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

861–870 of 887 posts

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

#861

Post by coffeemug »

3gg wrote: post #752
coffeemug wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.

This comment has no ethical basis either. The relationship between Uber and its employees is described as a "perfectly reasonable contract between consenting adults", as if the employees were on equal grounds to make demands and the company were not exploiting them in the first place.

How could Uber possibly be exploiting them when it offers a better opportunity than literally everyone else?

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

#862

Post by pavel_lishin »

chrischen wrote: post #640
pavel_lishin wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think it's going to depend by area. The last time I tried to use Uber to get a ride from the airport, I had several drivers accept, then call me - "I'm all the way in midtown, it'll take me 45 minutes to get to you, you probably want to cancel this." The incentives for drivers have always been fucked. I'd rather the drivers not accept my ride than try to play a weird game of chicken to get me to cancel when I'm try…

I never had that at the airport but my contingency plan for the times when drivers decided not to show in an obvious attempt to get me to cancel was to pull up the other ride sharing app and then use that, and leave the original one running.

I thought about doing that. But I don't want to punish people whose economic incentives are apparently so shitty that they have to pull this kind of nonsense. I'm only that petty against spammers.

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

#863

Post by valuearb »

freeone3000 wrote: post #767
valuearb wrote: post #672

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

The point of a Taxi system is to heavily regulate it into a monopoly where owners get to gouge riders and drivers have to pickup riders wherever they are told, no matter how unsafe.

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

#864

Post by cactus2093 »

rileymat2 wrote: post #791
ytpete wrote: post #744

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I think they are in some cases. An employee can forbid you from working for a competitor at the same time, for example. This is usually a good thing - e.g. Apple doesn't want their Siri engineers moonlighting on the Alexa team after hours. I don't think contractors can be subject to the same sweeping restrictions. I believe for employees paid by the hour, the employer can also dictate the number of hours per week and…

What I am saying is that all those are up to the employer. So it is disingenuous, when the company talks about additional benefits of being a contractor because those are all self imposed.

I am not "the company", just a spectator that is observing what companies are actually doing in practice.

Yes, companies could always choose to give employees better perks out of the goodness of their heart. That's not really relevant, what's relevant is what they're actually doing. And if a company like Uber were to pay all the extra overhead to bring on all drivers as full-time employees, it would be crazy for them not to set their hours much more tightly so they would absolutely do that.

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

#865

Post by SilasX »

gamblor956 wrote: post #843
SilasX wrote: post #751

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar did, when they have a viable example to point to. As best I can tell, no one distinguished Uber from Sidecar when the latter was a legit rival. Example of a typical article that mentioned the three but said nothing about what made Sidecar's case more defensible.

https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabi...

Raising the question that on-the-job injuries for drivers for the three could bring liability to the platform; no distinction for Sidecar:

https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-co...

So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker.

Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.

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

#866

Post by jmwilson »

kadoban wrote: post #834
jmwilson wrote: post #611

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

Does something prevent incorporating in another location that allows it? Doubt it.

Of course they could do that, but any corporation or LLC that does business in California [1] (surely a Uber driver operating in California would be considered as such) has to pay the fee. Incorporating out of state would just mean a second set of fees and more forms to file.

[1] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/doing-business-in-calif...

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

#867

Post by WrongThinkerNo5 »

ytpete wrote: post #730
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ti…

You can't seriously be suggesting that knowingly choosing to become a firefighter, where the main task is endangering yourself (for which people are also selected, as you have forgotten), or that not wanting to deal with boring JIRA tickets is the same thing as being sent to dangerous neighborhoods where you could very likely be assaulted and/or killed, when you don't have to because there are also other places where crime is not out of control and a real and measurable risk to one's life and safety does not exist?

When you choose to become, e.g., an Uber driver, you are NOT primarily signing up to willingly expose yourself to risk to life and limb, like a soldier, firefighter, policeman.

You have a very abusive mentality about that which seems more fitting for some industrial age foreman or something; "you don't want to risk cutting off your arm? You can quit, and dozens of others will replace you!"

But I suspect you really don't realize that, because people like you that want to force others into unhealthy, unsafe, and dangerous situations, are usually the ones who live the most privileged, sheltered, and comfortable lives where the biggest risk they see is the possibility of eating non-organic produce.

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

#868

Post by WrongThinkerNo5 »

fastball wrote: post #708
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #598

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

You still have free agency. As an Uber driver, you can accept a ride, pick up the rider, get the destination, decide you don't want to go there, and then kick the rider out of your car. Then, Uber can decide that they no longer want you to be a driver on their platform.

That's not free agency, especially not when Uber and Lyft are essentially your only viable choices and there are immense institutional tyrannical pressures that are also making these corporations force their "employees" into dangerous areas/situations against all normal good human judgement.

As I have said elsewhere maybe, it should be up to people to choose not to endanger themselves, especially without compensation and it should be left to others to fill that void and make the money. At the very least, there should be an immense risk premium that would make people choose whether it is worth the risk to drive to risky areas. It is immensely abusive and rather evil to force people into these kinds of things against their will, especially by people who likely do not subject themselves to things they are fast to decree and prescribe for others.

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

#869

Post by dang »

Consultant32452 wrote: post #576
WrongThinkerNo5 wrote: post #550

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why would "black" taxi drivers not pick up "black" passengers? What is your obsession with color coding people? It's unhealthy and racist.

We've finally come full circle to the point where calling out racism is now racist. Pack it up folks, it's time to go home.

We've banned that account but please don't make the thread even worse like this. We want curious conversation, not boilerplate battle.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#870

Post by dang »

derkster wrote: post #224
Ijumfs wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're all just trying to make a living. And let me remind you that Uber drivers have been caught providing drugs, being prostitutes, and even going on serial murder sprees. All while behind the wheel.

Your comment history is super questionable. Every time I see you commenting on HN, I wonder if you're one of the Russian boogiemen people talk about, or if you're an example of what happens when someone believes too much of what they read on the internet.

We've banned that account but please don't break the site guidelines yourself, especially not with personal attacks. Note this guideline in particular:

"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

https://hn.algolia.com/?sort=byDate&dateRange=all&type=comme...

Post reply on HN