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

191–200 of 423 posts

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

#191

Post by okareaman »

jonathan-neil wrote: post #147
jayd16 wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Cursory glance at the comment history seems to argue otherwise, no?

You do know that social media accounts are primed then sold to achieve your exact reaction, no?

Lyft is sneaky. They sent me to a cemetary next to a busy area once when I was on the hwy going home and then cancelled the ride once I got to the cemetery. Then they messaged me and said as long as I was in a busy area, why didn't I wait? The thing that pissed me off was the algorithm actually directed me to drive into a cemetary on a dark night, as if someone was there waiting for me. Of course I didn't go in the cemetery. Another time Lyft indicated there was a busy bonus area a couple miles from the airport. I went there and waited and then noticed other drivers waiting. It wasn't a busy area. What Lyft was doing was parking us there because the airport waiting lot was full. Lyft also has several times cancelled trips right when I got there so I don't get paid. Uber doesn't play tricks like this. However, people who take Lyft are usually nicer people. Does it seem like a shill would say stuff like this? If you think so, then I can't help you.

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

#192

Post by okareaman »

djur wrote: post #174
okareaman wrote: post #136

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"bad drivers" as in "not making money" drivers. When you go out of town you stay there and take rides or set your direction home and pick up rides in that direction. Drivers who say they don't get paid coming back are ignorant.

Or the drivers could be paid a wage and it wouldn't be a problem. It sounds like the current system for compensating drivers creates an incentive for bad service in this instance, not good.

How is taking rides on the way home bad service? Why should I get the same wage as a sub par driver?

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

#193

Post by m12k »

Ericson2314 wrote: post #40
d23 wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? What? Take this to it's logical conclusion and imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? If you know nothing about a fairly complex topic, it's easy to be mislead, especially by…

> Imagine term limits of 1 day. No one would be making sound decisions with those yeas and nays. I have no idea what terms limits of 1 day would do; it's not obvious to me. Please argue your point. > And why would they always be 50 / 50 and "cancel out"? I'm not talking about a vote split additive cancel out. I'm talking about how in `(termLimit * nFor) / (termLimit * nAgainst)` the `termLimit` factors cancel out. >…

Not the person you are replying to, but I think the point they are trying to make is that the less experience a politician has, the more likely they are to believe what they are told by someone with an agenda who is trying to influence them, e.g. special interests. So the lack of experience doesn't cancel out for yea and nay when it comes to any given vote, because special interests will be lobbying mostly for one of the two, and thus the lack of experience (i.e. resistance to influence by having your own knowledge of the area) can tip the balance.

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

#194

Post by Rebelgecko »

nextaccountic wrote: post #143
pbreit wrote: post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>special interests didn't like it Almost no one liked it, least of all those supposedly benefitting from it.

So.. they shouldn't have voted for it?

AB5 was a law passed in the legislature, not a public referendum

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

#195

Post by brian_cloutier »

haroldegibbons wrote: post #111
brian_cloutier wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that t…

> they have decided that this is their best option Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? > why should only employed people deserve than minimum standard Why does Uber think unemployed people don't deserve the minimum standard? > Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living Do you think this ruling lines up with that?

I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying.

My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers.

If you think that these are immoral working conditions then what you really believe is that a large chunk of our society is immorally made to live in poverty, and you're blaming Uber but how could this be Uber's fault?

If someone has genuinely decided to accept work for $4/hr and this shocks you so much that you're demanding Uber give them more, you should also be shocked that so many people are currently earning $0/hr if you have any hope of having a consistent worldview.

When seen from this lens the whole argument over SB 5 and Prop 22 makes no sense at all. Stop focusing on Uber, ask your legislators to stop focusing on Uber, and to start attempting to solve the real problem.

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

#196

Post by matthewmacleod »

thebradbain wrote: post #46
Ericson2314 wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. :| Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

And that's partly how you end up with what many people would perceive as a "shadow government" -- obviously a group of people are writing the laws, and most likely they're experienced in doing so, but who _are_ they? And who are they accountable to? Kind of like the bureaucratic equivalent of external consultants coming into a private company.

You’ve just the Civil Service.

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

#197

Post by ChicagoDave »

jimnotgym wrote: post #80
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.

