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

#841

Post by freeone3000 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:15 AM UTC

valuearb wrote: post #814

freeone3000 wrote: post #770

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Your assumption is that the bias is only racism, when sometimes it’s racism and sometimes fear of being robbed/assaulted. Stars definitely curbs the latter.

I don't think being robbed by a passenger is a reasonable fear - after all, the app has their location, both start and end, their credit card info, and their phone number. Criminal activity by passengers is easy to catch. Fear of crime in this circumstance is reasonably other, unrelated people, which stars does nothing to prevent.

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

#842

Post by drevil-v2 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:18 AM UTC

aslfksdfl wrote: post #724

mlrtime wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

Maybe they were afraid for their own safety? I know when I visit the US, each city has it's no-go areas that you want to avoid. I remember my first time in Dallas many years ago pre-GPS era, drove somewhere for dinner, stopped to fill up petrol and get directions to my hotel and the service station attendant told me I should probably exit the area ASAP because it is not safe.

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

#843

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:25 AM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #751

gamblor956 wrote: post #669

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This wasn't a big issue back in 2014, so there wouldn't have been much if any discussion on it for a much smaller service that had almost no market share.

That's a different memory than I have, where it was huge by late 2013. Here's a HN story from mid 2014 where a taxi company discusses adapting by selling medallions (and thus ceding some car's right to street hails) and going more app-based in order to compete with Uber, so yes, low cost Uber rides were huge then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323

We were talking about Sidecar, not Uber. SideCar was not huge at any point in its lifecyle. At one point in 2016/2017 it very briefly had the opportunity to become big, but failed the execution.

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

#844

Post by matuszeg » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:26 AM UTC

aslfksdfl wrote: post #724

mlrtime wrote: post #665

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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).

I lived in Boston a couple years before Uber was a thing and if I was out at night and needed a ride back to Southie (where I lived), it would take me four or five taxis at least to get one to agree to go there.

Uber eliminated that problem. It would be terrible to go back to that system where drivers can just refuse you based on where you are going or what you look like.

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

#845

Post by asdff » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:36 AM UTC

s1artibartfast wrote: post #686

asdff wrote: post #627

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At this point, Uber is acting childish. They refuse to play by the rules, and opt to take their ball and go home. What is it with SV companies and petty schoolyard tier drama like this? Just follow the damn law.

Seems entirely reasonable to me. Uber and Lyft pulled out of Austin for more than a year until Texas overturned the regulations Austin put in place. Business have the right to decide if playing a market is worth it or not.

That's fair, but there is no need to start grandstanding in print about your business decisions that other industries make entirely silently.

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

#846

Post by radegast » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:48 AM UTC

crooked-v wrote: post #634

DuskStar wrote: post #621

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're going to include individual incidents, you should include the CHAZ/CHOP shooting, and the various "people beat up the car as it drives through" occurrences too. Sure, those cars may have done something to offend/anger/threaten the protesters, but...

> the CHAZ/CHOP shooting The one where a man drove into protestors and shot one of them, or one of the four non-related-to-protest shootings in a neighborhood that had been suddenly abandoned by police and already had a high violent crime rate compared to the rest of the city? > people beat up the car as it drives through That's an inevitable result of somebody trying to push through a crowd that won't move. If you s…

"That's an inevitable result of somebody trying to push through a crowd that won't move."

Maybe the crowd should move from the "road". You know. The thing that is built primarily for vehicles. Obstructing people just getting on with their life is not gonna make them suddenly support their cause. In fact it's gonna radicalize them, as you will see in November. Sleepy Joe has no chance.

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

#847

Post by doktorhladnjak » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:49 AM UTC

jedberg wrote: post #407

rramdin wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I would rather be charged for what I'm using instead of an amount that's fudged to amortize unexpected incidental costs over all users. Maybe some kind of additional insurance against extra costs might be a feature that some users would use, but I prefer to self-insure than help others defray costs.

The upfront pricing was just an estimate of the total based on previous data. I much prefer it, because it incentivizes the driver to take the most efficient route, since they get paid based on arrival and not the way they go. In the pay as you go system, you are at the mercy of the driver, and they are actually incentivized to take a longer route. I've definitely had drivers take longer routes under the pay as you g…

Interestingly, in places where Uber still has up front pricing for riders, drivers are paid on time and distance. Uber is taking the risk of the estimate being too high or too low.

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

#848

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:50 AM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #808

gamblor956 wrote: post #662

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Its a subtle distinction but one that matters legally since it means there isn't a compensation-for-wo…

The sticking point is Prong B and here you're talking about Prong A. Re-evaluate with respect to Prong B. What's Airbnb's customary work or business? What's Amazon's and Ebay's? Do "people" "think" of Airbnb, Amazon, and eBay as "technology" companies or "hostels" and "stores"? Can they survive without hosts or sellers? (All these arguments were made against gig companies.)

The prongs don't matter for AM or eBay, since AB5 exempts them from the analysis altogether.

But on that note, a lot of people seem to be ignoring the crucial differences in the transactional relationships between the parties for websites like eBay.

Sellers use eBay to conduct auctions and sell their goods. They have control over inventory, pricing, starting and ending auctions, accepting final bids, etc. eBay as acts the seller's agent and provides services to the seller with respect to transactions similar to how an employee or contractor would. IOW, eBay is acting as a contractor to the seller.

Similarly, for AirBnB, hosts use AirBnB as a marketplace for provider hoteling services. AirBnB is acting as their booking agent and payment collections agent for the host. IOW, AirBnb is acting as a contractor to the host. To the extent that AirBnB itself is paying the hosts (and is not merely passing along money from guests), it isn't for providing hoteling services on AirBnB's behalf, rather it's an incentive for making a property available on the AirBnB marketplace. (I know this because my former employer got paid $$$ to make certain beachside properties it owned available for booking on AirBnB, and these payments were separate from payments we received related to AirBnb-booked stays.)

