Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#491

Post by claudeganon » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

fotta wrote: post #344

Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.

Not just wheelchair users. People with epilepsy and other chronic conditions unfortunately have to rely on these services for gaps in public transit.

I wish Uber and Lyft had focused on sustainability vs monopoly and not foisted so much of their costs off onto their drivers, but here we are.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#492

Post by woodrowbarlow » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

wmichelin wrote: post #410

fotta wrote: post #344

Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.

What did people in wheelchairs do before these rideshare apps were around?

public transit agencies are obligated to provide this service, most municipalities contract it out. in recent years, it has been increasingly common for transit agencies to work directly with uber and lyft for paratransit services.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#493

Post by AgloeDreams » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

This would be a positive force as it would reduce overcrowding of the local market and ensure work and pay for drivers. The Uber and Lyft driver pool is too large for reasonable pay for demand by nature. Something really important in an economy, is security of work and pay. For those who are on the schedule they can depend on their job to be able to live. For those who would not be on the schedule (due to demand) That would obviously be a massive unemployment issue but that was always the cost of regulating Uber.

Uber/Lyft does not exist to help the economy or the people of the US, they exist to help themselves. Otherwise they would charge and pay a working wage.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#494

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

tomjakubowski wrote: post #424

twblalock wrote: post #405

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I remember what it was like to get a taxi in California, even in San Francisco, before Uber and Lyft. You called some taxi company, might get put on hold, told them where to pick you up, and they would show up anywhere between 30 and 60 minutes later. Sometimes they would never show up. Many smaller cities in California had no taxi service of any kind. And good luck getting a taxi home from a bar after midnight! Uber…

Back in 2010 I regularly used the TaxiMagic app and had more or less the same experience as calling an Uber or Lyft today, just a little pricier.

Where are you located? In Houston before Uber or Lyft I'd routinely get taxi's that wouldn't show up or would show up 6 hrs late. I've had a problem several times with taxi's being rude to my wife. And I've had several female friends who despite riding an Uber 100x more than Taxi's in their life have several times felt unsafe in a Taxi and never felt unsafe in an Uber.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#495

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

dumbfoundded wrote: post #311

lhorie wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression they're planning on suspending operations because it would be illegal for drivers to operate as contractors come tomorrow. Their political stance is manifested in prop 22, but the shutdown is for compliance w/ the law.

From my understanding, the shutdown is to avoid classifying drivers as employees. Nothing has to change except Uber/Lyft having to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits for drivers working full time hours. It has nothing to do with flexibility. It's about a shifting tax burden. This shift may make the business model unprofitable without significantly raising prices.

[deleted]

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#496

Post by [deleted] » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:45 PM UTC

AgloeDreams wrote: post #461

dmode wrote: post #231

I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill…

'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution. It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus). Ridesharin…

[deleted]

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#497

Post by silviogutierrez » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

fotta wrote: post #344

Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.

A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too.

Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency.

Something about a billionaire on the 6 train next to a restaurant worker and a wheelchair-bound piano tuner[1] strikes me as poetic and noble. Whatever the costs.

[1] Headed to my place.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#498

Post by Infinitesimus » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

fizzled wrote: post #449

pmcollins wrote: post #220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over. The road to hell...

The road to hell... ...is paved with (IMHO) an irrational support for billionaires getting richer at the expense of the exploitation of the commoner.

But isn't the better position here to create a bill that decouples health benefits from the employer and allow contractors to have better lives?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#499

Post by tathougies » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

Yes, by common law, you cannot work for two people at the same time. This is the key. While moonlighting is an employer restriction, working two separate jobs at the same time is a legal one.

When an employee, you are legally the agent of the employer. Anything you agree to or do while employed is a liability of the employer, not you personally. That is why an employee at a VC firm can commit to provide capital, but doesn't have to pay it directly. Or why a manager of a company can take on debt, that is then the responsibility of the company, not himself.

You cannot be an agent of two companies at the same time. If you have both uber and lyft app running in your car, waiting for a passenger, and you get into a crash, if you are an employee working, then one of the companies is responsible for covering any damages you inflict. Of course, since you're not even on any particular 'job' at the time, who is responsible?

Moreover, you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour.

Moreover, the law presumes that employees owe loyalty to their employer while working. So for example, if I am employed by a car dealership, but when a customer comes in during my shift, I decide to sell him my personal used car, instead of the companies, the company can actually sue me for failing to fulfill my duty of loyalty to them. You can't have someone working for both Uber and Lyft in this model. Since Uber and Lyft are competitors, by definition, you cannot be loyal to both. If you have both apps running and pick the best customer based on price, then you have shortchanged one of the companies, and open yourself up to liability. Contractors have no presumed assumption of loyalty to anyone but themselves. That is what allows them to pick the most profitable ride.

https://www.abacademies.org/articles/the-duty-of-loyalty-in-...

Uber has asked for California to come up with legal structures that provide benefits to employees while allowing their business model. This seems eminently reasonable: there are clear differences between Uber and Lyft drivers and traditional employees. It is the duty of government to innovate policy-wise so that the private sector can innovate business-wise. Unfortunately, California's legislature has failed to innovate anything and has instead decided to force innovators to use an outdated model of employment.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#500

Post by lhorie » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:46 PM UTC

dumbfoundded wrote: post #311

lhorie wrote: post #284

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I was under the impression they're planning on suspending operations because it would be illegal for drivers to operate as contractors come tomorrow. Their political stance is manifested in prop 22, but the shutdown is for compliance w/ the law.

From my understanding, the shutdown is to avoid classifying drivers as employees. Nothing has to change except Uber/Lyft having to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits for drivers working full time hours. It has nothing to do with flexibility. It's about a shifting tax burden. This shift may make the business model unprofitable without significantly raising prices.

Well, it's not "nothing". It requires having an HR org that is able to process some 50k extra headcount, among other things.

The companies already stated that hypothetically, they would hire drivers and raise prices if it came down to having to use an employee model in California, but the case they're making is that while that scenario won't be a fatal blow to them, it'll severely suck for riders and drivers.