California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#281

Post by smaryjerry » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 12:56 PM UTC

dragonwriter wrote: post #242

tathougies wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

California's problem is precisely that it is a one party state. Even a few decades ago, California was not the one party state it is today. Having multiple candidates with meaningful differences on the ballot automatically lowers the ability of special interests to rule the state because it is difficult to be supported by people on completely different sides of the aisle. The proposition that made California the way…

> The proposition that made California the way it is is the one that meant that the primaries are non-partisan and the final race is between the two top contenders. No, it's not. It's not even a proposition. It's that the California Republican Party tries to campaign like it's Kansas, that keeps them hovering right at the border of the level where Democrats have a 2/3 supermajority in both houses plus control of the…

You have basically said that the republicans are simply bad in the state because they “campaign like it’s Kansas,” which is ridiculous because candidates are always local. That type of dismissiveness of an entire party is exactly the issue.

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

#282

Post by ericmay » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:01 PM UTC

jankassens wrote: post #279

ericmay wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, California also created a bill that targets two companies specifically; kind of its own special interest if you will. We saw how quickly they started carving out exceptions once the original bill was passed and comedians couldn’t perform, and journalists started getting let go. Why not just pass the bill and call it the “Uber and Lyft must pay their drivers like employees and let them act like inde…

Yet many drivers do this full time. Why should ride share companies be excluded from worker protections that apply to other companies? Could Amazon convert to a gig-economy for warehouse workers where you sign up via an app? There are certainly some folks who drive just a few hours a week and the companies like to highlight that by releasing stats like “% of drivers drive less then 5 hours”. I think “% of driver time…

Many people sell stuff on eBay as their full time job too. I don't find this line of reasoning compelling if you want to single out Uber and Lyft specifically. What is the amount of hours they should work to not be "employees"? 5? Ok Uber and Lyft can limit the hours you drive to 5. Is that fine then?

I'd actually say though that what you identified (gig worker for Amazon warehouses) might be desirable if we had many "benefits" divorced from your employer, like the 401k, health care, etc. What if I could work my salaried job, and then sign up to go work a shift at the warehouse?

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

#283

Post by xyzzy_plugh » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:08 PM UTC

jankassens wrote: post #279

ericmay wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On the other hand, California also created a bill that targets two companies specifically; kind of its own special interest if you will. We saw how quickly they started carving out exceptions once the original bill was passed and comedians couldn’t perform, and journalists started getting let go. Why not just pass the bill and call it the “Uber and Lyft must pay their drivers like employees and let them act like inde…

Yet many drivers do this full time. Why should ride share companies be excluded from worker protections that apply to other companies? Could Amazon convert to a gig-economy for warehouse workers where you sign up via an app? There are certainly some folks who drive just a few hours a week and the companies like to highlight that by releasing stats like “% of drivers drive less then 5 hours”. I think “% of driver time…

It's complicated, really. Some drivers drive like 80+ hours a week. If they become employees, they will not be able to.

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

#284

Post by dmitriid » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:15 PM UTC

okareaman wrote: post #192

djur wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

As someone said (quoting from memory) "The greatest con corporate America has pulled is that poor people don't ask for better wages and job conditions, but get triggered when someone else asks for that".

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

#285

Post by klmadfejno » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:16 PM UTC

ericmay wrote: post #282

jankassens wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet many drivers do this full time. Why should ride share companies be excluded from worker protections that apply to other companies? Could Amazon convert to a gig-economy for warehouse workers where you sign up via an app? There are certainly some folks who drive just a few hours a week and the companies like to highlight that by releasing stats like “% of drivers drive less then 5 hours”. I think “% of driver time…

Many people sell stuff on eBay as their full time job too. I don't find this line of reasoning compelling if you want to single out Uber and Lyft specifically. What is the amount of hours they should work to not be "employees"? 5? Ok Uber and Lyft can limit the hours you drive to 5. Is that fine then? I'd actually say though that what you identified (gig worker for Amazon warehouses) might be desirable if we had many…

A few points.

