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

#871

Post by Jommi » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:00 PM UTC

mdorazio wrote: post #754

Jommi wrote: post #714

Earlier quoted context omitted.

However, if company A is in a free market industry they would not be able to sustain that 3$/hr. Uber has been able to sustain their policies for close to 10 years now. Its pretty clear that drivers are being paid an amount close to their actual value. If they werent, they would be working for some other job.

You're assuming two things that aren't true: 1) Other, better, jobs of the same type (hours/entry requirements/pay) are available to drivers. Reality: Uber created a class of "job" where the bar for entry is so ridiculously low that anyone with a basic driver's license can do it. At the same time, real incomes for primary jobs currently or previously worked by Uber drivers are often not high enough to actually cover…

Really? You are really going to assert without any evidence these completely wrong points?

I can tell you straight out, from experience and data, that both of your points are completely incorrect.

1) Its 2020. The "gig economy" is REAL. Its actually a terrible situation for Uber, as competing jobs are more abdundant than ever, and new starts with fresh VC-fueled incetives are popping up left and right.

I can promise you that in nearly every market Uber operates in, the drivers are signed up on every single ridehailing competitor, every single food delivery service, every single grocery delivery service, and every single last mile delivery service.

And they will be constantly looking at where the best bang for buck is. CONSTANTLY.

2) Uber's ridehailing business is profitable in the US. Go check their publicly available investor data.

Uber does have a finnicky relationship with "the law" for sure, in multiple countries. That is completely true. However at some times "the law" is protecting a service that is not in the best interest of the consumer, as has been with most over-protective taxi regulations.

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

#872

Post by closeparen » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 6:04 PM UTC

runako wrote: post #816

closeparen wrote: post #605

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It’s usually written to make existing manufacturing activity clean up after itself, or existing employment relationships better for the employees. There may be some collateral damage, but the intent is not to destroy. “People’s jobs should be better” is a different goal from “bad jobs should not exist.” It may be used as a tool to achieve the former, but we care whether it’s actually effective at doing so.

Is the intent here really to destroy? Is it really the case compliance with the law is only possible for employers like Walmart, The Gap, and thousands of other small firms in California? I'm very in favor of gig work, but the notion that the only option left is to stop work rather than hire folks as employees seems obviously facile. Notably, there's no exemption for the many other companies that operate passenger tr…

The argument I remember is:

a) The gig economy is viscerally disgusting.

b) Its existence will trigger a “race to the bottom” that threatens all workers.

c) Gig work is not very important to casual gig workers, so taking it away would not harm them.

d) Taking away gig work will prompt gig workers to find real jobs which are better for them, anyway.

Low margin employers like Walmart and Amazon ruthlessly squeeze efficiency from their employees to ensure productivity > cost for every shift. The could not do otherwise - such are the economics of a low margin business. The gig economy offers the option of working “inefficiently,” and some people value that enough to trade off compensation for it. Maybe the gig economy companies could operate like Walmart, but the point is people are choosing gig work over Walmart for a reason.

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

#873

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:06 PM UTC

asdff wrote: post #845

s1artibartfast wrote: post #686

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Other companies make press releases and announcements as all the time, they just aren't covered by the Media.

In this case, the public clearly wants to know about and discuss this, as demonstrated by this thread and the news coverage.

You and I were not forced to read the article and discuss it, but here we are by our own choice.

From my perspective, think it is an interesting and engaging topic that I want to explore further.

From Uber's perspective, they have every interested in raising awareness and support for their cause.

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

#874

Post by manfredo » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:40 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #851

manfredo wrote: post #809

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.)

So Uber requires it's drivers to have contract of carriage permits for no reason at all? No, you are entering a contract of carriage with Uber driver when you schedule a ride.

Taxi services and medallions specifically allow drivers to be hailed from the street. Uber and Lyft drivers don't get hailed Dr the street and thus don't need taxi medallions. This isn't something new, services like Super Shuttle operate in the same way. Uber drivers don't have such signage because they're not taxis, they're like super shuttle. You didn't hail them from the street you booked a ride through a service.

