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

Update on AB5

uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

101–110 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#101

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

stickfigure wrote: post #98
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think we can be certain that displaced drivers won't find other opportunities. I imagine most of the appeal is the low friction to entering rideshare driving vs. traditional employment (fast food chains, etc). The talking point that people are somehow skilled enough for rideshare driving, yet not other low-skill work, seems to me like a talking point to have discouraged AB5 from happening. I question the fact…

This seems like a weird statement. The people driving for Uber presumably looked at their options and decided to drive instead of apply to fast food chains. If they wanted to work in fast food, they could have? Maybe I misunderstand, but what you're saying sounds vaguely like "I know what's better for you".

What I am saying is, misplaced workers (if Uber does indeed become subject to AB5 and they must be employees) is these folks will find other work. The related point is these people are fully capable of that work.

Finding new work can be painful, but the damages are over-stated because there's low friction to entering work that doesn't demand specialized skills. Do you have two hands and can walk? Great, you can work the french fry fryer at McD's.

Re: Update on AB5

#102

Post by glitcher »

40acres wrote: post #93

Why aren't other industries up in arms about this? I work for Intel and we have a ton of contractors, so does Google. Under 'A' of the 'ABC' test, it seems to me that most contractors for these companies would now be employees.

I'm not familiar with the details of the bill, but in this letter from the uber CLO it mentions:

> due to eleventh-hour amendments to the bill, many industries are now exempt from the new ABC test that AB5 will codify into state law

Anyone have information on the exemptions added to the bill, specifically if it exempts most of the big tech companies?

Re: Update on AB5

#103

Post by mmatants »

dawhizkid wrote: post #31

Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…

The fact that choosing to use Uber represents a certain amount of trust in the driver (basic background check, identity information, etc), makes it more than lead generator or transparent broker.

Re: Update on AB5

#104

Post by ocdtrekkie »

40acres wrote: post #93

Why aren't other industries up in arms about this? I work for Intel and we have a ton of contractors, so does Google. Under 'A' of the 'ABC' test, it seems to me that most contractors for these companies would now be employees.

Aren't most contractors for major tech companies employees of another company though? This specifically refers to independent contractors.

Re: Update on AB5

#105

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

stefan_ wrote: post #79
ajkjk wrote: post #17

I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is neede…

You are just repeating the Uber party line that somehow "employment" is antithetical to flexible work hours. It's frightening to see people just lap that up because it happens to coincide with their day job. But nothing in labor law prevents a company like Uber from "disrupting work" and offering that flexibility to employees .

The current employee model as codified in our tax and legal system definitely has lots of assumptions around only having a single W2 employer. Certaintly not impossible, but definitely not a good fit.

I agree with the OP, and I am not just "repeating the Uber party line". I believe 3 categories of work are needed:

1. Employee (e.g. current W2), where you have a single full-time employer who is primarily responsible for your wages and benefits.

2. Independent Contractor, where the IC has full control over their rates, where they do the work, their tools, etc.

3. "Flexible" employee, where the employee has full control over their hours and availability, and to work for multiple employers, but doesn't have control over rates or how the work is done.

Re: Update on AB5

#106

Post by kstrauser »

pslam wrote: post #76

Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words. I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

I totally agree. I'm neutral on Uber, but their advertising is that you book an Uber ride. You don't use Uber to find a driver you like and then hire that driver from now on. Basically, the drivers are treated as the fungible part of providing service to the passengers. Contrast with Airbnb where owners can treat it like an advertising network to market their rental room, and it's totally reasonable to expect that a good experience will lead to more business for that homeowner specifically, not just the app in general.

Re: Update on AB5

#107

Post by lr »

Honestly, would the, "three important points" have even been a remote consideration of Uber, Lyft, etc., if this legislation was was not even proposed (let alone passed) in the first place?

This sounds a lot like someone apologizing and saying they are deeply sorry, only after they are caught doing something wrong.

Re: Update on AB5

#108

Post by FireBeyond »

dawhizkid wrote: post #31

Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…

> and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment

They don't just take a commission, they set the entire price.

They set the rules, about the types of vehicles, about cleanliness, about myriad other things. The route. "Lead generation" is obtuse.

Re: Update on AB5

#109

Post by lr »

They continue to use the term "rideshare", which just boggles my mind. So, I guess "share" in this case means that Uber is "sharing" a "cut" of the proceeds with the driver. Maybe they should call it, "fareshare" (but then that would be a play on words that turns out to be an oxymoron).
Post reply on HN