It's not just benefits that employees receive, it's also taxes paid on employees. Moving benefits out of employment is a good idea, but if that happened, the taxes to fund these services would come from employers again. So Uber would still be more or less leeching off of society by not paying its share of social funds

Secondly, the discussion of hours, while potentially having some philosophical merit, isn't especially material in the scheme of things. Uber can't survive with everyone driving fewer than x hours. A lot of their comp structure tries to incentive people to drive as much as possible, with nonlinear increasing rewards for those who drive the most. Their business is built on network effects. If there's fewer drivers, then it costs more, so fewer people ride, so fewer people want to drive, and the more expensive it is the keep the driver population thriving. The idea behind surge pricing is that you create flash incentives to get drivers out there when demand is high. If there's a cap on hours, you've now got a competing interest which says there's an incentive to NOT work while the market isn't surging- because you might cost yourself greater earnings down the line.

It's a lot easier to get a driver doing 5 hours to do 8 hours instead, than it is to get two drivers to do 4 hours. Labor has switching costs for the drivers.

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

#286

Post by vincnetas » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:25 PM UTC

xyzzy_plugh wrote: post #283

jankassens wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yet many drivers do this full time. Why should ride share companies be excluded from worker protections that apply to other companies? Could Amazon convert to a gig-economy for warehouse workers where you sign up via an app? There are certainly some folks who drive just a few hours a week and the companies like to highlight that by releasing stats like “% of drivers drive less then 5 hours”. I think “% of driver time…

It's complicated, really. Some drivers drive like 80+ hours a week. If they become employees, they will not be able to.

And i think it's OK. There is a reason why professional truck drivers must not drive longer than specified amount of time without taking breaks. Work safety regulations are usually written in blood.

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

#287

Post by jl2718 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:25 PM UTC

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…

Reminder that the Democratic party, like all others, is an IRS-registered business, and like all others, has only one goal: to make money. It’s not a sacred oath to save the world. It’s a taco stand next to a hot dog vendor. They make money. Maybe they have a big customer. It’s probably not you. You’re a good customer but you’ll never eat a hot dog, so they don’t have to change their menu for you.

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

#288

Post by mLuby » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:27 PM UTC

humanrebar wrote: post #274

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying. This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are t…

Some people, in some jobs at least, aren't productive enough to support themselves. It's not about "deserve". Some people have a lot of potential but need a chance to prove themselves and gain experience. Maybe they would start by bussing tables and eventually own their own restaurants. They need a ladder to success with rungs that are actually climbable. If we mandate that you must be able to support a family of fou…

> If we mandate [a living wage]…

You're right, lots of exploitative jobs will be destroyed, and businesses will have to adapt. Thing is, they will adapt to the new market conditions, or else they'll be replaced by other businesses catering to the market's demands, or the market's demands will change.

In the painful transition period, lots of exploited "employed" people will become unemployed, and lots of businesses that can't survive without exploiting people will fail. That's the unfortunate "cancellation fee" we should pay before moving to a more ethical economy.

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

#289

Post by Mxs2000 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:31 PM UTC

ende wrote: post #54

whyenot wrote: post #41

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Many legislators come to the job with previous experience serving at the county or city level. Once they have are elected at the state level they can serve for up to 12 years. To me, that seems like a reasonable balance between giving them enough time to gain experience while not allowing them to stay in office forever and amass the power and corruption that led to the passage of term limits (proposition 140) in the…

The academic literature is overwhelming support of the argument that legislative term limits have zero value. They only lead to inexperienced, ineffective legislators.

Agree with the other comment, cite this overwhelming academic literature.

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

#290

Post by yeetman21 » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 1:35 PM UTC

C1sc0cat wrote: post #245

roenxi wrote: post #225

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Watching this fight I wonder "Who is in charge of governing California?" The same people vote on the proposition who vote for the government. I don't like the things California tends to vote for but it is nothing short of enlightened to allow people a mechanism to directly overrule the legislature. If the people don't like the government's labour law, who are the government to object? I can't for the life of me see…

To be fair only "workers" and employees should be able to vote on employment law then, no students no pensioners. This is why employment law needs to be take away from the states - have one federally defined set of laws - stops a race to the bottom.

minimum wage should be set at the state level, or even lower