Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#611

Post by axlee » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #489

axlee wrote: post #380

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Nobody is being forced into anything. They're choosing this because it's the best opportunity. That is such a lazy take. Of course people are forced to take whatever job is available: humans need food, shelter and healthcare. If society doesn't collectively agree about a minimum standard of what a job entails, you inevitably ends up with the "bottom of the barrel" living in inhumane conditions. As a society, it is…

Why don't these people accept the existing full-time driving jobs then? Is it because flexibility is paramount and they might already have other commitments? Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What's that solve exactly? Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?

> Why don't these people accept the existing full-time driving jobs then?

Which jobs? The ones that got slaughtered when Uber&co undercutted the whole market because they did not have to provide their workers with the basic standards that their competitors have to (i.e insurance, benefits, min. wage)?

> Is it because flexibility is paramount and they might already have other commitments?

How is that related? Flexibility doesn't mean having no rights. You can absolutely have a flexible schedule as an employee.

> Why convert many existing opportunities into fewer worse jobs? What you call opportunity, I call exploitation in the current way Uber&co run their businesses.

> Do you think there should be no independent contractors? Do you also object to freelancer writers or artists?

How is that related? The relationship and power balance between Uber and their drivers is not even close to "two independant parties", and the courts of California and many other countries around the world agree with me. There is nothing "freelance" about being an Uber driver.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#612

Post by bergstromm466 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

yoelo wrote: post #584

AgloeDreams wrote: post #461

Earlier quoted context omitted.

'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…

Exactly. Uber and Lyft are a 19th century labor situation which masks itself by using 21st century technology

Exactly. As Professor Guy Standing says:

"The Precariat is the first class in history to be losing acquired rights – cultural, civil, social, economic and political. This is documented in A Precariat Charter. It leads to the most crucial feature. Those in it are reduced to being supplicants. The Latin root of precariousness is “to obtain by prayer”. The precariat must ask for favours, for charity, to show obsequiousness, to plead with figures of authority. It is degrading and stigmatizing." [1]

[1] https://www.weforum.org/agenda/2016/11/precariat-global-clas...

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#613

Post by sickygnar » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:07 PM UTC

claudeganon wrote: post #491

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.

I'm not able to drive because of epilepsy and have to rely on ride share apps when family members can't drive me. It's expensive but public transportation doesn't exist here. Around 1/100 people are epileptic and the chance of a seizure during one's life is double digits, so it's not an insignificant amount of people. Mine is "well controlled" but the consequences of accidents can be extreme. Plenty of other conditions exist which also prevent people from driving.

Unfortunately it's difficult to participate in a lot of our society unless you can drive.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#614

Post by silviogutierrez » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

nickff wrote: post #589

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…

What about the wheelchair users? What do they prefer? If it were both cheaper and best for the users (as I believe it would be) to pay for private rides, I would support that wholeheartedly. If one option were cheaper, and the other is preferred, it would seem that you'd have to engage in some type of cost-benefit analysis. I don't see why able-bodied people should impose their view of 'social integration' on minorit…

You have a good point.

But I think taken to the extreme: who wouldn't prefer a private air-conditioned taxi over 100 ˚F subway platforms?

In this hypothetical: we're assuming the facilities are good enough that the experience for the disabled is within reasonable parity.

On the other hand, if it means having to go 40 blocks uptown, just to find an elevator then head back downtown, the system is inadequate and my narrative doesn't hold.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#615

Post by Majromax » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #245

tedivm wrote: post #60

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's what AB5 did. It allowed for a new type of worker that was still partially an employee but would also allow for flexible hours and the ability for drivers to reject rides. That's what's so disingenuous about this campaign by Uber and Lyft. They're pretending that being an employee would take away all of this flexibility, but the reality is the legislation left that flexibility in place. This is entirely an arg…

That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment. The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.

> The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts

Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#616

Post by JamesBarney » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

tehwebguy wrote: post #460

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…

Yeah I am fairly sure it's a straight up lie! Just because someone is an employee doesn't mean the employer can't give them flexible hours

If you are required to provide your employees benefits, then you need to hire them for a certain number of hours to amortize those benefits costs.

And if you are hiring Joe to work 40 hours as an Uber driver then you need to make sure he works 40 hours that make sense. Thus benefits require a minimum number of hours, and a minimum number of hours requires a schedule.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#617

Post by horsawlarway » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:08 PM UTC

clearasmudd wrote: post #525

If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors. If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers. The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have ex…

> If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors.

This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc.

And yes, the business absolutely can operate without any given independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all.

Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time.

So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#618

Post by eggsnbacon1 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

When the monopolistic rideshare titans were banned in Austin there were local competitors within weeks. They kinda sucked for a few months, but by the time Lyft and Uber returned they worked quite well. They also paid the drivers FAR better, I heard on driver forums that it was easy to make over 20 an hour. Most drivers I talked to were very upset when Lyft/Uber returned, because they took over 50% pay cut.

With the technical might that is Silicon Valley, California only needs to hold their ground for a few months, then Lyft/Uber will become an afterthought

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#619

Post by chasd00 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

lefrenchy wrote: post #518

JamesBarney wrote: post #478

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. These drivers who can't put food on the table without Uber(which I've person…

> No one is forcing them to do anything. They not only get to decide if they want to work, but how much, and when. No they don't.. Their material conditions dictate how much they need to work to meet their basic needs (food, utilities, rent). You're assuming that people who are living paycheck to paycheck, who are backed against a wall, have the option to pick and choose if, when, and how much they work. The people i…

"This is entirely anecdotal, on top of the fact that "raising children" or "having a medical condition" should not be an excuse to be denied economic stability and benefits."

well they sure as shit aren't getting _anything_ now. What a hollow victory.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#620

Post by benrbray » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:09 PM UTC

core-questions wrote: post #577

benrbray wrote: post #502

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

This is a dishonest argument. Compared to the United States, countries like Japan, Germany, and others in Europe have been much more successful at containing the pandemic, even with their extensive public transport systems.

Our transportation system is entirely based on individual travel, and yet we cannot keep cases under control.

Besides, this situation is not permanent. We should not live in complete isolation out of fear for the next pandemic. Instead, we should learn from our mistakes this time around, and agree on an appropriate course of action to protect against future contagions.