>70% of ride-share drivers don't want to be employees Firstly, is that backed up by data? Secondly, what is their reason for not wanting to be employees? Is it something about immigration law, exploitative employers or truly something about freedom?

Yep.

https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/

Why is it so hard to believe drivers enjoy their freedom? They get to control their schedule. Turn the app on and off. Quit after two rides or drive for ten hours because the hits keep coming.

This is not exploitation. There’s a small number of drivers taking advantage of free lawyers backed by the taxi industry.

But more than anything. If you don’t like ride share don’t drive for ride share. Find a different job. Who said anyone has a right to demand a job to be created their way? Ride share works as it is. If you want a full-time with benefits go get a trucking job. There are a ton of those.

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

#198

Post by Rebelgecko »

jayd16 wrote: post #122
gonehome wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope 22 passes. The current incentive structure between drivers, riders, and Uber is really good. The ability to scale up and down quickly based on demand, surge pricing, incentive to give more rides to make more, not wait around etc. This legislation seems like it’ll make things worse for most people, except people interested in doing the minimum number of fares possible to not get fired (and the teamsters pushing…

>current issues with drivers not showing up or canceling will likely be worse. I can see how it might raise the price of worse rides but why would it cause more no-shows/cancelling?

As employees, drivers would still get their $15/hour even if they're idle.

Right now,uber doesn't really care about minimizing a drivers idle time,but they'd need to otherwise. Prop 22 would still pay drivers a floor of 120% * minimum wage while they're actually driving in exchange for unpaid idle time,that 20% is a lower bound for how much they'll need to reduce the pool of drivers.

As a response, Uber/Lyft will need to either start assigning shifts or add a limit to the # of drivers that can be clocked in. I know they punish drivers that skip a ton of consecutive passengers, but they'll need to take into account the fact that a driver at 3am probably only needs to skip one or two passengers to get paid for the full hour.

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

#199

Post by alkonaut »

brian_cloutier wrote: post #190
alkonaut wrote: post #159

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. But then > they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option So obviously the problem was that the labor market was broken if the best they could find was that? > Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of liv…

> employers should be forced to offer such good employments that the worst jobs simply don't exist? But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do? I don't want to claim that this argument applies to all situations, there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive arrangements that the government ought to ban, but if someone wants what look…

> But why? Two people come to an agreement. Who are you to say that you know what they want better than they do?

That's an idea that is centered around individual freedoms rather than maximizing the utility for the most people. This is simply a political/ethical conflict.

My reasoning works like this: I want a functioning labor market, where "functioning" means that the worst jobs are good jobs. So I want my lawmakers to ensure it. I'm happy for them to severely reduce my freedom to make agreements as an employer or employee in that process.

> The cost of labor in SF is so high that it's not reasonable to pay someone to bus the tables. While there I would frequently see a man outside who was clearly homeless.

This problem has 2 solutions 1) let people take worse jobs 2) make social security nets better. Both are required. I can't stress this enough: any change to the labor market laws must come with corresponding changes to welfare.

My view that even the worst jobs should be good jobs is of course coupled with an understanding that this potentially raises the equilibrium unemployment by a lot, so it it obviously follows that I also believe society (i.e. my tax money) should take care of everyone in society who is unemployed. There is an inconsistent viewpoint here: and that would be the one where you think there shouldn't be a massive social safety net but also people shouldn't be allowed to take low-paying jobs. To be clear, that's not what I think. I think the idea of "the worst jobs being good jobs" is a good goal, and that it also must be coupled with a large social safety net.

I realize that social safety net isn't in place in California - so arguing for the change to labor laws is, at least, arguing the for the inconsistent state - but it's hopefully something that can be addressed next. One thing would have to come first.

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

#200

Post by jonathan-neil »

okareaman wrote: post #186
jonathan-neil wrote: post #160

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Its not different. But its also not the reason for why their business model is unsustainable, great straw man though.

It seems to me their business model depends on replacing drivers with self-driving cars. This is not that discussion.

You are correct. It relies on replacing the drivers they are exploiting with robots that don't require a living wage. This is absolutely that discussion, like it or not.
Post reply on HN