Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California • Hacker News Board

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

#721

Post by Retric » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:24 PM UTC

novok wrote: post #467

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…

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?

The people absolutely required for Amazon to function are actual employees. Remove drivers and Uber’s business instantly shuts down literally that second, but Amazon can keep selling until their inventory runs out. Amazon.com sells inanimate objects or intellectual property which can’t be employees. Uber sells rides which require a physical person to preform them.

So, I really don’t understand what your trying to convey.

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

#722

Post by Barrin92 » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #677

Barrin92 wrote: post #415

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

That's a legitimate point of view but that in no way or case justified what Uber did. For context[1], when NYC passed legislation that would have adversely affected the business, they put a "de Blasio's Uber" button into the app encouraging people to contact the mayor's office, basically spamming the office with mail. And before you think that's because they're staunch believers of civic protest, as the article points out in China they did the opposite and discouraged drivers, as to not anger authorities.

A private company trying to sort of ddos the mayor with spam mail is ridiculous, regardless where you stand on the politics of the particular case.

[1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/uber-inje...

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

#723

Post by bsder » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:25 PM UTC

karzeem wrote: post #682

dtech wrote: post #442

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...

The taxi industry has existed for a long time with a lot of the regulations that people are trying to force onto Uber. But drivers flocked from taxis to Ubers as soon as that option became available. That suggests that at least for those who've opted into Uber, Uber is preferable. Reducing the availability of that option (which is what these rules will cause) is going to hurt them, because the fact that they're doing…

Rideshare was preferred for two reasons:

1) It was VASTLY cheaper due to VC cash subsidy attempting to become the single monopoly. That's not an "efficient market"--that's predatory--and eventually the cities will have to deal with the aftermath in the cab system when Uber/Lyft collapse.

2) My feedback could hit the driver directly--so the failure modes of cabs were prevented (not picking people up, taking too long to pick people up, not driving them where they want to go, taking stupid paths, etc.).

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

#724

Post by aslfksdfl » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:26 PM UTC

mlrtime wrote: post #665

aslfksdfl wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had Uber drivers pick me up and refuse to go to the part of the city I wanted to go to... complete pain in the ass (and also racist in this specific case). Uber offered me $5 for my trouble each time, which is... very Uber.

How is an area racist?

Not the area, the drivers.

Boston is incredibly segregated and in the area I live in is less than 10% white. It's not a coincidence that this is the only area in the city I've ever had trouble getting a ride to (roughly 200 total rides).

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

#725

Post by blueline » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:29 PM UTC

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #577

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…

I feel like this is an Uber-troll. I can already hear the rising crescendo of liberal screeching about "discrimination" by letting dirty peasant drivers pick their fares and set their rates, while also making the limousine … UberLiberals … freak at being inconvenienced by a loss of upfront pricing. "Pay living wages for thee, low price immigrant worker slaves for me." – Liberals for the Working Class PAC, 2020 It's s…

do you normally just have cage matches with straw men in public?

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

#726

Post by aslfksdfl » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:30 PM UTC

smsm42 wrote: post #526

aslfksdfl wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I've had Uber drivers pick me up and refuse to go to the part of the city I wanted to go to... complete pain in the ass (and also racist in this specific case). Uber offered me $5 for my trouble each time, which is... very Uber.

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.

Crime in my city (and most of the country) is lower than it's ever been. I've literally never been denied a ride by traditional cab drivers.

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

#727

Post by abduhl » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:34 PM UTC

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…

I'd just like to point out that while Uber may argue that they are a tech company first and driver/delivery second, the judge ruled that they are the opposite. The judge isn't arguing anything.

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

#728

Post by mountainboy » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

there are a lot of drivers in California with extra space and free time.

there are a lot of people that need rides.

There was a company that facilitated these two meeting and took a cut of payments.

It does not need to be a company. It can be an autonomous entity, eg a smart contract. Think ethereum + ipfs. just by way of example.

in other words, cut out the middle-man. Remove the target for governments to pressure and tax.

At that point, the free market decides.

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

#729

Post by ashtonkem » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

jjcon wrote: post #691

jonahhorowitz wrote: post #607

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There was no choice to "wait". AB5 was passed to fix the law because of a court decision [0]. Had they (the CA Legislature) not passed AB5, the court finding in Dynamex would be just as bad for Uber. The court doesn't have an option to "wait" just because it's a recession. Uber doesn't have a choice to "wait" because this ruling is going to go into effect in ~10 days unless the stay is extended. [0] - https://scocal.…

Courts can absolutely choose when to take cases

You do not want courts adjusting when they take cases specifically because of the economy. Doing that is to explicitly make the court an economic actor rather than a legal arbiter, which is a really bad idea.

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

#730

Post by ytpete » Wed, Aug 12, 2020, 11:36 PM UTC

WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #598

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…

It does not strike me as a legitimate case to strip people of their human right to free agency and will by forcing people to do things they don't want to or may even be dangerous to their health and safety. It should be anyone's right to refuse going to dangerous neighborhoods, just like forcing drivers to drive out into nowhere where they have to spend their own money/resources to get back to the network, should be…

> It does not strike me as a legitimate case to strip people of their human right to free agency and will by forcing people to do things they don't want to or may even be dangerous

But in a normal employer-employee relationship, this is totally typical. You can't sign up to be a firefighter but then refuse to go into burning buildings that you find too scary. You can't get a job as a developer and then refuse JIRA tickets you find boring, claiming that's your "human right."

In those cases, and with Uber as well, your free agency is that you can quit the job if you don't like it. But you have no fundamental right to be retained as an employee or contractor while refusing to do parts of the job you'd signed onto. The employer has their own right to terminate you if so.