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

911–920 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#911

Post by couchand »

1MoreThing wrote: post #881
AlexandrB wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.

Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model. It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.

And if the ride is subsidized by VC, all the better!

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#912

Post by paulmd »

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.

I think the ultimate sticking point is benefits and payroll taxes, and what a lot of the friction is that it's piecework that doesn't have a "conversion" to hours (which are how a lot of our benefits are normally calculated).

What really needs to happen is that conversion rate needs to be established for this kind of work. So if an average driver can do 20 fares per day, times 20 working days per month, then a "full time" uber employee drives 400 fares per month. Or figure it out on a per-mile basis - like the average fare is 4 miles (let's say) so the average driver does 1600 miles/mo.

Figure out the per-ride or per-mile fee and roll that into the fares. Done and done.

(frankly this is being generous - delivery drivers and waitresses are paid "per fare" too, and we still expect their employers to pay for their benefits.)

Really what needs to happen though is we implement government-provided universal healthcare and maybe a basic income, and then you can have all the wacky gig-economy payment schemes you want.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#914

Post by mft_ »

yzmtf2008 wrote: post #723
mft_ wrote: post #586

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Well, not based on one person, but sometimes making uneconomic decisions based on human decency? That’s the society I’d rather live in. I mean, if numbers are all that matter, I’m fairly sure someone could come up with a model to deprioritise and disenfranchise almost anyone - the disabled, the elderly, the retired...

Is forcing wheelchair users to use subway human decency to you? We're talking about a situation where it's cheaper to let them use taxi service, and it's a better experience. My uncle lives in a wheelchair by the way. The horror of imagining him having to use the subway...

That’s not the situation. In the absence of Uber/Lyft (they being positive for disabled mobility) there appears to be no choice: it’s bad slow disabled-specific transport vs... nothing. And the argument was to not do things for disabled people that were uneconomic.

So yes, I’d like to give disabled users the option of using all public transport, if they choose. (Having lived in London, many underground stations are actually pretty good - and certainly not below ‘human decency’.)

But I’d also like that disabled people have other options, including reasonably-priced taxis.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#915

Post by mola »

1MoreThing wrote: post #881
AlexandrB wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.

Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model. It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.

Why is a quickly arriving taxi more important than workers rights? Yes it's more comfortable, for you. But this model is just not sustainable for most people.

Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model.

They try and play a long game where we both lose workers rights, and have only bad monopolistic transportation available.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#916

Post by stronglikedan »

CountSessine wrote: post #894
stronglikedan wrote: post #402

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If driving is what someone has decided to solely do for a living, then they should get a driving job . There's plenty of driving jobs that aren't driving gigs . In my mind, the definition of "gig" sets the expectation for the type of work it will be.

then they should get a driving job Why? I’m a consultant - and this is what I do for a living. Why isn’t freelance work respectable or acceptable in your view?

I suspect you're being disingenuous since I never said either of those things, so I will ignore your second question.

As to your first question, I've never met a consultant that enjoys all the benefits of the full-time employees at the companies they consult for. The term "consultant" sets the expectation that one would not enjoy those benefits during their work there.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#917

Post by 908B64B197 »

bogomipz wrote: post #835
908B64B197 wrote: post #226

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Because the previous medallion system was so much better. Either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that plans to use it as his retirement savings. Pre-Uber, the more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyr…

>"Either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!)" There are plenty of commercial banks that have underwritten loans for taxi medallions and built up a significant portfolio Just in NY for example - North Fork Bank, Capital One, Provident and Signature Bank, See: https://www.autofinancenews.n…

Of course there are, but as with any not so liquid and extremely volatile asset, the interest rates are going to be horrible. It's not like a car or a house.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#918

Post by dmode »

henryfjordan wrote: post #738
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…

AB5 was an absolute cop-out by the CA Legislature. They should have defined a third class of workers with protections somewhere in between Contractors and Employees. But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up wit…

Is there anything on the ballot to create a third way ? I believe Prop 22 is to simply exempt some companies from AB5, right ?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#919

Post by mola »

ProcNetDev wrote: post #870
AlexandrB wrote: post #819

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.

Everyone keeps saying the substitute for Uber/Lyft is taxis. Maybe this is HN bay-area bias but it is just wrong. The substitute for Uber/Lyft in 95% of the US is driving your own car! Driving your own car has significant externalities, eg. More need for parking, more emissions, more drunk driving. I don't live in CA but used to do a fair amount of work travel out there. If they don't have Uber/Lyft in the future, I'…

It could also be good public transportation. Much more efficient.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#920

Post by 1MoreThing »

mola wrote: post #915
1MoreThing wrote: post #881

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model. It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.

Why is a quickly arriving taxi more important than workers rights? Yes it's more comfortable, for you. But this model is just not sustainable for most people. Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model. They try and play a long…

Who says it is? I'm questioning whether the taxi drivers actually have any more rights. The parent comment here said that the disruption that caused ridesharing to rapidly grow this mobility segment was because the drivers were independent contractors instead of being employees. My point is that taxi drivers were never employees, either, and that the success of the ridesharing companies had more to do with user experience and reliability than their business model.
Post reply on HN