Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#621

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

boreas wrote: post #536

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…

Ridesharing created a more or less competitive market for this slice of the transportation sector. Competitive markets are the best way to allocate resources. If you don't agree with that, it will be hard to have a productive discussion. But if you do agree with that, shouldn't we resolve inequalities by directly supporting the least fortunate (with cash) rather than force parties into arbitrary economic relationship…

I agree, but there are base rules in most markets, which is why AB5 exists.

For example, an upstart McDonalds-like chain that uses App-ordering could charge much less for a burger if they paid $3 an hour. Consumers would obviously choose this chain if tyhe product is still good as it is much much cheaper. (Capitalism obviously doesn't have a conscience.) For this reason, we have minimum wage laws and (somewhat as a hack, I don't agree with the rules) health care mandates for employers, to create fair and legal playing fields to ensure that businesses' are taking action to better the economy and the American people.

I suppose a universal point I am trying to state here is: Corporations exist to better the people. Wouldn't it be overall more efficient if the the company paid fairly and the people who work for that company don't have to then request funds from the government? This ensures competition is possible by setting a floor on the race to the bottom costs.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#622

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

nemothekid wrote: post #9

When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority. So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and…

I find that this is super convenient that this is happening during COVID restrictions.

I'm not needing a taxi/uber/lyft for leaving the bar. I'm not going out to a restaurant with friends. I'm not traveling for work/fun and needing an lift to the hotel.

My usage of uber/lyft/taxis went from 100s per month down to 0. If this change happened in 2019, I'd of had significant changes to my daily routine. Today, this changes nothing.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#623

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

Uber will benefit from this, since the demand will go to Uber and they could see surge pricing.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#624

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

chillacy wrote: post #305

compycom wrote: post #255

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber and Lyft are voluntarily suspending operations to make a political point; they are the ones kicking the little guy while they're down. The fact that these companies can spend 100 million to dismantle the outcome of the political process shows how little power the California government actually has.

Tough to call anything done as voluntary with a gun held up to the head. Their entire business model (which has not been super profitable to say the least) was just made illegal in California. Life goes on though, probably the Taxi industry is very pleased, many of the full-time drivers will go on to work as Taxi drivers, licensed with hours and all. And I'll just lower my expectations for getting a taxi dispatched w…

What you call a gun to their head has been there for a year now! The only thing that actually ended was their hopeless legal effort.

So no, it was made illegal a year ago. It was Uber and Lyfts decision to do nothing to prepare.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#625

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

carlosdp wrote: post #476

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 hear this a lot, that Lyft/Uber could allow the same flexibility if they wanted to. It's not that the law dictates this shift, it's that the economics do. Requiring full employment means you can hire less drivers. If you have less drivers, you need more control over when they drive in order to make sure when customers are looking for a ride, they can find one, hence shifts.

Basically this. As best I can tell, most of the flexibility Uber and Lyft want is the flexibility to pay people less and give them less benefits and prevent them from being able to unionize/organize effectively.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#626

Post by bosswipe » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

woeirua wrote: post #29

I suspect that California is going to backpedal on this pretty quickly. Uber and Lyft are popular. Going back to taxis is going to be very unpopular. IMO, if the California Republican party was smart they would make this a wedge issue in the next election. "Elect us, and we'll make it possible to use Uber again."

Republican party is completely dead in California. Last time they had some power they kept manufacturing crises and shutting down the government. After Trump they've gone all in on the national Republican party's white-hot hatred of the state.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#627

Post by wrkronmiller » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:10 PM UTC

chrisco255 wrote: post #566

tehwebguy wrote: post #473

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I believe you have that inverted: if your employer gives you a schedule (among other things), that makes you an employee.

Correct. But the point stands about being able to only work for one ride sharing app. How could they possibly cover minimum wage for folks without setting a schedule and requiring that they not be working for other apps at the same time?

Perhaps by having drivers commit to a single platform, an hour at a time. At the end of the hour-long "shift" the driver then picks which platform to work for in the next hour, or chooses to go home.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#628

Post by jiveturkey » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

tathougies wrote: post #499

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…

> Yes, by common law, you cannot work for two people at the same time.

Please cite something to back this up.

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

Why not? Again, please cite a source.

If we assume that uber et al. have a baseline staffing level, during which time you as driver might be paid to be working for them exclusively, then sure, during that period of "dedicated time" you would only be working for the one service. But then in addition to that, uber might have on-call hours to accommodate surge. During this time, you as employee driver are free to accept or pass on rides. Like voluntary overtime, by the task (piece work). In your OT/on-call hours you can also be on-call for ride service #2, since they could have the same go/no-go optional work acceptance. So why couldn't you do this? And why couldn't uber/lyft employ people this way?

Your example of being a car salesman is a bad analogy for ride service. I am not "working" for the ride service until I accept the ride, which constitutes clocking in for an on-call task. Whereas being a car salesman that sells my personal car while on-duty with my employer is a different situation.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#629

Post by twblalock » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:11 PM UTC

fizzled wrote: post #371

ccffpphh wrote: post #347

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What were these people doing before Uber and Lyft came around?

[flagged]

Giving someone a job they want is not exploitation. If gig workers wanted to be unemployed they could easily do that instead, but they chose to look for a job, someone offered them a job, and they took it. Why should the state interfere in that arrangement and take that job away?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#630

Post by lhorie » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 7:12 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #545

dumbfoundded wrote: post #311

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 do…

I read that some 41% of people support prop 22 as of today, vs some 26% against (and 34% undecided)[1]

I feel like a shutdown would certainly bring it to the top of mind for people and help convert the undecided, but it already looks like it'll pass, shutdown or not.

[1] https://redfieldandwiltonstrategies.com/california-propositi...