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

671–680 of 887 posts

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

#671

Post by valuearb »

Slartie wrote: post #649
remote_phone wrote: post #596

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even taxis claim their drivers as contractors.

An individual taxi driver owning a cab, a license if necessary, paying for his insurance and getting the money from his passengers is an individual contractor, yes. It's just that he contracts with the individual riders, not any higher-up monopolistic business entity that sets arbitrary business-driven rules that all taxi drivers have to follow.

Very few drivers own their cars (or more importantly their monopoly medallion). Those are owned by investors like the presidents former lawyer, Michael Cohen.

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2018/08/23/tax...

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

#672

Post by valuearb »

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #554
valuearb wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a horrible law. What if it’s a female driver and a sketchy rider? Or worse, her abusive ex?

I thought we were all about equality? Are we now not about equality? I can't keep up. And if a woman for some sexist reason can refuse a fare, why can't a man refuse a fare if, e.g., he does not like the destination area because it is riddled with crime and he is exponentially more likely to be robbed?

Of course all drivers should be able to refuse fares and refuse to pickup in specific neighborhoods.

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

#673

Post by bhupy »

canada_dry wrote: post #628
deminature wrote: post #423

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second I can see Uber desperately looking for non-obvious applications for its core software to strengthen its argument. Suggestions?

Uber already re-uses this type of supply/demand matching platform for Uber Freight[1] to match shippers with "haulers".

They also have a vertical agnostic "Uber Works"[2] that lets contract workers find jobs, sort of like Fiverr or TaskRabbit.

They also partnered with the Thames Clipper to allow passengers to book tickets on the ferry in London[3]. You'd have a hard time arguing that the Thames Clipper staff would be considered Uber employees, even under the AB-5 test.

[1] https://www.uber.com/us/en/freight/

[2] https://www.uber.com/blog/chicago/uberworks/

[3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uber-boat-lo...

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

#674

Post by mlrtime »

root_axis wrote: post #633
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #572

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That is quite an abusive mentality to have. You would force someone to expose themselves to danger and the risk of violence and even death just so you could feel virtuous about yourself, while surely not at all exposing yourself to the same dangers you prescribe and force on others? It's really a rather twisted mentality to have; like typical aristocratic supremacist types that demand the disposable peasants serve th…

I don't get the aristocratic supremacist thing, the person hailing the ride is the one who is coming from or going to the "dangerous" area, clearly they are not a beneficiary of the aristocracy.

Why should a driver put themselves at risk? Especially without risk adjusted compensation.

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

#675

Post by ekianjo »

ac29 wrote: post #138
ekianjo wrote: post #83

> "What worker doesn't want to have access to paid sick leave?" Becerra said. "What worker doesn't want to have unemployment insurance at a time of Covid-19 crisis? What worker doesn't want to know that they'll get paid for overtime if they work 60 hours in a week or 12 hours in a day?" Since when are we reasoning about workers starting from what they want? If we go by that reasoning, "What worker does not want to be…

> Increase the costs of running the service, and you don't have work anymore. This hasn't been found to be the case when increasing the minimum wage, though.

> This hasn't been found to be the case when increasing the minimum wage, though.

Then by all means let's increase the minimum wage to 100 USD/hour, so that everyone will be happy and there will be no effect on the economy.

Are you sure about your claim?

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

#676

Post by liability »

core-questions wrote: post #571
smsm42 wrote: post #526

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If the part of the city is unsafe (as some parts of some major cities are frequently nowdays) to the point the driver risks being assaulted by a mob, dragged out and beaten or shot, and their vehicle destroyed - I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to refuse such ride. No ride worth your life, and unless you're paying 1000x the Uber rates, no ride is worth your car ruined.

Amazing that you're downvoted. Are HN posters really so sheltered that they don't know that this is a reality in many major American cities? I'm sure it's in areas they never visit, for totally unspecified reasons, but it's real. There are areas (e.g. in Camden NJ) where the police will tell you to not stop your car for any reason, just get through and get out. Pretending this isn't a reality or that it doesn't have…

I can tell you from personal experience, much of the reporting on chaz/chop has been exaggerated. While any given incident may be accurately reported, the media selects the worst incidents/angles then tries to pass that off as the standard experience.

The incidents reported are reality, however that doesn't mean the picture being painted isn't misleading.

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

#677

Post by mlrtime »

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.

DeBlasio is a clown and is ruining NYC.

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

#678

Post by lhh »

slipheen wrote: post #641
lhh wrote: post #638

> Becerra said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that he was unconcerned about the potential for Uber to leave the state as a result of the order. “Any business model that relies on shortchanging workers in order to make it probably shouldn’t be anywhere, whether California or otherwise,” he said. This type of attitude drives me crazy. These companies have paid billions of dollars to drivers, who voluntarily decided…

That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're…

> That's a really harmful outlook.

Harmful how, exactly?

I don't agree that the government should be deeming any type of agreement that adults voluntarily enter into as illegal. The notion that the government should be doing that strikes me as very condescending to the governed. Shouldn't people be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives? If someone is in a position where a $3/hr job is their best option, I think it's a pretty bad idea to then remove that option from them too.

> You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're big enough.

Seems to me that the opposite dynamic is at play here - these companies have become large enough to be the target of legislation.

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

#679

Post by valuearb »

klipt wrote: post #520
valuearb wrote: post #499

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s a horrible law. What if it’s a female driver and a sketchy rider? Or worse, her abusive ex?

If you let drivers decide whom to pick up, you end up with situations like black men never being picked up. https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.washingtonpost.com/postever...

That’s an article about the unwanted side effects of monopolistic tax cabs.

In a competitive market, this should happen much less. And the big innovation of ride sharing is it gives a valuable tool to drivers judge potential fares with besides their appearance or pickup location, specifically their rating.

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

#680

Post by twblalock »

slipheen wrote: post #641
lhh wrote: post #638

> Becerra said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that he was unconcerned about the potential for Uber to leave the state as a result of the order. “Any business model that relies on shortchanging workers in order to make it probably shouldn’t be anywhere, whether California or otherwise,” he said. This type of attitude drives me crazy. These companies have paid billions of dollars to drivers, who voluntarily decided…

That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're…

There is a floor to what people will be willing to accept -- if they can make more money from unemployment benefits than from working, they won't work.

Many Uber drivers are facing a choice between gig work and unemployment, and they chose gig work. If they had better options they would have chosen those instead, but they didn't. Clearly they prefer gig work to unemployment, and for most of them, those were the only two options.

Taking away gig work does not help gig workers. It removes the only option they had, and it forces them into unemployment. If that is the outcome they wanted, they would have chosen it already.

Post reply on HN