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

961–970 of 1001 posts

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#961

Post by stjohnswarts »

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.

I think uber and lyft should pay more to their employees and raise their rates to reflect that. We don't need to go back to taxis, I agree with you on that, but the fare should reflect the real cost of the ride for a fair wage for the service.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#962

Post by stjohnswarts »

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…

fomenting not fermenting.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#963

Post by glglwty »

benrbray wrote: post #502
runarberg wrote: post #459

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is a true and an important concern. Municipalities and counties in California really need to step up their game and provide a viable and cheap to use alternative. Everybody deserves to be able to go where they want within their community when they want to. And we should provide these without relying on private companies with questionable labor practices.

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...

California proved that $100B won't even build you a high speed rail between SF and LA. The cost of convincing people to change their mind, is still cost.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#964

Post by stjohnswarts »

AgloeDreams wrote: post #461
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…

'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've yet to hear of an Uber/Lyft rep putting a gun to one of their driver's heads and forcing them to work for them. There are other sources of income out there. However, I wouldn't have a problem with the government stepping in and requiring them to set rates to guarantee a certain amount of pay per hour. Seems ridiculously low right now. It seems like we need another "type" of employee outside of the 20th century definitions of contractor and "employee". Also it seems like healthcare should be in there for those who put in significant amounts of hours.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#965

Post by vinay427 »

mahkeiro wrote: post #923
SquishyPanda23 wrote: post #865

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

This is not exactly true. It may sort of hold (see below) if you're a Swiss citizen but nearly everyone else who make up 25% of residents is liable to be deported, not be eligible for naturalization down the line, and/or face other consequences if they cannot provide for themselves.

Also, the social services for anyone from what I've heard (as I live here but haven't used them myself) are sufficient but not always comfortable. It's noticeably far from a welfare state model like Sweden is made out to be.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#966

Post by stjohnswarts »

kllrnohj wrote: post #847
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…

Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally. Similarly, if a market is saturated with unde…

You're pushing the goal posts there. We're talking about California, not Qatar, no one is taking anyone's passports here. Please move the goalpost back to where it needs to be to have a discussion, per the article of this post.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#967

Post by stjohnswarts »

paulmd wrote: post #800
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…

> I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". Let's not beat around the bush, the appropriate term already exists, it's called a "taxi service". The fact that the taxi operators provide their own vehicles is not novel.

Taxis are a 19th/20th century invention, we can do way better. Uber/Lyft are far superior, we just need to make sure the drivers aren't taken advantage of; probably by making them raise rates a bit and giving that money to drivers as a base pay.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#968

Post by stjohnswarts »

asah wrote: post #843
bgorman wrote: post #513

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you get to decide what a fair wage is, or what a positive force in the economy is? Taxis are an obsolete service, Lyft and Uber are overwhelmingly favored by customers and businesses.

Um, try the Curb app. Here in NYC, it competes just fine with Lyft and Uber, but uses licensed taxis. There's hailing, pickup, walk-away payment ("pair to pay"), etc etc

Are the rates similar?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#969

Post by bobthepanda »

manigandham wrote: post #697
bobthepanda wrote: post #409

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What citizens want is fickle and entirely depends on framing and knowledge. Citizens want goods for cheaper, obviously. But citizens also like the concept of people and companies doing "their fair share". For example a fair amount of people were outraged when it was revealed that official Walmart policy was to direct underpaid employees into Medicaid, EBT, etc. rather than just paying them to afford basic life expens…

Citizens also want to be able to earn income as independent contractors, the way they have for decades in many other industries. But above all, citizens would like to be able to choose for themselves instead of having a few people with no idea of their experience tell them what they must do.

You mean like the way all citizens are entitled to choose their representatives that passed AB5 in the first place?

California has a strong history of voters holding politicians doing unpopular things accountable (see: Gray Davis) or doing things that override the will of politicians (see: Prop 13). There has not been strong voter organization against AB5, which speaks volumes about how much of a non-issue it is for voters.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#970

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

School-Cotton wrote: post #568
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #530

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Their business model was illegal before they formed the business.

I don't know whether that's true or not, but I don't think it changes my point.

The Dynamex Decision [0] has held that the State of California has always considered drivers to be employees.

[0]: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Dynamex_Operations_West,_Inc._...

Post reply on HN