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

401–410 of 887 posts

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

#401

Post by jedberg »

SilasX wrote: post #313
nilsbunger wrote: post #223

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is about pushing voters to approve Prop 22 in november. If Lyft follows suit, it will definitely put a spotlight on the issue!

Hadn't heard of that and had to look it up. To save anyone else the time, apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. Here's the Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

> which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions

This is why the proposition system in CA is screwed. It's no longer being used in good faith. Almost every proposition is a law written by a lobbyist group who couldn't find a sponsor in the legislature so they take it directly to the people.

It truly highlights the folly of direct democracy.

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

#402

Post by zjaffee »

twblalock wrote: post #315
thatguy0900 wrote: post #304

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The power to create laws is not supposed to be used as weapon. It clearly was in this case. AB5 was written in bad faith with the goal of hurting specific companies, not with the goal of writing a sensible law that sets a framework for how businesses ought to operate. They wrote it in such a hurry that it unintentionally hurt a bunch of other people and small businesses. That's not how laws are supposed to work.

Laws aren't allowed to be created as weapons, under US constitutional law this is often referred to as illegal taking, if AB5 was illegal taking these companies would've been able to get the law halted which it seems to have not happened.

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

#403

Post by thu2111 »

justapassenger wrote: post #387
chucknthem wrote: post #264

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a…

Goal of the government isn't to make marketplaces efficient. Regulations focuses more on making them "fair", "safe" and "non-discriminator". Note - definition of those is very political and open to huge interpretations. Gig-working enjoyed unregulated market, which is great for efficiency. But law is catching up now. Note - I'm not arguing that laws passed by government are correct. But they're in line with what gove…

But was Uber unfair and unsafe? That's very hard to argue, especially when compared to the prior reality rather than a theoretical perfection.

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

#404

Post by dang »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #44
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.

Tragically, the state has also taken away my right to sell my kidneys for money, just trying to "protect" me. 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?

We detached this subthread from https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24133102.

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

#405

Post by Abishek_Muthian »

COVID-19 situation has clearly showcased the vulnerability of the drivers regardless of the platforms, there's no merit for the drivers to be treated as contractors as they are algorithmically made to work beyond office hours to be eligible for the incentives.

I hope other states and countries follow the suit if California forces Uber to treat the drivers as employees.

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

#406

Post by vadym909 »

Great- I think this will bring forth the root cause of the problem which is employer tied benefits and employer tied taxes. Right now there are entire business models based on avoiding taxes and benefits.

You can have protections like min wage, sick leave, etc and still make it really simple os that evvery individual pays the entire tax (employer and employee payroll taxes) for every dollar they earn. It can be scaled based on annual amounts just like they are now. It'll be transparent and everyone will pay it.

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

#407

Post by jedberg »

rramdin wrote: post #347
donatj wrote: post #292

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I as a user would far rather know exactly what I'm getting charged ahead of time, on basically everything, even if it were more. I'm 100% certain most people would.

I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.

The upfront pricing was just an estimate of the total based on previous data. I much prefer it, because it incentivizes the driver to take the most efficient route, since they get paid based on arrival and not the way they go.

In the pay as you go system, you are at the mercy of the driver, and they are actually incentivized to take a longer route.

I've definitely had drivers take longer routes under the pay as you go system. I would complain to Uber and they would refund the money, but it was still a hassle to complain.

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

#408

Post by jayd16 »

SpicyLemonZest wrote: post #171
jayd16 wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber isn't special. If they can't exist without exploiting workers then they shouldn't exist. The void will get filled by something better.

Then shouldn't you also be applauding the CEO for his decision? I hate to present this kind of gotcha, but I'm honestly confused on how to reconcile "Uber shouldn't exist in California" and "Uber shouldn't announce it's shutting down in California".

I don't personally have an opinion of the CEO but I think most people would have preferred preventing this situation, making it right, or shutting down in a way that doesn't leave users and drivers without much warning. Instead we see this posturing threat.

I was just pointing out that the market exists and there's money to be made. Something will fill the void if Uber leaves.

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

#409

Post by SilasX »

CountSessine wrote: post #382
SilasX wrote: post #313

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Hadn't heard of that and had to look it up. To save anyone else the time, apparently Prop 22 is a one that (as best I understand) would reverse AB 5 specifically for app-based driving apps, which seems really narrow and preferential, even by the standards of CA propositions. Here's the Ballotpedia: https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

It just adds uber drivers to the already ridiculous list of exempt jobs in this stupid law, like doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, hairstylists, architects, professional engineers, private investigators, psychologists, veterinarians, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, commercial fishermen,...

Oh, just to clarify (for both you and the sibling[1]), I do not think AB5 was some masterpiece of public policy, and some of its distinctions are really kafkaesque[2]. My uneasiness is more that, you know, if you're gonna do a proposition to fix it, wouldn't you want a more general fix, especially given all the professions it's micromanaging?

Like, something better than "okay app-based drivers don't have to deal with that mess"? Perhaps a simpler, general rule for when contractor rules wouldn't apply? Though I guess the politics of it mean that you do have to be super narrow like this just to get it passed.

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24134978

[2] ctrl-f for "35" https://slatestarcodex.com/2019/12/02/links-12-19/

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

#410

Post by zjaffee »

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.

We need to end employer based health insurance, every other major problem is easily solvable within the gig worker framework (you can have people accrue PTO and other standard benefits based on hours worked).
Post reply on HN