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

Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

theguardian.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

251–260 of 401 posts

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#251

Post by wolco2 »

Permit wrote: post #178
Alex3917 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.

I was once hired as a contractor to help a web shop build websites for companies like Toyota. I didn't receive the contact information for Toyota so I could continue my business relationship with them independently.

You were an employee of some org that had a contract with Toyota. Or a contractor for an org who had a contract with Toyota.

Whoever pays you is the entity you have a relation with.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#252

Post by akiselev »

AnthonyMouse wrote: post #159
Alex3917 wrote: post #102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.

If a furniture company gives you a contract to build them some chairs, do they give you the contact info for each person who buys a chair from them? Why would that make the chair manufacturer an employee of the retailer? Moreover, how is this not available to the driver? They're in the car with the passenger already. The driver and passenger could exchange contact info if they wanted to, how is Uber going to stop the…

The furniture company takes on all the risk when they buy inventory. Uber drivers provide a service

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#253

Post by dwaltrip »

edmundsauto wrote: post #211
sojournerc wrote: post #186

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I drove a cab for a summer after college, just before uber blew up. The lease for the cab was high enough ($600+/wk) that I had to drive ~30 hours to break even, and the rest was profit, usually another 20 hours over the weekend. Unless you were sharing a lease with another driver, it would've been impossible to work it as part time. So I would see a benefit to uber over that arrangement except for uber if your car b…

It wasn’t really profit - it was the money to pay your own wage. Now, if you took say $10 an hour out, it might be fair to say the rest is profit.

Profit is revenue minus expenses. Employees don't do this calculation, as the employer normally pays for all work expenses. Their paycheck is pure profit -- no expenses to account for. As such, people don't really think of paychecks in these terms, so it sounds strange.

It makes sense in the comment above, as the cab driver actually has work expenses that they pay for out of pocket and are not reimbursed for.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#254

Post by esoterica »

It was not a close vote. Prop 22 won by 17%, which is very far out of the margin the most successful political ad campaign could plausibly hope to skew the vote by. It won because middle class Californians didn't want to spend more money on Ubers, not because Uber and Lyft successfully bought the election.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#255

Post by slg »

Dylan16807 wrote: post #248
slg wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.

I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.

I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers.

Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#256

Post by jblow »

xtian wrote: post #168
dannyw wrote: post #114

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I d…

Your automobile analogy is actually extremely apt because when the car was invented and "jay drivers" (the original term) began killing hundreds of thousands of people, public consensus began to form around strictly limiting the speed of cars. The auto industry successfully lobbied local legislatures and shifted public opinion through a massive marketing campaign in order to create the crime of "jaywalking". This is…

I have heard this story multiple times. But if it's true, then why are roads pretty much the same, as concerns walking vs driving, wherever you go in the world?

If things would have naturally been different if only it weren't for some lobbyists, how come things aren't that way at least somewhere?

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#257

Post by kofejnik »

colejohnson66 wrote: post #126
tasuki wrote: post #111

> The company, along with Lyft and DoorDash, spent more than $200m to deny drivers the wages and benefits we’re entitled to I wonder, why does the author think they're entitled to wages and benefits beyond what they agreed to? I'd understand the sentiment a little more if Uber was wildly profitable, but it isn't. If Uber isn't treating the drivers right, they don't have to drive for Uber. Or they can go and try to ch…

> Or they can go and try to change the laws and regulations to be more fair. Wasn’t that the whole point of AB5? To change the law so Uber/Lyft drivers are paid what they deserve?

> paid what they deserve

how does one know what they actually deserve? Is there a number tattooed on their left arm, or something like that?

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#258

Post by stevenhuang »

Tarsul wrote: post #100

Conceptually, it's pretty clear: For the single person that needs (or wants) its Uber income, the law is good because they get their income as before. However, it's only good because the whole system is bad (e.g. that labor has no power in the US). So the question whether the law is "good" is rather the question: What's the alternative? For as long as there's no alternative for Uber etc., the law is good. If there we…

> all these anecdotes about people using Uber as a sidejob and enjoying it are missing the point

I can agree with your former point but not sure about this.

Who are you to say they need to or not?

Some here have provided examples of driving a few times a month to supplement their vacation savings or pay for discretionary spending like lattes or whatever.

Hardly something necessary.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#259

Post by wolco2 »

tyre wrote: post #242
thekyle wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don't you think Uber giving out peoples contact information like that would be a gross violation of riders privacy? If the driver wants they can ask the rider for their contact info (although I would find that kinda creepy).

That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver. The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.

Your relationship cannot be determined by this example.

You could be an employee or contractor for uber. In either case driving someone is a service you provide to Uber customers.

Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22

#260

Post by Der_Einzige »

Would it have cost more than 200 million to treat all of the California Uber employees as full time employees (ergo, to do what Uber didn't want to do so badly they got a ballot initiative).

I voted no on this because Uber can deal with it. I bet the costs to them from following through would have been less than 200 million...

Post reply on HN