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

121–130 of 212 posts

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#121

Post by rhino369 »

josho wrote: post #103
fallingknife wrote: post #85

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They should have the right to put their proposal to a vote and make their case, and the did, and they won. This was a democratic vote by the citizens of California. And if it were a democratic vote by the Uber drivers, it also would have won.

I think you missed the point. Companies are not citizens therefore, op argued, as non citizens they should not have a voice in election outcomes. It’s a fair point, as a comparison we don’t allow visa holders to vote. I also suspect the citizens were influenced in their opinions by all the money spent to ‘educate’ the electorate. Somehow it feels wrong to allow a corporation to pay to set school curriculums, but when…

The ACLU and unions aren’t citizens either, should we ban them from participating?

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#122

Post by SllX »

dragonwriter wrote: post #36
SllX wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. We really do amend it regularly and most voters I talk to don’t put a whole lot of thought into whether it’s a constitutional amendment or a statute. If they’re…

> On paper you are 100% correct that it is strictly speaking legally easier to amend this law; but in reality, clearing the majority necessary to amend our Constitution is politically a lower bar than getting 7/8 of the legislature to amend this particular law. Perhaps, but the comparison isn’t “7/8 of the legislature vs. a bare majority of the people” it is “7/8 of the legislature or a bare majority of the people vs…

You know what? I’ll concede this one. Technically you’re correct, but I think we have a different perspective on which of these two is a lower bar to clear and that’s fine. Cheers!

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#123

Post by jawns »

iLoveOncall wrote: post #65
TulliusCicero wrote: post #19

Gig workers aren't quite contractors and aren't quite employees. Maybe need a third class of worker.

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.

None of them work for multiple employers at the same time.

They are working multiple part-time jobs with shorter-than-customary on-the-clock times, but if they pick up a Lyft passenger, they're only being paid by Lyft for that time, and if they pick up an Uber passenger, they're only being paid by Uber for that time. There's no double-dipping.

The only difference between this arrangement and typical part-time jobs is that with typical PT work, we often think of shifts being measured in hours, whereas with these jobs, shifts are measured in minutes.

As for being able to choose their working hours, it sounds nice in the abstract, but the platforms actively punish drivers whose availability is limited.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#124

Post by JumpCrisscross »

user3939382 wrote: post #74

Our government, and large swaths of the media, is owned by banks and corporations. The vestiges of the pre-industrial democracy we had persist as a sham to keep the electorate’s consent for and compliance with this system. Uber and Lyft are not people and shouldn’t have been permitted to spend $1 on this campaign nor towards the campaign of any politician. Unfortunately it won’t be until bread is $30/loaf that the pu…

> Uber and Lyft are not people and shouldn’t have been permitted to spend $1 on this campaign nor towards the campaign of any politician

The arrogance of California's elite this topic exposed is breathtaking. The only way for the other side to have won is because they were brainwashed. The only legitimate vote, or survey among those whose lives we're debating, is the one that sides with the enlightened minority.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#125

Post by scyzoryk_xyz »

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.

You’re mistaking the difference between two ends of the world. I have lived and worked in both.

In the US a Lyft/Uber driver owns their vehicle, has an app they can log in and out of any moment they like. The license and registration is checked, the car is regularly inspected. (There are schemes where you can lease out the car but that is another subject). The driver has a chunk of their income taken by Uber/Lyft and they have to pay for fuel and other expenses. Everything is insured. The money isn’t great but it’s your business whether you are “free” doing it. I have done this.

In Poland, the car will often be owned by someone who owns a fleet. The account in the app will be fake. The immigrant driver will be working under another name for the “fleet” owner, and the car will (often) be an uninspected beater. Doing the whole Uber thing was also entirely illegal until a certain point (I don’t know where this is now). So who knows what kinds of corrupt slave relationships were/are going on there. I have not done this, but I live in a Polish city with one of those LG factories.

Factories and how shitty those are is a irrelevant to the topic of this thread.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#126

Post by JumpCrisscross »

josho wrote: post #113
yieldcrv wrote: post #10

Isn't this debate largely a false dilemma? Its obvious to me that an additional category is prudent, or that people besides employees should have access to subsidized health care premiums and some form of paid sick leave. that doesnt have to come from the employer and that doesnt have to mean that worker flexibility is curbed. contractors can already do retirement benefits plans such as the 401k plan, running your ow…

> maybe an agency could put up comment periods for specific industries The problem is there is no agency with a financial incentive to support the individual drivers. The drivers don’t earn enough on their own to create meaningful representation. If the drivers somehow were able to pool their resources under some sort of a guild then they might. But that will take a lot of organizing and someone with resources that c…

> no agency with a financial incentive to support the individual drivers

There is a massive political operation trying to represent drivers. They just didn't bother asking the drivers what they want, they made assumptions for them. That's why we have this multi-year string of bills, propositions and lawsuits.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#127

Post by rat9988 »

nonethewiser wrote: post #97
epgui wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

If you are convinced it's the best thing for you please vote him to be king.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#128

Post by brvsft »

MrDunham wrote: post #89
jvanderbot wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

So, crazy enough, I know the head lobbyist for the group that was fighting against that kidney dialysis thing. It's been struck down three times and, according to her heavily biased opinion, would seriously adversely affect access and choice. The company spent something like several hundred million dollars fighting that proposition and two before it. Crazy that one special interest can get some signatures to fight fo…

> hundreds of millions of dollars are burned in the process

Not burned. Those dollars went to lawyers, advertising platforms, etc.

Re: US court rules Uber and Lyft workers are contractors

#130

Post by robertlagrant »

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…

It's worth considering that you're not really talking about their own self-interest. You're talking about what you think they should want.

For example, anyone who likes the non-employee status of Uber driving will vote against it. Anyone who wants to be an employee is voting for lower wages, although higher benefits. They may prefer that, but not everyone does.

Post reply on HN