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

The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

fusion.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 71 posts

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#51

Post by fragmede »

nulltype wrote: post #40
wpietri wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it v…

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".

> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor?

Yes, the US Department of Labor has to decide there's no such distinction and must decide to reorganize various structures.

> Does the distinction serve a useful purpose?

Arguably, yes. The issue is that technology has brought on changes that don't fit neatly into the two boxes.

An employer provides everything for an employee who performs a very broad function. Think front-desk receptionist where a computer is provided. Health-care is sometimes provided, but they may be paid as little as minimum wage (sometimes less).

A contractor, on the other hand, is expected to provide everything themselves. Think plumber or locksmith. They bring their own tools, perform a specific task and they're done and free to move onto the next contract. They provide their own health-care, which, since they're traditionally paid far about minimum wage, is perhaps fair.

(There's a lot more to it and it quickly becomes quite involved with tax code, but suffice to say the plumber is recognized as owning their own business and performing their own trade.)

Does the distinction still serve a useful purpose in this day and age?

As long as we rely on employers to provide necessary benefits that (eg preschool), and not the government, it serves a useful purpose.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#52

Post by dragonwriter »

nulltype wrote: post #40
wpietri wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it v…

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".

> Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor?

Sure, convince the Congress and state legislatures to do so (employment and tax law that makes such distinctions--and not, IIRC, on exactly the same criteria--exists at both levels.)

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#53

Post by eric_h »

Bahamut wrote: post #27
greggyb wrote: post #22

An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…

The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical. My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these…

> Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.

I don't really understand this - I've never tipped an uber driver, their interface doesn't even support it. What are they talking about?

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#54

Post by tptacek »

jkoudys wrote: post #13
rayiner wrote: post #11

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's kind of an entitled attitude. Society puts certain obligations on businesses, and providing certain benefits to employees is one of them. If you're too small to meet those obligations, then you shouldn't get a free pass on them. That just leaves the workers out in the cold.[1] I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that we should pay for those benefits with taxes instead of pushing the burden on employe…

_American_ society puts those obligations on businesses, and those obligations have created an economy that rewards those who are either already wealthy, or the backing of those who are. This is very directly giving more power to the rich. I don't see how criticising the very necessity of health benefits, one of the biggest costs of hiring employees, is at all a separate argument. There are many other countries which…

Don't the very richest companies in the US tend to lobby against employer health care mandates? Wouldn't Walmart, for instance, be much better off in a single-payer system?

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#55

Post by amyjess »

erroneousfunk wrote: post #43
greggyb wrote: post #22

An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…

When customers use Uber, they have no real choice in the drivers they are getting, unlike eBay or Craigslist, where they can comparison shop and choose based on seller ratings, product/seller descriptions, and prices. With Uber, you just press a button and Uber gives you a driver that is assigned to you, at a rate that Uber defines. The consumer is penalized for canceling the trip (you can usually get the cancellatio…

> The consumer is penalized for canceling the trip (you can usually get the cancellation fee waived if you have a good reason, i.e. "the driver didn't arrive for 20 minutes and seemed confused when I called them")

As somebody who has only used Lyft, this is yet another reason why I won't even touch Uber. I've cancelled many times because a driver accepted a request while sitting in their house and then wasted my time while they (presumably) sat on their ass and watched TV. I've also had drivers call me and ask me to cancel because their car broke down or the app on their phone locked up. I don't want to have to call support and argue with them to waive a fee every time this happens.

(oh, and your whole comment was spot on... I was just so shocked when you wrote that Uber operates like that that I had to say something)

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#56

Post by amyjess »

pyrois wrote: post #9
michaelt wrote: post #8

If cases like Liss-Riordan’s are successful, on-demand companies would have to pay overtime, deductions from wages, and, in California, the expenses incurred by their service providers. Those costs would mount into the millions, and proponents of the on-demand economy worry that they could force successful companies out of business. Surely taxes and expenses still have to be paid, and the "independent contractors" se…

Well, it sounds like they maybe shouldn't be: > “Uber and Lyft can survive classifying drivers as employees,” she says. “It might cost them a little more, but it’s a successful concept. It’s not going to go away because we are trying to enforce the rules > And several on-demand companies, such as the house cleaning start-up MyClean and the food delivery service Munchery, already treat their workers as W-2 employees.…

> I wonder if Uber is fighting this because it will cut into profit margins and raise overhead costs, rather than because it is an existential threat.

Uber is a young company, and they have yet to learn what most mature companies have learned.

Big businesses like regulations. They don't mind jumping through whatever hoops are imposed by regulations, because they can afford to drop the money on it, they can treat the cost of compliance as part of the cost of doing business and pass it on to the consumer, while their smaller competitors can't afford to pay for compliance. The competition gets priced out of the market, and big businesses sweep up all the customers who would've gone with the smaller competition, making regulation a net financial gain for them.

The only big businesses you'll see who don't like regulation are monopolists and near-monopolists, like ISPs. Look at the hissy fit the big ISPs are throwing over Net Neutrality. Why are they so upset? Because there's no real competition, no smaller players who will be priced out of the market by NN, so the established players just see it as a straight-up cut in revenue.

The only sensible conclusion is that Uber either a) thinks like a small player or b) thinks like a monopolist. Both are worrying, though for different reasons (reason A makes me doubt their competence, reason B makes me think they should be squashed sooner rather than later).

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#57

Post by subway »

greggyb wrote: post #38
subway wrote: post #35

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Trip requests only come in when the driver has marked themselves as available. Uber will often offer a guaranteed minimum for a given night if you mark yourself as available. The cut-off is to remove folks from the pool who sit at home declining rides while claiming to be available.

This was my understanding (not to mention how the article reads). Thank you for clarifying. Not to be pedantic, but do you have a source handy that indicates this? I would just like to have one for reference.

Unfortunately I'm not able to find a public source to confirm that. My information comes purely from knowing and hanging out with drivers.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#58

Post by throwaway39201 »

eric_h wrote: post #53
Bahamut wrote: post #27

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical. My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these…

> Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical. I don't really understand this - I've never tipped an uber driver, their interface doesn't even support it. What are they talking about?

I was wondering the same thing -- I've tipped a few times but it's always been a couple bucks cash since I've never seen any option for it in the interface. Maybe there used to be a way to tip from the app that they've since removed due to such complaints?

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#59

Post by greggyb »

SomeStupidPoint wrote: post #48
greggyb wrote: post #30

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical. These are very good points and I am glad you brought them up. I think the rates and tips are very valid concerns h…

I think the real point of challenging Uber is this: they can either set the rates or they can push the cost of materials on to drivers, but they can't do both. That is, they must either embrace the full employee or full contractor package, and not just take the parts they like of each with none of the liabilities.

Do you think that it is really that binary?

I think that this quote from the article is apt:

>U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who is overseeing the Lyft case, said that existing labor law doesn’t map well with these companies’ business models. Lyft drivers don’t seem exactly like employees or independent contractors, he wrote in his motion. “The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes,”

Just because we have two clearly delineated buckets to drop people into doesn't mean that these accurately describe those individuals.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#60

Post by s54b32dd »

nulltype wrote: post #40
wpietri wrote: post #17

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it v…

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start. Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".

It's primarily a tax and insurance related designation. It helps determine agency, it grants both individuals and corporations certain rights, etc.

It's all very legalese.

Post reply on HN