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

91–100 of 423 posts

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

#91

Post by okareaman »

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now...

Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. California unions are encouraging these bad drivers to seek protection. I base this on talking to other drivers and taking rides myself. How is a driver bad at their job?

  * won't do rides out of town because "I don't get paid coming back"
  * won't do rides to the airport
  * declines short rides
  * won't get out of the car to help people put things or groceries in the trunk
  * has a "my car, my rules" attitude. Won't allow drinks for example
  * won't turn the radio down when someone gets a call
  * male drivers bothering women who just want to get somewhere
  * misses turns frequently
  * talks whether the passenger wants it or not
  * won't talk if passenger clearly wants to talk
  * takes eyes off the road while talking
  * fiddles with their cell phone while driving to look at texts
  * goes too fast, tailgates, lousy driver
  * talks politics, religion or sex
  * has a body odor problem. doesn't use air freshener in car or shower before driving.
  * has a dirty car
  * won't take a different route if asked, or alternately, goes off route without explanation
  * won't wait the require 5 minutes to pick someone up
  * accepts a ride and then calls to see where they are going. cancels if they don't like it (Lyft)
  * won't put on air conditioner when asked
I could go on, but these drivers don't get tips and don't make enough money from rides because they are not maximizing potential. Up to 70% of drivers are like me and do a good job, like the freedom to work when and where they want, and would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California.

Thanks

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

#92

Post by dang »

akiselev wrote: post #85
donor20 wrote: post #71

AB5 has been a total disaster. The number of special cased carve-outs is ridiculous - it's not a normal law. Obviously AB5 was hacked together by some special interests (unions maybe - what is history?). It's totally unworkable. The carveouts that keep coming are the sign of this - how many are there now, anyone have the list? And yes, I'm a maxed out dem donor. If AB5 is the way workers rights are going to be advanc…

> The number of special cased carve-outs is ridiculous - it's not a normal law. I looked up AB5 [1] and read about the "carve outs" last time the topic came up, among several other. It's far shorter than other nontrivial bills and I couldn't find a single one that didn't specifically mention a superseding precedent or specialized State or Federal law that had supremacy regardless. For example, the primary exceptions…

Please edit out swipes like "Have you actually read" and name-calling like "This FUD is nonsense". Those things destroy conversation and break the site guidelines, and your comment would be just fine without them.

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

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

#93

Post by fairity »

tgv wrote: post #76
syntaxing wrote: post #62

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

I don't think that's an issue of freedom: drivers can drive for the company they like, just not as a wage slave.

His point is that they're not "wage slaves". They can freely move to another minimum wage job. The fact that they don't indicates that Uber is a better deal.

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

#94

Post by dpc_pw »

dybber wrote: post #68
dpc_pw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?

That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.

I take it as a "no". You nor California's government have no better options for them.

> The alternative scenario...

Another scenario is that Uber hikes prices, people cease to use their services because they are too expensive, and the company fails, and all these drivers lose their jobs, and customers lose the service, which will double-hurt the working class because rich people can afford their own cars and/or expensive taxis.

The drivers are not exploited. Had their have better options, they would be working elsewhere. You want to help them, give them better options, make opening business easier and so on. Not kill their options.

Ehh... I'm wasting my time... Socialists are the worst enemy of the people the claim to want to protect.

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

#95

Post by SamReidHughes »

dybber wrote: post #68
dpc_pw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?

That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.

If workers get paid more in benefits and "rights," more people will become rideshare drivers. And then pay will get pushed down, until the work is just as undesirable as it is now, only differently undesirable, because the compensation is in the form of benefits and "rights," instead of cash that the driver can spend however they want.

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

#96

Post by lisper »

okareaman wrote: post #91

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

And how can we know that you're not a shill?

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

#97

Post by dpc_pw »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #79
dybber wrote: post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.

Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.

Exactly. Employment and benefits requirement will completely eliminate part-time and flexible-hours workers, and other people that were really benefiting from this type of work.

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

#98

Post by fairity »

takeda wrote: post #82
ChicagoDave wrote: post #74

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except what all the employment hawks ignore is that 70% of ride-share drivers don’t want to be employees. Number one concern is pay. Number two is autonomy. Benefits aren’t even a consideration. This whole thing is about lawyers and the taxi industry. It’s bullshit. Uber is far from perfect, but let’s make sure we raise every point when arguing about it.

But Uber/Lyft/Doordash etc can give them autonomy, they can make them true contractors. I also doubt that the law forces companies to have a work schedule for their employees. From what I understand it just says that benefits are provided if employee works for more than certain amount of hours. So to me it seems like it's all about exploiting their drivers (treating drivers like employees without providing advantages…

While it's true that the law doesn't force companies to assign shifts to employees, in practice, it's always the case.

The reason is because ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than letting employees choose their own schedule.

Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.

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

#99

Post by dmitriid »

karlp wrote: post #72
whyenot wrote: post #63

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It would be nice to have a citation or two from said academic literature.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason...

It's not academic literature, it's an op-ed piece. And every one of the 5 reasons can be challenged.

Especially the "less choice" one.

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

#100

Post by jayd16 »

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…

How do you think it should have played out? Laws were passed, special interests didn't like it and now there's a court battle. And immediately you say nothing can get passed that special interests oppose.

California has the curve ball of the proposition system. Its not that hard to make it to the ballot with anything. It can be a little silly but it is what it is.

How is this a term limits issue? What would you like to have seen?

Post reply on HN