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

#875

Post by pageandrew » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:45 PM UTC

bgorman wrote: post #457

pageandrew wrote: post #451

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yes, and taxi drivers have always been able to do that. As a consumer, it was nice using Uber because drivers couldn't do that.

However there is no penalty for drivers refusing to take your to the airport once they show up. It's an absolutely infuriating experience. Drivers should be banned from the platform if they are not able to take people from downtown to the closest airport.

I think there is/was a penalty for that. You could report drivers for abandoning you through the app.

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

#876

Post by manfredo » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 7:48 PM UTC

gamblor956 wrote: post #849

manfredo wrote: post #716

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 k…

Expedia is a perfect example because they're doing in essence the same thing that Uber and Lyft are doing: reselling transportation services. When you book an Uber what you're doing is informing Uber that you want to go from point a to point b. The Uber finds a third party willing to fulfill that task, and resells this service to the customer at a markup. It's exactly the same thing Expedia does, only in real time.

> 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.

Which is exactly why the drivers are contractors. You seem to understand that the drivers are third parties, yet are fixated on irrelevant things like revenue from bookings to try and distract from this fact. That Uber treats all of the money paid by the passengers as revenue does not alter the fact that it's drivers are contractors that set their own hours and can drive for competing services.

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

#877

Post by tick_tock_tick » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:21 PM UTC

SrslyJosh wrote: post #817

apta wrote: post #642

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They want private companies to pay for the government shortcomings of not providing affordable healthcare and other benefits.

I really wish the government would listen to all the corporate lobbyists begging them to give us universal healthcare. =)

I mean pretty much every company not in the health care industry would love that. You think companies want to manage a health plan, a 401k plan, a X and Y?

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

#878

Post by tick_tock_tick » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 8:47 PM UTC

SilasX wrote: post #409

CountSessine wrote: post #382

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It just adds uber drivers to the already ridiculous list of exempt jobs in this stupid law, like doctors, dentists, insurance agents, lawyers, accountants, real estate agents, hairstylists, architects, professional engineers, private investigators, psychologists, veterinarians, securities brokers and dealers, investment advisers, direct sales salespersons, commercial fishermen,...

Oh, just to clarify (for both you and the sibling[1]), I do not think AB5 was some masterpiece of public policy, and some of its distinctions are really kafkaesque[2]. My uneasiness is more that, you know, if you're gonna do a proposition to fix it, wouldn't you want a more general fix, especially given all the professions it's micromanaging? Like, something better than "okay app-based drivers don't have to deal with…

A general fix would let legislators off the hook by specifically giving themselves an exception (of which there is already quite a few) the legislators now have to deal with all the unintended, but very predictable, consequences of there shitty law without even getting to say the people wanted it.

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

#879

Post by ThrustVectoring » Thu, Aug 13, 2020, 10:19 PM UTC

lawnchair_larry wrote: post #558

ThrustVectoring wrote: post #422

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The nominal burden of who "pays" employment-related taxes or benefits is completely separate from who the actual tax incidence falls on. Would you rather get paid $10k that you owe $1000 of taxes on, or get paid $9k with the $1k of taxes already withheld for you? Either way, the total cost of employing you remains the same for the company, and the take home pay after taxes remains the same.

Not quite, taxes are actually higher if you are self-employed. You have to pay SECA, which effectively includes the portion that your company would have paid otherwise (on top of the amount that they withhold and pay on your behalf).

That's not taxes being "actually higher", that's taxes being paid in a way that increases the total cost of hiring someone without showing up anywhere on the pay stub of full-time W2 employees. Like, it changes the numbers to something like "$9k with $1k withheld and $1k of employer taxes" vs "$11k with $1k of income taxes and $1k of 'employer' taxes that you now have to pay"

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

#880

Post by m463 » Fri, Aug 14, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

orky56 wrote: post #574

m463 wrote: post #570

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company. Doesn't Uber still work elsewhere? By my calculations, the world is 57,510,000 sq miles of land, california is 163,696 sq miles, and that leaves 57,346,304 (99.715%) of the world available to uber.

Market size isn't just land mass.

I was just making a point that california is not the only market for uber which is a service with worldwide reach.