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

501–510 of 887 posts

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

#501

Post by manfredo »

hundchenkatze wrote: post #430
manfredo wrote: post #203

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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. What good is all that software and technology if a driver doesn't pick me up when I request a ride. Uber very much depends on drivers to perform their core function.

Absolutely. This actually a type of relationship that many businesses have. Most hair salons don't actually employ any hairdresser. They employ the people that clean the shop, and run the register. But the hairdresser themselves are independent and lease a stall in the shop. The salon very much depends on the independent hairdressers to function.

Pointing out that Uber would cease to function without independent contractors is entirely correct, but does nothing to demonstrate that that these workers should be categorized as employees rather than contractors.

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

#502

Post by Dylan16807 »

SilasX wrote: post #409
CountSessine wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Yes, you'd want a better general purpose fix.

But solid general purpose laws are the responsibility of the lawmakers. They're the reason there's a crazy exception list, and they deserve the blame for it. The proposition doesn't make it meaningfully worse.

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

#503

Post by sneak »

XMPPwocky wrote: post #243
sneak wrote: post #188

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I have yet to hear a single reasonable, moral argument for anyone having a higher authority over what happens to your kidneys than you yourself.

It's a commitment device. Sometimes it can be beneficial to you to remove your own options- if you can prove to others that you've removed that option. For example, look at the prisoners' dilemma. If both prisoners were able to commit, ahead of time, to not defect, this would be better for both prisoners . By removing a choice, and proving you have removed that choice, you actually get a better outcome than what woul…

> It can be beneficial to the worker to, say, prevent themselves from ever agreeing to work in unsafe conditions, even if the boss offers extra pay for it (which the worker might want).

Who better to decide if that is beneficial or not than the worker themself?

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

#504

Post by newfriend »

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #355
jamiequint wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.

And yet you gave it a response. You just gave a totally pointless and worthless one.

> The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a [longer than one word] response.

No one likes a pedant.

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

#505

Post by AnthonyMouse »

jasode wrote: post #459
mrfusion wrote: post #418

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

>Why can’t uber just position itself as a lead generation service for drivers? A rideshare company could theoretically be just a pure lead generation platform but the economic forces preventing that is the nature of multi-sided platforms : The drivers don't hold all the leverage. The other actor in the multi-sided platform are passengers/customers who _pay the money_. If Uber was only lead gen, they would be outcompe…

That's assuming the economic cost of not having those things exceeds the economic cost of classifying drivers as employees.

Or that those services couldn't still be offered by independent companies, so the customer still has them but the drivers are still contractors because they're not employees of the lead gen company nor the driver ratings company nor the payment app company. It merely so happens that the lead gen company shows the customer whether the driver accepts that payment app and is listed with that rating service.

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

#506

Post by coffeemug »

Barrin92 wrote: post #415
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…

> also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.

It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.

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

#507

Post by doopy-loopy2 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #415
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…

> also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.

Yeah, now they will shut down.

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

#508

Post by raducu »

kingnothing wrote: post #439
ProAm wrote: post #419

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. This is exactly what being a contractor is though. Accepting contract work you'd like, and turning down work you don't. Otherwise you are an employee.

In the case of rideshare, I imagine the driver contract agreement has that stipulation in it. You'll agree to pick up a passenger taking a trip to an unknown destination with up to N hours of travel time. If you don't like the terms of the contract, you don't have to work for that company.

How is that different from a regular taxi driver?

Where's the "sharing" in the "ride share" if the driver is forced to take any ride?

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

#509

Post by valuearb »

Slartie wrote: post #493
kingnothing wrote: post #367

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I used to work at Uber. I'll focus on one particular point: allowing drivers to see where riders are going before they accept the trip. Uber, at least when I worked there, was heavily against this functionality as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. That feature is bad for the overall ec…

I don't know whether it's the same in the US, but here in Germany, the good old taxis have a special obligation that disallows them to decline a rider based on where he wants to go, as long as that target is within the geographic area for which a particular taxi is licensed. The idea is that taxis are part of public transport and thus should have a certain reliability for customers, regardless of how lucrative a part…

The law in Germany is a fantasy. Drivers still can and claim a break down, bad cell service, etc.

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

#510

Post by baron_harkonnen »

qeternity wrote: post #496
SrslyJosh wrote: post #427

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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…

So Uber driver’s are too dumb to realize they’re being paid unfair wages? Why would anyone work for such a company if they have better alternatives?

And if they don't have better alternatives?

Sometimes I actively look forward to the tech job market collapsing.

Post reply on HN