For Uber/Lyft, the relationship is reversed. The driver is acting as an agent for Uber/Lyft: Uber/Lyft assigns them a ride, and they must provide the ride to get paid. Moreover, in contrast to actual marketplaces, the amount drivers get paid by Uber is not directly tied to the amount charged to the passenger; indeed, driver's generally do not know how much riders actually pay for a trip unless they ask the rider what they're getting charged. This indicates that the transactional relationship for both the driver and the passenger is with Uber, not each other. (Further explanation would dive into principles of contract law, so I leave it to you for further research if you want to go down that path.)

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

#849

Post by gamblor956 » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:18 AM UTC

manfredo wrote: post #716

gamblor956 wrote: post #684

Earlier quoted context omitted.

We agree that Apple is just selling music, not making it. We disagree on how analogy that applies to Uber. On its 10K, Uber identifies "gross bookings" as its primary revenue stream. Not "net bookings" or "commissions" or "marketplace fees." Gross bookings. Meaning that it treats all of the income from a ride as its own income, meaning that it's primary business activity is providing transportation services. The same…

What impact does this have on the classification of drivers? When Uber takes $10 from a passenger for a ride, and contracts out a driver to transport the passenger for $8 then Uber has a booking for $10 and an expense of $8 for contracting out that ride. This doesn't change the fact that the driver is a contractor who sets their own hours and can drive for competitors. Yes, Uber and Lyft are involved in providing tra…

It's a basic principle of contract law that parties can't agree to a valid contract if they don't know the basic fundamental financial terms of the contract, like say, the price.

A driver does not know how much a passenger is paying for the ride. The passenger does not know how much the driver is receiving for the ride. Ergo, they cannot have formed a valid contract with each other. On the other hand, the passenger knows how much they are paying Uber, and the driver knows how much Uber is paying them. This indicates that the common relationship is Uber, and that the driver is acting as Uber's agent with respect to the driving services. This is supported by Uber/Lyft treating gross booking as their revenue. It is a long-standing principle of GAAP that if you are collecting money on someone else's behalf as their agent, it's not your revenue. If you are treating the money as your revenue, and their services as an expense, that indicates they are acting as an agent on your behalf with respect to the services/whatever that gave rise to the revenue. Because the driver is acting as Uber's agent, AB5 comes into play to determine whether they are an employee or independent contractor.

I don't know why you're fixated on Expedia. Expedia is a reseller, which is a thing that has existed as a legal construct for over a century and has an actual meaning and requirements defined by law. Expedia doesn't resell services, it sells reservations/tickets/etc provided by third parties that represent a right to a specific performance of a specified service at a specified time and place by that third party. Importantly, once a transaction is completed on Expedia, the customer must generally seek customer service from the third party, not Expedia, because Expedia's role in the transaction is completed, and Expedia only provides relief if the third party will not, and that relief is limited to refunding the customer for the amount they paid Expedia.

UberLyft don't sell services provided by third parties, they sell a service (transportation or food delivery), and it happens to be performed by third parties on UberLyft's behalf. In contrast to Expedia, none of the participants in the transportation or food delivery service get to select their putative counterpart to the transaction, or the financial terms of the transaction, and after the driver's part is concluded they usually have no further interaction with the passenger as customer service service issues are provided by UberLyft, not the driver. IOW, there are no hallmarks of a business relationship between the driver and customer.

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

#850

Post by manfredo » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:25 AM UTC

solidasparagus wrote: post #826

manfredo wrote: post #792

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Apple has actually started publishing its own music then indeed Apple would be a music publisher. But has Uber done the same? Can you charter a car actually driven by Uber employees? As far as I am aware, Uber exclusively builds a platform to link passengers with independent drivers - who can and often do drive for competing services. Akin to what iTunes was before Apple started publishing its own music.

Your argument is circular. Uber drivers aren't employees because they are contractors. They are contractors because driving isn't Uber's core business. Uber's core business isn't driving because they don't have any drivers as employees. Uber buys cars and leases them to drivers, it offers full-time professional drivers through Black, it invests billions of dollars into self-driving cars, it offers delivery as a B2B s…

No, the logic isn't circular at all. Uber drivers set their own hours, crucially, and are free to work at competitors. Someone can drive for Lyft 5 hours one week, and drive for Uber 5 or 15 hours the next. And Uber doesn't tell them when they need to work.

You say that I Uber offers full time drivers through black. Do you mean that Uber assign drivers to work at a specific time frame for a significant duration? All I can tell about Uber Black is that it offers drivers with more stringent requirements (more licensing, more permits), I don't see any advertisement of having someone chauefer you around for a week. If Uber does offer that kind of service, then drivers rendering that service should be employed.

> Look at the Uber Eats advertising[1] - they aren't claiming to connect you to drivers, they are claiming to connect you to your customers.

Yes! This is entirely the point. The driver is a fairly minimal component of an Uber Eats order. Deliver usually amounts to less than a third of a delivery at least where I live and easily under a fifth. And for that reason Uber contract out this part of delivering an Uber Eats order. Simply asking the public "who wants to take this order to the delivery address?" and creating a market for labor is a more effective solution than making hiring decisions, trying to schedule people fairly across the day.

If object to the contractor model as a whole that's its own criticism. But it is exceedingly hard to claim that Uber's relationship with drivers who participate in the market it runs is that of an employer to employee.