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

461–470 of 887 posts

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

#461

Post by CountSessine »

n4r9 wrote: post #397
CountSessine wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.

It is murkier, but in many cases there's a strong argument that employment is exploitative whilst still consensual.

Given that there's broad agreement on what consent is and very little agreement on what exploitation is, that's always going to be contentious.

Maybe with a labour monopsyny? I guess we don't want the big mining company in the small town to run down it's workers. Whenever I think of the best argument for unions, I think of small towns subjugated by mining companies or mills. But a ride-share company with competition in a big city?

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

#462

Post by ars »

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…

> Just ask the city of Austin.

https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/20...

"RideAustin shuts down operations"

"Other ride-hailing companies that entered the market in 2016 have also since suspended their operations in Austin. Fasten ceased its U.S. operations in 2018, and Fare closed in June 2017."

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

#463

Post by ardy42 »

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…

> The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws....

> 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.

You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed.

Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.

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

#464

Post by gamblor956 »

ericmay wrote: post #270
treis wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform. More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 mult…

If you want to take this analogy further, if that kid has the opportunity to do something else for more money and keeps declining to cut my grass for $10 I'll ban her from cutting it and find someone else. There's also no negotiating with me. It's $10, take it or leave it! (If they leave it, like they don't accept the fare, then so be it my grass doesn't get cut and Uber doesn't make money). > More broadly, you can't…

Based on your last paragraph, you seem to be conflating you paying someone with you getting paid. If your thoughts on this subject are that confused, it makes sense that you're not understanding the issues here.

AB5 is about the relationship between the worker and the person paying them. Fundamentally, yes, it's all just compensation for work performed, but the law is all about the specific details of the work relationship not the zoomed-out overbroad simplification you've reduced it to, because at that level everybody is the same as everyone else and if everybody is the same why bother with any laws at all?

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

#465

Post by novok »

adrianN wrote: post #454
rubatuga wrote: post #446

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is horrible for customers, the worst part is when drivers don't want to pick you up.

Here in Germany proper Taxis have to pick you up (as far as I know, I almost never need one). That's apparently the main reason they offer why they should be protected against services like Uber.

Or you could just extend the law to the ride sharing services...

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

#466

Post by bgorman »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #427
rrrazdan wrote: post #375

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 recen…

> 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. Uber ignored local laws to force their way into the taxi market without having to compete on the same terms as existing businesses. Uber also classified their drivers as contractors to avoid having to pay fair wages and provide benefits. They've been criticized for this…

Drivers aren't forced to drive for Uber. Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so.

What makes something a fair wage?

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

#467

Post by novok »

deminature wrote: post #423
Will_Do wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The mo…

So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon?

If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?

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

#468

Post by gamblor956 »

refurb wrote: post #256
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…

That’s a disingenuous take on it. CA could fix it’s own health system to cover everyone. Yes, there are federal rules they’d need to work around, but they could do it. https://www.nytimes.com/2018/05/25/business/economy/californ... Basically, one someone tallied up the cost, it ran out of steam. Just like in VT.

It's pretty clear that the opinionists didn't actually read the studies they linked to, since at least one of the studies they cited to claim that single-payer would increase costs actually said single-payer would do the opposite, to the tune of a more than 8% reduction of 2017 amounts, which was before a number of health insurers jacked up their premiums just because they could. https://www.peri.umass.edu/media/k2/attachments/PollinZetZal...

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

#469

Post by runako »

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.

> specifically intended to put Uber and similar companies in a state of noncompliance with it.

It would be capricious if it were more targeted, written without ample public discussion, or if the affected firms had no ability to continue operations. As I understand it, none of that is true of AB5. For example, the affected companies are free to use contingent workforces in a manner similar to the other many thousands of companies that were not affected.

I'm far from an expert on the law, but wouldn't a fair read also be that those companies were operating in noncompliance with community norms (as expressed by voter preferences), and so lawmakers plugged a regulatory hole?

In that way, could it be seen as similar to a body writing a new law (say) prohibiting people from carrying long rifles into grocery stores? Would that also be a law written capriciously?

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

#470

Post by microcolonel »

mrfusion wrote: post #418
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…

Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers?

This is literally their positioning, California's lawmakers just hate them.

What these changes amount to is removing qualification from the leads, which to me seems like the sort of anti-consumer outcome the law should not produce.

Post reply on HN