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

761–770 of 887 posts

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

#761

Post by gjs278 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #722
mlrtime wrote: post #677

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 point…

oh no, not a heckin email or a piece of letter. I'm sure he read absolutely zero of them.

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

#762

Post by SilasX »

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…

What you've described is exactly what happened when Sidecar (the totally hands-off drivers-set-prices-and-riders-choose option) tried to compete; they lost against Uber/Lyft and shut down EOY 2014.

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

#763

Post by gjs278 »

nrmitchi wrote: post #540
qeternity wrote: post #496

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

I am not going to state that "drivers are too dumb", but as far as I know it is definitely not clear that it is clear to a (potential) driver what they are actually being paid after all expenses. It is not unreasonable that any given person will not immediately understand the full cost of being a driver, including insurance (like ensuring that their existing auto insurance is even valid if you're ever driving for a c…

so they are too dumb.

>I am not going to state that "drivers are too dumb", but as far as I know it is definitely not clear that it is clear to a (potential) driver what they are actually being paid after all expenses. It is not unreasonable that any given person will not immediately understand the full cost of being a driver, including insurance (like ensuring that their existing auto insurance is even valid if you're ever driving for a company), gas, vehicle maintenance, general vehicle wear-and-tear, as well as any required cleaning/upkeep.

this is just a long way of saying they are stupid.

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

#764

Post by tootie »

a13n wrote: post #535
slipheen wrote: post #494

Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.

I think this puts pressure on the government to find a compromise, because Californians will be pissed that Uber stops working.

I think this is the desired outcome from Uber. There's no way they haven't been preparing for an outcome like this for years. Mid-pandemic where revenue is already in the shitter, they may as well take another hit in the hopes of forcing the CA legislature to legalize their business to protect desperately needed jobs.

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

#765

Post by freeone3000 »

pishpash wrote: post #713
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…

It's clear to me that Prong B of AB5 is broken and it's not fixable, except by arbitrary exemptions galore. Rather than admitting this, the state seems hellbent on shoehorning this law into something politically motivated against gig companies. All the actions on the state's part points to bad faith.

Yes, the state's actual goal is to end gig work, by forcing gig work companies to actually treat their employees like employees. I'm for it. (It also seems weird to dismiss government action as politically motivated - of COURSE it is, it's literally political action! It's not going to be motivated by the tides!)

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

#766

Post by james-mcelwain »

manfredo wrote: post #710
gamblor956 wrote: post #698

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No, not sure how you even got there with Craigslist, and even if AB5 was relevant there's an exception for direct sales that would exempt craiglist and similar sites like ebay. AB5 doesn't apply outside of the worker classification context, so your rambling about Doordash and food safety regulations is just bizarre. You're right that DoorDash is in the food delivery business and so its delivery drivers would be its e…

You're applying double standards here. If Expedia is not an airline, then Uber and Lyft aren't taxi companies. Uber and Lyft buy the services of independent drivers and resells them to customers. If the ultimate commercial relationship is between you and the hotel or airline when you book through Expedia, then it's just as fair to say that the ultimate commercial relationship is between the passenger and Uber/Lyft dr…

> If the ultimate commercial relationship is between you and the hotel or airline when you book through Expedia, then it's just as fair to say that the ultimate commercial relationship is between the passenger and Uber/Lyft driver.

When I book a flight through Expedia I enter a contract of carriage with the airline, not Expedia. This is a contractural matter, not just an abstract concept of "commercial relationship."

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

#767

Post by freeone3000 »

valuearb wrote: post #672
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #554

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Jesus, no. The entire point of a taxi system is a supplement to mass transit to not require private car ownership. Once you start denying the service to the people who need it the most, you're eliminating the reason for its existence.

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

#768

Post by remote_phone »

Slartie wrote: post #706
valuearb wrote: post #671

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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...

Isn't that only the case in certain metropolitan areas? It is a huge problem indeed, but the problem there is the medallion system having degraded to become a shady get-rich-quick investment scheme. This is unrelated to the way in which the drivers are operating. They just lease their car and medallion from someone, paying that guy a fixed rate per day for that lease, but that does make them neither a contractor nor…

Absolutely false. Most taxi drivers don’t own the medallion, and in fact when they start their shift they owe the taxi cab company $80-100, so they need to work for a few hours just to get to break even.

Your mental gymnastics to try to justify why taxi drivers aren’t employees but Uber drivers are is showing.

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

#769

Post by lhh »

claudiawerner wrote: post #755
lhh wrote: post #711

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You cannot legally own slaves, even if both parties are consenting adults. So clearly, your premise is flawed: there are absolutely things that the government can determine to be illegal. In California, this includes exploitative labor relationships (again, even if both parties consent to the agreement). If someone wants to sell themselves into slavery, I say let them (though perhaps there should be an exception if…

>I challenge your premise that it's possible to consider a labor relationship exploitative if both parties voluntarily enter into it. This is a philosophical point, and there are scholars working in economics and economic philosophy who have argued that some kind of mutual benefit is does not preclude exploitation. See for example J.E Roemer, Roberto Veneziani, and Nikolos Vrousalis, three economists on the matter. S…

I'm not arguing that "because they benefit they're therefore not being exploited". I'm arguing that "because they voluntarily enter into the agreement with full information they're therefore not being exploited". Or have I misunderstood your point?

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

#770

Post by freeone3000 »

valuearb wrote: post #679
klipt wrote: post #520

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Free markets don't solve racism. The "monopolistic" taxi cab company had numerous individual drivers, each making a decision. Moving this monopoly to Uber and Lyft doesn't work. And no stars are going to override bias.
Post reply on HN