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

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

11–20 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#11

Post by whyrusleeping »

josh2600 wrote: post #6
umvi wrote: post #5

So does this mean it'll be more economical for me to just rent cars again and drive myself whenever I fly to California?

I always say this whenever this comes up, but, the number of duis since Uber has been operating have dropped precipitously. I don’t want to be on California roads late at night without Uber.

Wow, these are some impressive numbers: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/06/S5-260-1.pdf

(note: uber launched in 2009)

You can't say there's causation here necessarily, but the correlation is significant.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#12

Post by HeavenFox »

umvi wrote: post #5

So does this mean it'll be more economical for me to just rent cars again and drive myself whenever I fly to California?

If you are a tourist visiting multiple destinations a day that is probably already the case. Bay Area and LA are both spread out enough that rideshare fares quickly add up. Rideshare has always been more for convenience for me - not having to worry about parking or agonizing over traffic.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#13

Post by foota »

Larrikin wrote: post #10
josh2600 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always say this whenever this comes up, but, the number of duis since Uber has been operating have dropped precipitously. I don’t want to be on California roads late at night without Uber.

I don't care if uber can't pay back their VCs and goes under because of this ruling. There is a model that has shown to have a service people want and are willing to pay for, the market will find the right price with a different company. Drunk driving reduction has been a good thing about these services, but it doesn't need to be uber.

It could be that the market won't exist (or that the quality of service will diminish because of the lower network effects) if there isn't sufficient demand at a break even price post legislation.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#14

Post by moioci »

JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Remedying those harms more strongly served the public interest I hate reporters using this language to describe court opinions. It’s a legal term of art that makes decisions sound political. The judge ruled based on the law. Lawmakers balance public interest. Yes, the court furthers that through its work, but it isn’t actively creating the scales by which to weigh these parties’ interests.

From the ruling, p. 62: "In sum, our assessment is as follows. The trial court found that rectifying the various forms of irreparable harm shown by the People more strongly serves the public interest than protecting Uber, Lyft, their shareholders, and all of those who have come to rely on the advantages of online ride-sharing delivered by a business model that does not provide employment benefits to drivers." Reporters simply paraphrased the court's opinion.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#15

Post by VRay »

foota wrote: post #13
Larrikin wrote: post #10

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't care if uber can't pay back their VCs and goes under because of this ruling. There is a model that has shown to have a service people want and are willing to pay for, the market will find the right price with a different company. Drunk driving reduction has been a good thing about these services, but it doesn't need to be uber.

It could be that the market won't exist (or that the quality of service will diminish because of the lower network effects) if there isn't sufficient demand at a break even price post legislation.

I'll bet you could set up an actual marketplace with automated matchmaking

it probably wouldn't be as good as Uber/Lyft can make things by forcing "contractors" to take unprofitable rides, though

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#16

Post by not2b »

If Uber and Lyft don't win their proposition, they can either agree to classify their drivers as employees, or some company that is willing to classify drivers that way will take over the market. People are commenting as if app-based ride share will no longer be available. It might cost more, but it wouldn't be much more.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#17

Post by Ericson2314 »

ChuckMcM wrote: post #9

This has been an interesting battle in terms of civil governance. Basically Uber & Lyft threatened to put the initiative they wrote, on the ballot if the legislature passed AB5, which they did. Uber and Lyft are now doing everything they can to get it to pass which will set up its own court fight. Watching this fight I wonder "Who is in charge of governing California?" is it the Legislature/Governor or is it special…

> California didn't help itself when it implemented term limits which had the unpleasant side effect of never having any legislators with enough experience in the job to know how to really get things done.

I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out?

The fear of rocking the boat effects anyone that, well, will live longer. Whether you are looking for continued perks/bribes in office, a cushy lobbying job after, or simply don't want to make enemies before your political next move, the perverse incentives are still there.

Perhaps a better thing to do would be to let the populace force votes on a daily basis (with queuing / anti DOS measures, of course), so the representatives have to go on the record one way or another, and can't hide behind inaction.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#18

Post by not2b »

tomerico wrote: post #7

Ironically, this is likely good news for Uber & Lyft. It makes Prop 22 more important, and makes the effects of not having it more real.

It doesn't make a difference. AB5 is the law; it was on hold until the outcome of prop 22. With or without this court decision, if 22 doesn't win Uber and Lyft either have to reclassify their drivers or their drivers will work for some other company that is willing to comply. What is not a possibility is that app-based ride applications will disappear. There's a market, people want the service, and the current drivers want to provide it.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#19

Post by pmiller2 »

drewblaisdell wrote: post #4
JumpCrisscross wrote: post #2

> Remedying those harms more strongly served the public interest I hate reporters using this language to describe court opinions. It’s a legal term of art that makes decisions sound political. The judge ruled based on the law. Lawmakers balance public interest. Yes, the court furthers that through its work, but it isn’t actively creating the scales by which to weigh these parties’ interests.

> The judge ruled based on the law. Are you basing this on anything other than the ideal that we Americans are taught about how courts work? In practice, a reasoned argument can be made for two or more interpretations of law and judges are often entirely "political".

"Judges rule based on the law," and "judges' decisions are inherently political" are not inconsistent statements. In other words, why not both?

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#20

Post by hourislate »

What happens if Uber and Lyft pull out of California?

Here is a list of Organizations and Individuals who are against Prop 22

Seems like there are a lot of Unions, School Districts, and every Democrat in Government from Biden all the way to the local level.

https://sickofgiggreed.com/endorsements/

Post reply on HN