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

371–380 of 887 posts

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

#371

Post by darkwizard42 »

skapadia wrote: post #118

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.…

Uber (& Lyft) run extensive background checks at the state and federal level and are regulated to do so at the city, county, state level depending on the city. It's actually already a pretty expensive process and overall the company eats the cost for all of it (as one should expect).

For the number of drivers who are 40+ hours, thats Overall it's a mess, AB5 is a poorly written law :/

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

#372

Post by JSavageOne »

free_rms wrote: post #330
Grimm1 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

This argument has been made against every single expansion of worker rights in American history. When the dust settles, business carries on just fine while we get to enjoy things like a 40-hour week with overtime pay if the employer needs more, safety regulations, sick leave, etc.

> overtime pay

I'm going to guess most of us here on HN aren't getting any overtime pay

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

#373

Post by snowwrestler »

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"

A better example is probably the minimum wage, which also imposes government-mandated conditions on employment, applies to adults, and is countered by very similar arguments: it harms economic activity, and interferes with the ability of adult citizens to enter into whatever employment agreement they desire.

Whether the minimum wage actually harms economic activity does not have a clear answer; you can find studies all over the place in terms of conclusions.

And the supporting argument--that businesses should be regulated because they have asymmetrical power when hiring--is also used to justify other policies that HN folks tend to like, such as the California prohibition on non-compete agreements.

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

#374

Post by dangus »

Grimm1 wrote: post #352
dangus wrote: post #340

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can set your own hours with W2 employment. There’s nothing that says that Uber can’t give their W2 employees that flexibility. They could hire W2 employees right through the app, there is no technical barrier. Uber just wants to avoid their fair share of payroll taxes and employee health regulations that their upper caste office employees enjoy. They want to provide benefits to some employees but not all, purely…

You're only partially correct I as a salaried employee could technically set my own hours but If my employer pinged me at 2am and asked me to do something and I said no I wouldn't have recourse if they fired me. If I'm a contractor I can set those hours in the agreement with the company with legal backing if I then refuse to work during hours I've said I do not wish to work. But you're debating regulation in general…

I’m confused, what does Uber have to do with salaried employees?

This is the workflow.

1. Gig worker applies for Uber in the app.

2. Uber approves the employee as a W2 employee. Their schedule is...whatever they want. They never get scheduled for a shift. They never get “fired” unless they do something that would get them get kicked off the platform just as it works today.

3. When the driver starts the driving mode, they start the clock on their shift. This counts the number of hours for the purposes of healthcare and other benefit requirements. Perhaps if they deny a ride request, the clock stops or considers the previous ride to be the end time.

There is no legal requirement for an employer to fire a W2 employee over being unwilling to work a shift. There’s no legal requirement for a W2 employer to set a predetermined schedule.

What is the problem here, can you explain?

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

#375

Post by rrrazdan »

Well this just sucks. As a frequent SF visitor, Uber/Lyft used to be my primary way of moving around. I don't drive.

I also don't see who benefits from this. You had a well functioning service for the users that will be disrupted. You had a flexible way to earn for drivers that will be disrupted.

I chat with drivers a lot (to practise my English) and lots of drivers really like chatting too ( A lot of them were recent immigrants as well and perhaps like to practise their English with a non native). Many drivers were doing this as a part time thing. Or doing this before they went on to better things. One for example was studying Architecture. I have even had a Porsche pick me up and the driver just wanted to get out of his house.

A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense.

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

#376

Post by ramshorns »

twblalock wrote: post #279
vkou wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 m…

Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?

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

#377

Post by jccooper »

kirykl wrote: post #237
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

Those will probably be rolled back as result of the legal battle. With employees, you don't have to do any of that.

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

#378

Post by School-Cotton »

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.

OK, if that's true, then what's the problem with them stopping business in California? According to your logic, everyone wins.

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

#379

Post by gamblor956 »

rrrrrrrrrrrryan wrote: post #349
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.

There obviously needs to be a new class of workers. I've seen the phrase "Dependent Contractor" tossed around here on HN and I think it'd do quite well. If you work for an employer who sets your hours, pay, etc., you'd still be designated as an employee. If you sell your labor to multiple entities, and/or you set your own pay rate, you're an independent contractor. If you do not set your pay rate, you'd be a "depende…

A "dependent contractor" is literally what an employee is, except that in your scenario it would just be an employee without the decades of hard-fought labor protections like bathroom breaks.

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

#380

Post by nwallin »

justinzollars wrote: post #164
nwallin wrote: post #158

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Lyft is also a target of this injunction. It isn't clear yet that Lyft will begin complying with AB5.

Margins are already negative. How can they possibly afford to?

I don't know.

Financials aside, I don't even know what this is supposed to look like from an organizational perspective. IMHO the biggest problem Lyft and Uber are facing is not an increase in cost, it's a reduction in flexibility.

You can't afford to pay extra people to sit there on the clock if there's no demand. (plenty of drivers turn the app on in their house and go about their regular day, maybe only getting 1-2 rides in between eight hours of playing video games) Do you forcibly clock people out?

You now have to be really careful about the 40 hours. You definitely can't afford to pay people overtime, and for all intents and purposes you can't allow people to work enough hours to constitute "full time" either. So if someone hits 35 hours or whatever, you have to clock them out.

How do you handle drivers who turn down lots of rides? You have to fire them I suppose?

This is not a problem you can just throw money at. I'm glad I'm not a product manager at Lyft/Uber right now. I'm not convinced it's possible to operate in California anymore.

Post reply on HN