Live data from Hacker News

Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

lyft.com

631–640 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#631

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business model is on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. I don't think that's spin, but maybe society decides that we don't like on-demand businesses.

McDonalds provides on-demand fast food and its employees are not independent contractors. There are peculiarities to Lyft and Uber’s business model, being on demand is not one.

To be equivalent, you'd have to say that McDonalds is able to provide food anywhere at any time. My house at 6am, downtown at lunch, late night at 2am. In fact, the only way to do this is to use Uber Eats or something similar. And no, delivery drivers have never been that ubiquitous.

Your definition of on-demand is more like a bus or train, not lyft or uber. i.e. you have to actually go to a bus stop or train stop, which could be out of the way, and you have to deal with their schedule. That's hardly on-demand.

Uber and lyft's business model is absolutely based on being on-demand. I would take a bus or train if it was even close to as convenient.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#632

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

[flagged]

"Laws like this exist to protect the weakest from exploitation."

maybe that was the intent but, in reality, you just destroyed your poorest citizen by taking what little they did have away. I get it, passing a law was the easiest thing for you to do because it shifts all responsibility but don't think too high of yourself.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#633
post #571

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.

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…

This idea of micro-shifts sounds made up. Can you reference any companies that have this setup as an employer-employee relationship?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#634

" 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…

This isn't quite right, or at least it's more nuanced than this.

One can in fact work two separate jobs at the same time without it being fraud (the only real "legal" restriction on working two jobs). You can also have two companies pay "you by the hour for the same hour" depending on the circumstances. There isn't a bright line rule that states this or anything, it comes down to whether one is committing fraud (and I agree it could be fraud in many cases, especially if done in secret).

The agent thing falls into the same category, and would depend on fraud and conflict of interest (loyalty, as you mentioned). And you can in fact be an agent of multiple companies or organizations at the same time, but things can get tricky (think of a hypothetical person being the CEO of Twitter and Square at the same time for example).

Your car example is also off the mark, or could be, because it's not a bright line rule. Loyalty to a company in Corporate Law is largely predicated on responsibility to the company via position or duties you've undertaken, and many cases have swung either way, and these can be hard or nuanced questions. Some small facts could change the whole car example, for example perhaps you only sell large vans, but the customer only wants a small convertible. In this case it might be proper for the employee to sell the person their personal Miata. It also doesn't consider higher level employees, executives for instance, and corporate opportunity. RE: "you cannot have two companies paying you by the hour for the same hour", sure you can, depending on the circumstances. Contrived example, but imagine a night security guard being paid to sit at a desk from midnight to eight am whose only responsibility is to have their butt in the seat. It might be okay for them to also be paid for a few hours of handling an online help desk for a third party employer for a couple hours, both being paid by the hour. That person is being paid by the hour by two employers simultaneously and it's not fraud or a breach of loyalty, especially for a hypothetical lower level employee who has permission.

Point is, these are not always easy questions, there is a lot of grey area, and you're really painting the agent and duty of loyalty thing as very black and white concepts when they're definitely not.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#635

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…

I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growin…

> it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection

Isn't this same 'paternalistic protection' the same force Silicon Valley uses to guarantee monopoly rents from 'intellectual property'?

"A globalised intellectual property rights system was immensely strengthened by TRIPS (Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights) passed through the World Trade Organisation in 1994, shaped by a few US multinationals, backed by the US and UK governments. This has facilitated the commercialisation, privatisation and colonisation of ideas. Since 1994, the annual filing of patents has more than tripled, with the global stock of patents close to 12 million, each giving monopolistic control of some idea for 20 years or more.

Many patents result from publicly-funded research, diminishing the risk. But TRIPS allows corporations to receive monopolistic income for two decades, or use the patent to block others from producing something. Those claiming to believe in free markets should have opposed the trend, but reveal their class-based ideology by keeping quiet. There is evidence that the patent system hinders economic growth and innovation. It merely increases inequality and rentier capitalism. George Osborne, as Chancellor, made it even more blatant with his Patent Box tax break that in practice benefits multinationals coming to Britain if they have patented products, particularly Big Tech and Big Pharma. That tax break merely accentuated the plunder of the intellectual commons." [1]

[1] https://www.opendemocracy.net/en/oureconomy/plunder-commons-...

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#636
post #589

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 narr…

If wheelchair users prefer to take private rides, and it's cheaper than adapting public transit to their needs, I really don't see why we need to worry about this kind of issue. Most people view mass transit as generally undesirable, so they're okay with 'missing out' on it, and I don't think the disabled population is large enough to significantly contribute to urban congestion. I suppose that mass transit ridership will appear less diverse, but I'd rather not force people to use public transit just to make it more diverse.

Don't get me wrong; I'd love for everyone to be able to do everything, but trying to make everything work for everyone all the time can get Procrustean.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#637

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

Hahah, you nailed it. People think that they can have their cake and eat it too, but the result will either be rides that are too expensive to bother with, or workers that are paid too little. The actual financials of this don't make sense unless we were to find some way of removing all the overhead caused by having gigantic companies as middlemen.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#638
post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

When I was a BOFH, we had a guy working the night shift who would always be a little slow at getting processing done in time for the rest of corporate to show up and need their data. It was odd but I don’t remember anyone looking into it. Until one time there was a problem with one of the jobs (which meant other jobs could not be run) and no one had their data in the morning. He was asked why he didn’t contact one of…

Good for him for making the most of shitty situation.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#639

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I guess you've never heard of being on-call? Tech and healthcare have very well established demand supply systems. Some mechanical service sectors as well - tow trucks, infrastructure repair.

I don't know anyone who is paid to be on call at two different employers simultaneously.

neither do i. all of the on-call folks I know must respond to pages; they don't have the option to pass on them.

that's just the existing on-call model. it's quite easy to imagine that a service overprovisions to account for people not being required to accept a "page". that overprovisioning specifically is so that people can hold multiple on-call type jobs simultaneously.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#640
post #519

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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.

When I was a BOFH, we had a guy working the night shift who would always be a little slow at getting processing done in time for the rest of corporate to show up and need their data. It was odd but I don’t remember anyone looking into it. Until one time there was a problem with one of the jobs (which meant other jobs could not be run) and no one had their data in the morning. He was asked why he didn’t contact one of…

Looks like his job could have been replaced with a script?
Post reply on HN