Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#541

Post by usaar333 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

lefrenchy wrote: post #310

dannyw wrote: post #6

I used to drive for Uber, a few hours a week during my downtime when I was bored and had nothing better to do. The earnings weren’t great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage. I’ve met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders. This extra in…

This is where the gig economy shines, when people want to use it to make extra money on the side or push to achieve financial goals. However, by your own admission you did it because you were "bored" and wanted to make some money. Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft j…

> Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.

Agreed, but is that a problem with the gig economy itself or our entire welfare system?

I agree we can make life better for the workers that remain on Lyft/Uber, but what happens to the workers who were "fired" as a result of reduced ridership?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#542

Post by tathougies » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:54 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…

> it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on,

Why is the purpose of a wage to live on? Many uber drivers drive part time for fun or extra pocket change. The existence of thousands of uber drivers -- who in my experience, have all been quite reasonable, nice people -- seem to directly contradict your claim that it does not pay a 'reasonable wage'. Clearly, it does for those invested parties.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#543

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:54 PM UTC

adrr wrote: post #150

aceman22 wrote: post #115

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In California, most cities are very spread out so taking taxis anywhere are super expensive. You can't just hail one down on the street like other cities, you have to order one over the phone to come pick you up from where ever you are.

There are taxi apps that are similar in functionality to Uber and Lyft. https://apps.apple.com/us/app/curb-the-taxi-app/id299226386

What's the availability? I.e. are you actually able to get a ride within 10 mins in SV, for example? How about rest of California?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#544

Post by the_mitsuhiko » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #453

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…

I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving. If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

> If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

I don't see why that would not be possible.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#545

Post by kelnos » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 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.

If the business model can't be made to work when they have to pay payroll taxes and provide benefits, then shutting down is the only reasonable thing to do. I expect it's both: they cannot or do not want to change their business model to account for the new reality, and are also hoping that a full shutdown will make voters angry enough to get AB5 repealed.

(I'm not convinced that's actually the case, though, but I don't know the math around this, so it could be.)

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#546

Post by renewiltord » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

apta wrote: post #426

runarberg wrote: post #388

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Taking similar gig in other industries, such as gardening, constructions, telemarketing and support, pet care, beauty industry, etc. The gig economy did not start with Uber or AirBnB.

Except now with AB5, those populations are at risk too.

Nah, they're not. In the undocumented economy, there are lots of things you do that don't show up. It's not like you're filing taxes when you drive up to Lowe's and ask the guys waiting in the parking lot to help you with some construction. That shit is going straight cash-to-cash.

Those jobs are shittier (that's why people drive instead of doing them) but they will still exist.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#547

Post by silviogutierrez » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

ffggvv wrote: post #516

silviogutierrez wrote: post #497

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

yes let’s make all public policy based on your sense of poetic justice. and not numbers. i know cost is just a number to you but that’s other people’s money you’re spending

Believe me, I'm very fiscally skeptical with government spending.

Moreover, public transportation costs in the US are outrageous. Each elevator in the tens of millions for an NYC subway station. It's a racket and unacceptably corrupt.

But we can tackle both problems, and should.

Even with hyper efficient spending, there's an external benefit that is hard to measure and value beyond the cold, hard cash needed for the infrastructure vs government-paid private rides.

I've been laterally involved in frivolous ADA lawsuits for websites before, so I also understand how even noble goals can become corrupted.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#548

Post by seankimdesign » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

dbancajas wrote: post #477

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.

Is there enough market size for this so that a commercial company can come in and swoop the customers?

You mean the same taxi-service market that Uber has been notably unprofitable and bleeding investor cash for years in? But smaller and more niche? With more legal hurdles regarding accessibility and mobility requirements? Operating with only non-gig, full-benefit workers?

Yeah, sounds like a market ripe for picking.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#549

Post by smsm42 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

theplague42 wrote: post #228

AnimalMuppet wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The reason that Uber and Lyft were eating the taxi business's lunch: Less cost and better service.

In part by ignoring city and state laws!

Because those laws led to low availability, high prices and subpar service. And now they will lead to it again.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#550

Post by lokar » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:55 PM UTC

ianferrel wrote: post #453

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…

I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving. If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

Why can't they start the clock once they accept a ride?