iooi wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How is removing upfront pricing friendly to customers? It's horrible UX.

getting charged exactly for what you use is great

Right, and removing upfront pricing removes that.

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

#309

Post by rfw300 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #208

criddell wrote: post #121

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Change want to deserve and I think you'll get the idea. A service that can only exist if workers are denied basics probably shouldn't exist.

Uber doesn’t “deny basics” any more than I deny basics when I hire a plumber and pay the plumber in cash instead of hiring them on as an employee. EDIT: Uber isn’t the “plumbing company”. It’s a marketplace for transportation solutions, and accepts job offers and then sends the jobs out to contractors who have indicated they are interested in accepting such jobs. This isn’t just a “polite fiction”, this is fundamenta…

You’ve got the wrong side of the analogy. You hiring the plumber makes you the rider in this analogy. The plumbing company is Uber. AB5 says that the plumbing company can’t just hire the plumber as an independent contractor every time your toilet breaks and send them to you to avoid giving them employee benefits.

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

#310

Post by nrmitchi » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 5:59 PM UTC

carljv wrote: post #67

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…

This. During the period where Uber and Lyft weren't operating in Austin, there were several local alternatives that popped up right away, worked just fine, operated within local regs, and that I honestly preferred service-wise. If Austin can do it, I bet California can.

Yes, but after that Uber and Lyft aggressively drove those local alternatives out of business by giving effectively-free rides for the next couple of months. The majority of my rides around the downtown area during that time cost me _maybe_ a few dollars out of pocket. That is if I even paid at all, vs using "credit" which seemed to be arbitrarily added to my account.

It is illogical to start up a new business when it is more than likely that the previous incumbent will just come back in X number of months and operate at a loss until you're gone.