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

US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

bbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 212 posts

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#91

Post by bluedino »

throwawayiddqd wrote: post #77
iLoveOncall wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid per hour, free to chose their working hours, free to work for multiple employers at the same time, etc. How are they not contractors? They're way more contractors than the contractors that were working 9 to 5, 5 days a week, for years, for my FAANG.

I do not think they can choose their working hours, their income does not allow this freedom. Not US, but I did some study on Ukraine immigrants in Poland, etc, they work as self-employed at factories, like LG and Samsung and even make some parts for Porsche cars. A luxury made by slavery, 12 h/day, 6 days a week and minimum hour rate.

Uber's website says:

Drive when you want, make what you need

Earn on your own schedule.

They can't force you to pick someone up.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#92

Post by iLoveOncall »

nunez wrote: post #80
iLoveOncall wrote: post #65

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Paid per hour, free to chose their working hours, free to work for multiple employers at the same time, etc. How are they not contractors? They're way more contractors than the contractors that were working 9 to 5, 5 days a week, for years, for my FAANG.

they can't set their rates. that's a huge part of being a contractor.

They can. Refusing to take some rides that they do not deem profitable is the same as "negotiating their rate".

If anything, they probably have a lot more power regarding compensation than if they were employees, all earning the same (definitely shitty) salary.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#93

Post by xeromal »

jvanderbot wrote: post #75
diceduckmonk wrote: post #70

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find the article's headline misleading. I see Uber stock is up 6% pre-market. That suggests to me investors thinks Uber's liabilities are reduced as a result of this ruling.

The fight over contractor status was versus regular employee status, which would require providing benefits. So, market rejoice, these driver folks are on their own. Editorializing a bit, but CA referendums are so silly. I was asked to vote to resolve an employee/employer dispute in kidney dialysis centers. There's so many of those types of things.

I am so tired of the kidney dialysis centers voting. I think I vote on one every time I've voted for at least 4-5 years

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#94

Post by scld »

oneplane wrote: post #60
bryanrasmussen wrote: post #43

Earlier quoted context omitted.

change and modify some times have different meanings in legal systems and can apply to versioning of the laws (don't know if that is the case here) as an example you might say Law X section 7 says Uber drivers are contractors. In some systems a change would be to remove this provision or to say the opposite. a modification might be to add: The definition of contractor will follow the amended definition of contractor…

So in essence, the law system uses different rules for language and applies it to everyone, but almost everyone uses language in a people way, not in a legal way. Sounds like a recipe for disaster.

In many engineering contexts, modify and change would mean two distinct things. Of course, it's context dependent but:

- "Modify" this part on the widget: Please alter this part to function correctly.

- "Change" this part on the widget: Please replace this part with a new part so that the widget functions correctly.

e.g. if I modified a cover, it probably means I drilled an extra hole or something to make it fit.....if I changed the cover, it probably means that I found a new cover that had the right hole.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#95

Post by Spivak »

mdorazio wrote: post #86
ChicagoDave wrote: post #78

Everyone seems to forget or disregard the fact that these lawsuits are paid for by the taxi industry. Even when they dig up a few Uber drivers, it’s all a sham. 70% of surveyed rideshare drivers prefer to be independent contractors. If there was a serious majority for employment, Uber and Lyft simply wouldn’t exist.

Surveyed by whom and how was the question asked?

[flagged]

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#96

Post by nonethewiser »

uoaei wrote: post #8
CSMastermind wrote: post #2

https://www.courts.ca.gov/opinions/documents/A163655.PDF ^ Actual court ruling which is linked in the article itself. I find the article's headline misleading. The court ruled that a proposition that was passed by voters in California which classified these drivers as contractors was mostly constitutional and would be allowed to have the effect of law, noting that California's legislative branch was free to change th…

[flagged]

I see it didn’t sway you.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#97

Post by nonethewiser »

epgui wrote: post #35
chii wrote: post #25

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> At what point does blatant advertising/propaganda meaningfully undermine human agency? at the point where there's a gov't agency that is forbidding free media from existing, or to censored to prevent the alternative argument. Otherwise, the voters would not vote against their own interest (or if they do, it's deemed to be their choice to do so).

I don't disagree with anything you said, but my intuition tells me you're possibly under-estimating the proportion of voters who routinely vote against their self-interest without realizing it. It wouldn't surprise me at all if that was >30% of voters. Assuming that number I just made up was correct, just for the sake of argument, the parent comment's question is very interesting: what does that say about voters' age…

> you're possibly under-estimating the proportion of voters who routinely vote against their self-interest without realizing it.

Well if you know what people want better than themselves maybe we should just make you King.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#98

Post by p0pcult »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #78

Everyone seems to forget or disregard the fact that these lawsuits are paid for by the taxi industry. Even when they dig up a few Uber drivers, it’s all a sham. 70% of surveyed rideshare drivers prefer to be independent contractors. If there was a serious majority for employment, Uber and Lyft simply wouldn’t exist.

[flagged]

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#99

Post by josho »

sebzim4500 wrote: post #83
unfairly4820 wrote: post #7

California Labor Union Leader: "Our system is broken. It would be an understatement to say we are disappointed by this decision allowing companies to buy their way out of our state’s labor laws" Uber Executive: "Our system is working. We’re pleased that the court respected the will of the people by upholding a voter-approved law.”

Worth noting that the vast majority of the actual drivers agree wtih the Uber Executive here.

I imagine drivers prefer this because they saw the alternative was going back to being screwed over by the taxi companies. At least this way when they get screwed over by Uber they have a bit more say in when and how it’s being done and while that may be bad it is an improvement over what they had before.

The reality is these drivers need some kind of guild or union because as it stands they are being taken advantage.

Post reply on HN