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

851–860 of 887 posts

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

#851

Post by gamblor956 »

manfredo wrote: post #809
james-mcelwain wrote: post #766

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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."

And when you take an Uber, you enter a contract of carriage with the Uber driver. Uber drivers have to have contract of carriage permits for this reason.

You do not enter into a contract of carriage with the Uber driver. At no point in using Uber or Lyft does the app have you agree to a specific contract with the driver, which is required for the contract of carriage to apply...

(In contrast, with taxis, signage in the vehicle indicates that proceeding with a ride does indicate acquiescence to the standard terms locally governing taxi services.)

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

#852

Post by cycomanic »

TheColorYellow wrote: post #832
SrslyJosh wrote: post #822

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, the US sucks at investing in public infrastructure, especially transit. Obviously we should do nothing to try to change that. =)

Not the GP, but what would you suggest is a realistic alternative in the current state? Reforming public institutions to more effectively build public transportation infrastructure seems to be incredibly difficult. Local institutions seem to have maxed out their ability to improve beyond what exists. So why not let the private market innovate and improve? If the public institutions where smarter they'd be taking adva…

Well one alternative is to not vote for parties which have a history of gutting government services to make them unviable and then saying "look here this must be run private" giving private companies a license to print money by offering less service for more money. Just look at what is happening with the USPS right now.

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

#853

Post by gamblor956 »

GhostVII wrote: post #604
gamblor956 wrote: post #428

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Today I learned from the internet that I have been wrong about the advice I have been providing clients for the past decade... /s Employees have contracts, too. Everything you have described as supposed features of dependent contractors are features of independent contractors. Indeed, that last point is one of the biggest historical factors (in the US, and most of Europe) for determining whether a worker is an employ…

Current classifications are irrelevant because the parent was laying out a new system, in which you could either be an employee, an independent contractor, or a dependent contractor. Under that proposed system, there is a significant difference between a dependent contractor and an employee, because the dependent contractor can choose to stop working whenever they want, and can work for multiple companies, while an e…

A dependent contractor is an employee (if they are an individual). This has been the actual state of the law for decades in the US and EU. Redefining existing terms doesn't change that, and the parent's comment doesn't create a meaningful distinction between the existing classifications.

Worse, it creates distinctions that are based on factors that are largely irrelevant to the employee-contractor classification.

Today, employees are free to choose to stop working whenever they want (the US has at-will employment) and can work for multiple companies (indeed, most American workers work for multiple companies, especially those who work multiple part-time jobs to make ends meet).

I don't know of any contractor that can choose to stop working for several weeks without notice during a contract and get rehired by the client they walked out on. They'd have to find a new client. This is no different from an employee getting terminated for not showing up for several weeks.

And with respect to getting paid by the job: while this is one of the big factors for independent contractors, it is not exclusive to them. Employees in the entertainment industry get paid per job (game programmers get paid per game, members of the Hollywood guilds and unions get paid per project, union musicians get paid per recording or tour, etc.)

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

#854

Post by fastball »

freeone3000 wrote: post #778
fastball wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kinda the problem with ride-sharing though. Many (most) drivers are driving with multiple apps.

Many, many people in the US are employed with multiple companies at a time. Everyone who "works two jobs". Employment is not exclusive.

I was responding to a comment about "only working for one company for X months".

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

#855

Post by DeonPenny »

California is bullying freelance. And honestly I don't see the realistic end goal. They can bring on all their drivers full time it would be a nightmare to pay and manage for a company that makes no money. Or uber treats driver worst and the quality of rides gets worse by lowering standard.

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

#856

Post by DeonPenny »

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…

Seems fair and within their rights

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

#857

Post by DeonPenny »

SrslyJosh wrote: post #427
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…

> 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…

THe taxi regulation were terrible and created a terrible environment. It's California lawmakers fault for clearly seeing the writing on the walls and instead of lowering regulations trying to raise them. What kind of backwards person does that.

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

#858

Post by qeternity »

mrunkel wrote: post #840
qeternity wrote: post #620

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's not unreasonable... You mean unlikely. It is absolutely unreasonable. But these arguments just don’t stand up. In the early days, perhaps this is true. But everyone is massively aware of these arguments now and what you’re still arguing is that people need to be protected from themselves. Think about what you’re saying: your back-of-the-envelope conjecture without any empirical evidence should be taken over th…

If a person is dying of thirst, they'll stick drink brackish water if it's all their offered. What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers. If you believe the end goal of a society is to extract every last bit of value from its members, then yes, Uber is great. If you…

> What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers.

Please explain this. Uber is wildly unprofitable. Whether or not you think Uber drivers should earn more, they’re certainly not losing money. Between the drivers, the riders, and Uber...Uber has by far the worst position in this game. Now, they wrote the rules so I certainly won’t lose a wink of sleep over it, but this idea that Uber is making out well in all of this is ludicrous.

The riders make out the best and any future changes will be zero sum between riders are drivers. Uber simply can’t absorb more losses than they already do.

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

#859

Post by paul_f »

jmwilson wrote: post #611
novok wrote: post #467

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

There's the $800 California LLC annual fee, which is the highest in the country, and applies before you make a dollar in revenue.

You don't need an LLC to run a business. Plenty of sole proprietors do this along with filing self employment taxes without ever forming an LLC.

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

#860

Post by techslave »

diebeforei485 wrote: post #771
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.…

The authors of AB5 took the liberty of exempting certain professions (presumably influential voter blocs and donors) from Dynamex.[1] If you drive delivering beverages, whether you're an employee or contractor under AB5 depends on whether or not that beverage is milk. I don't see why they couldn't have anything in there for rideshare. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I detest uber. yet AB5 is an abomination, an embarrassment. sad
Post reply on HN