Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 172 posts

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#31

Post by AlphaSite »

908B64B197 wrote: post #24
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, 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 planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very…

Im concerned this is a false dichotomy, there could be other apps?

That said i doubt they would match Uber and Lyft in quality, usually they are mediocre.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#32

Post by harryh »

jtsiskin wrote: post #27
jimmies wrote: post #14

I am just an user of Uber (not a driver) and Uber has been showing shit like this on my phone. https://i.ibb.co/7yQLdY6/7865-CBAD-6928-4637-958-C-011736362... I haven't used the app for a year or so. This is fucking ridiculous. I have uninstalled Uber and I will also recommend all my friends to do the same.

What do they mean “this ad is paid for by Uber Technologies”... it’s a push notification they sent in their own app. Who is paying who?

Pretty sure that is required language when spending money on political advertising.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#33

Post by jkestner »

threatofrain wrote: post #22
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

What's the threat of Uber going away? What's the moat? Wouldn't another company simply fill the vacuum? That is, unless Uber's whole venture is unprofitable.

This was always the plan. Operate at a loss on both riders/drivers until you can turn the screws. In the past, you could say you'll just switch to Lyft, but here they're working together. That should tell you something about who they're competing with. Their drivers.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#34

Post by Wowfunhappy »

908B64B197 wrote: post #24
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, 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 planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very…

How are you getting from "Uber shouldn't be able to hire its drivers as independent contractors to skirt worker-protection laws" to "we should go back to the medallion system"?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#35

Post by jariel »

paulmd wrote: post #11
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

It is really disgusting how Silicon Valley has embraced the tactic of holding other people's livelihoods hostage while they try to make a few percent more profit. Epic is doing the same thing with the Unreal Engine code. They deliberately violated Apple TOS knowing it would get the account banned, and then they try to leverage all those other developers who are going to lose iOS support against the big bad Apple who…

Epics concerns are of an utterly and completely different dimension - and to make the statement 'making money off of other's people's work' while the nature of the contention is Apple's 30% fee is rich.

The issue with Uber v. California is really an issue of materially new kinds of workforces requiring new and effective kinds of legislation.

We just need some responsible leaders to think a little bit, maybe the feds, other states, other countries, and make some simple legislation. There doesn't need to be a referendum, nor does the gov. need to 'negotiate' with anyone per se. Just find something that works for the new world and do it. Subject to change obviously.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#36

Post by zestyping »

tenaciousDaniel wrote: post #23

I have to preface this by saying I'm not defending Uber - I haven't followed the debate around this proposition. But...lots of people in tech, and on this site, have long been pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions. To those of you who have - did you really, honestly think that these companies would not also become vocally active in their own political interests? Did you really think they'd only speak…

Can you say more about what you mean? "Pushing companies to hold and voice political opinions" is not how I would characterize it — at least for my part, I conceive of it as "Pushing companies to behave ethically."

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#37

Post by tpmoney »

acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

It seems to me like this would have been the perfect opportunity to become the first state to decouple benefits from employment. Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways, and set up state sponsored benefit plans for gig workers. Start a mini UBI that covers 4 weeks PTO at the median California wage, open up medicaid eligibility, etc. If the problem is these people don't have benefits, give them the benefits. Trying to force Uber et al to book these people as employees is just propagating the issue in the first place.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#38

Post by SXX »

paulmd wrote: post #20
roflchoppa3 wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

im already no on 22, where did you get the 2% higher profit figure from?

Not referring to Uber specifically, or a specific dollar figure, just the general tactic of "if you don't give in to our demands then we'll shut down and really screw all the people who rely on us!". Which is what Uber and Epic are doing. They didn't go under when they had to start doing background checks in Austin. They don't go under when they have to pay benefits in Germany. This is a stunt to make another couple…

That's funny how you say here that Uber and Epic are equal while in your mind Apple totally deserve it's 30% cut.

Say what you want about Epic, but they totally forced Valve to publicly commit to decrease it's cut for every big publisher out there without directly profi ting from it.

But yeab ofc it's poor Apple being forced to screw developers a bit less. Unacceptable!

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#39

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

908B64B197 wrote: post #24
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Posted it in an other thread [0] but do we really want to go back to the medallion system? Pre-Uber, 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 planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very…

Prop 22 makes no opinion of medallions, in either case of a vote for or against.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#40

Post by slg »

There is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1]

>Amending Proposition 22 would require a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent with, and furthering the purpose of, Proposition 22 would need voter approval.

These ride sharing companies are spending hundreds of millions of dollars and engaging in shady tactics targeted at both their drivers and customers so they can give their employees fewer benefits all while completely circumventing the state legislature. This is a absolute perversion of democracy.

[1] - https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...

Post reply on HN