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

921–930 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#921

Post by electricviolet »

ericsoderstrom wrote: post #726
electricviolet wrote: post #646

Earlier quoted context omitted.

MLM companies continue to be popular, despite the fact that the majority of people lose money by participating. I agree that portions of the left can be paternalistic sometimes, but that doesn't mean Uber and Lyft aren't exploitative.

I think MLM is different. A small number of people might make a lot of money, funded by the losses of most of the rest. In that respect its more like gambling, and people can be more easily fooled to think that they'll be one of the lucky few. Working as a driver for uber/lyft isn't really like that at all. You know approximately how much you can stand to make per hour. There isn't a small pool of drivers somehow mak…

> Being a driver isn't predicated on mistakenly calculating your odds of winning big

Not exactly, but there are parallels. Most drivers don't take into account the costs of wear and tear on their cars, which can be significant, and Uber isn't transparent about how drivers should anticipate those costs. So part of your wages as a driver are essentially borrowing against the future value of your car. And it can take years before the wear and tear becomes apparent, so many current drivers may not have run up against that reality yet.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#922

Post by black3r »

mike00632 wrote: post #899
black3r wrote: post #799

Not being from the US the only thing I don't understand is why does CA expect taxi drivers to be employees? Here in Slovakia even regular taxi drivers can be independent contractors and it's perfectly OK with the law, a lot of taxi drivers here even ride for multiple companies (regular taxi dispatchers, uber, bolt, their own prices for longer trips)

Drivers are allowed to be independent contractors in California. But the law requires that the drivers be truly independent in ways that Uber and Lyft do not allow.

from what I've just read about the AB5 the one thing that doesn't make sense to me is the clause that defines an independent contractor when "the service is performed outside the usual course of business of the employer".

This seems that it can also force software devs to become employed if they just want to do a short-term contract for a software company and potentially affect other businesses as well.

In our country, we instead require independent contractors to use their own resources/equipment to perform the job while allowing companies to hire them even if it's their main course of business.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#923

Post by mahkeiro »

SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #865
cactus2093 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. This reflects the fact that they like to eat.

So how comes that Uber can operate in Switzerland a country where the state will always feed you and provide a home?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#924

Post by runarberg »

jessedhillon wrote: post #841
cool_dude85 wrote: post #594

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Wait a sec - this efficient method doesn't involve abusing contractor status to not pay employees benefits, does it? If it does, I'd rather come up with another idea, thanks.

You're right, we'll make it completely voluntary for the transportation providers to participate.

This myth of voluntary participation in capitalism has been debunked many time. When you need to sell you labor in order to feed and house you and your family, it isn’t voluntary by a long shot. It is not a free market because the employer has a significant advantage. This is why we need labor regulations and protections. When a workplace fills out their labor needs with contractors, it is an obvious way to circumvent these necessary labor regulations and protections.

So you are wrong—as California is proofing—unregulated gig-capitalism is not a system that can provide fair working conditions and cheap accessible transportation at the same time.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#925

Post by jedberg »

extra88 wrote: post #767
jedberg wrote: post #755

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You've clearly never tried to use a taxi in California.

For the majority who haven't tried to use taxis in California, what's the informative version of this comment?

> what's the informative version of this comment

Called out! But you're right, I should have been more specific.

I think it was covered well below: They are never around and have a low chance of coming if you call one, even if they say they are on the way.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#926

Post by extra88 »

jedberg wrote: post #925
extra88 wrote: post #767

Earlier quoted context omitted.

For the majority who haven't tried to use taxis in California, what's the informative version of this comment?

> what's the informative version of this comment Called out! But you're right, I should have been more specific. I think it was covered well below: They are never around and have a low chance of coming if you call one, even if they say they are on the way.

Taxis sound way less reliable in the SF area than my experience with them in the Boston area.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#927

Post by pembrook »

mola wrote: post #667

Great, if this business is not feasible without workers rights, then it's not feasible business.

Funny how ridesharing companies have been successfully operating all over the world in countries that have very strong workers rights (like Finland, Sweden, Australia, France, and about 10-15 others).

So the issue is clearly not the ridesharing business. But sure, I'll bite. Let's follow this to its logical conclusion.

So you kill Uber and Lyft in California. Great. The California elite can pat themselves on the back for protecting all those workers from choosing to take "bad" jobs.

But wait. Now what? How are you going to ensure all those unemployed drivers get healthcare benefits now?

Will you go after all the fast food restaurants where they'll be forced to work part-time now (also with no benefits) to feed their children? And then after that, the next set of low wage jobs? I guess nobody thought that far.

My hunch is, the people who cared most about passing this law don't actually care about the workers. They just care about the narrative, and the self satisfied feeling of hurting the "evil capitalist" boogeyman. Once the boogeyman is killed, they will move on and leave the workers behind to fend for themselves. Because the goal wasn't to give workers healthcare. That would've been a healthcare bill.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#928

Post by mola »

1MoreThing wrote: post #920
mola wrote: post #915

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 exper…

Or maybe it's because they give cheap subsidized service. What's the long game? How can they keep it cheap and make profit? They can't. Because it's an extremely inefficient endeavour.

I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#929

Post by codefreakxff »

jedberg wrote: post #755
codefreakxff wrote: post #747

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's called a Taxi. They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.

You've clearly never tried to use a taxi in California.

I love these comments like "you've clearly never X".

I have, in fact, used Taxis in California. Is it easier to use Uber or Lyft? Yes. Is there absolutely no alternative as the commenter above suggests? No.

We can have a conversation around why the Taxi system sucks, if you'd like.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#930

Post by runarberg »

sickygnar wrote: post #613
claudeganon wrote: post #491

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 conditio…

Honest question: Has there been a mass action lawsuit against this lack of options for you and other people in your situation? It would seem to me that your county or municipality is in violation of some ADA regulations.

If not, and lawyers agree there is no case (yet), then there is an obvious gap in the ADA regulation, and it should be fixed. Everyone has equal rights to get around their community, and it is massively unfair if a significant number of people are left behind because of their disabilities.

Post reply on HN