Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

lyft.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

571–580 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#571

Post by jawns »

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.

This is not the only way to employ workers, though.

We often think of "on the clock" employment in terms of shift work, where the worker has a scheduled, fixed-length shift with a single employer, and whether they're actively working during that time or waiting around for the employer to tell them what to do next, they're paid for the hours on the clock.

But it is possible for ridesharing companies to employ workers in "micro-shifts" that last the duration of a single ride.

So, Driver X has two part-time jobs: as a part-time employee of Lyft and a part-time employee of Uber. Driver X is ready to work, so checks the apps, and sees there's a Lyft assignment available. Driver X accepts the ride, and for the duration of that ride, he is working exclusively for Lyft, and Lyft pays him for the time worked. Once that ride ends, his micro-shift with Lyft ends, and he's now available to work for either of his part-time jobs again.

The idea of micro-shifts may seem, at first blush, more like a contractor relationship than an employee relationship. And in the past, gigs that used this model were more likely to involve a contractor relationship -- but they also gave the contractor much more freedom in terms of HOW they accomplished the work.

In contrast, if you look at Uber and Lyft, ignoring the micro-shift aspect, there is very little difference between how those jobs work and how other service-oriented part-time jobs work, in terms of the power the employer has to dictate HOW the work gets done.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#572

Post by mumblemumble »

silviogutierrez wrote: post #497
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…

I 100% agree, for that reason and more. But I also don't know that I see accessible public transit as being a something to set against accessible point-to-point transportation. One needs both. For the same reasons that everyone needs both.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#573

Post by frockington1 »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #530
School-Cotton wrote: post #211

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state made their business model illegal. Yes, technically that’s not the same thing as shutting them down, since they could have switched to a different business model, but it’s a distinction without a difference.

Their business model was illegal before they formed the business.

It was made illegal by the law that was just passed. You can't try to claim it was illegal beforehand in good faith

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#574

Post by davrosthedalek »

tathougies wrote: post #532
AgloeDreams wrote: post #493

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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) Tha…

And yet, Uber and Lyft have reduced drunk driving rates, provided mobility to thousands of people who otherwise may not have it, and generally made life easier for millions, if not billions, of people around the world. It's almost like one can enrich themselves while helping others.

Exploiting one part of the population is often beneficial for the other part of the population. Doesn't make it OK though.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#575

Post by bhahn »

jjeaff wrote: post #519
ianferrel wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

>you can't be on the clock for two different companies at the same time I mean, I don't see why not. Would create some inefficiencies. But I don't think there is a law against that.

I’m not an expert in the matter, but I imagine that as employees, Lyft and Uber could more strictly penalize them for not accepting rides, which the driver would have to do pretty often if they were driving for multiple platforms simultaneously.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#577

Post by core-questions »

benrbray wrote: post #502
runarberg wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a true and an important concern. Municipalities and counties in California really need to step up their game and provide a viable and cheap to use alternative. Everybody deserves to be able to go where they want within their community when they want to. And we should provide these without relying on private companies with questionable labor practices.

Americans spent $1 TRILLION on personal transport (cars + car insurance, mainly) in 2017 [1]. Imagine if just half that went to building local subway networks / high-speed rail across the country / expanding bus options. [1]: https://www.itdp.org/2019/05/23/high-cost-transportation-uni...

Yeah, that'd be great when they shut it all down for the next pandemic

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#578

Post by crondung »

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

To him, that money comes from 'government' not your payckeck. This is the kind of person who like many doesn't care -he pays almost no taxes, and votes for other people's hard-earned salary to be given to him. It's one if the issues with democracy - 2 wolves and a sheep voting what's for dinner.

These are also the kind of people who think people have a right to free housing, so anyone who worked, saved for 20 years, and bought a house, now owes them free lodging.

This is why people vote for gop eggheads. Because while those corrupt men steal their money, it's a lot less than the entitled masses try to steal.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#579

Post by chasd00 »

fizzled wrote: post #439
blhack wrote: post #131

Lot of my friends who work in non tech jobs use driving for Uber or Lyft as a way to either get a little extra cash, or bridge themselves across gaps in employment. This would devastate them. Absolutely heartless move on behalf of the California government. Don’t kick the little guys while they’re down to make some political point. It’s not the time.

I think you have it backwards: I blame the billion dollar companies for being heartless. The government works to prevent exploitation of the poor.

How many times do we have to go through this? A leftist government makes some random law they think will help the people. Then everyone suffers even more.

Over and over and over.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#580

Post by tathougies »

pmcollins wrote: post #220
blhack wrote: post #131

Lot of my friends who work in non tech jobs use driving for Uber or Lyft as a way to either get a little extra cash, or bridge themselves across gaps in employment. This would devastate them. Absolutely heartless move on behalf of the California government. Don’t kick the little guys while they’re down to make some political point. It’s not the time.

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 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.

There is a tendency to classify failed left-leaning policies as 'well-intentioned but failures' and right-leaning policies as 'heartless and also failures'. This is a ridiculous dichotomy.

The fact is that everyone knew this was going to happen. It was indeed a heartless policy. The leftist lawmakers that run california could have asked anyone and could have at least feigned interest in helping Uber and Lyft succeed in their state. Instead, they chose to essentially ban their business model with no input from the companies. It is especially egregious because the state has spent the last 50 years building an incredibly car-dependent society, and has failed in its duty to bring any kind of workable public transportation system. Uber and Lyft started to become their finally workable transit system, and the state can't even have that.

I'm done pretending that leftist policies are well-intentioned. We need to start calling them what they are -- evil.

Post reply on HN