Live data from Hacker News

Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

theverge.com

101–110 of 688 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#101
post #88

When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.

sounds like you don't know any Uber/Lyft drivers

I think it’s fairly clear I’m referring to the VC and founders who chose a business model that effectively arbitrages others’ belief in an obligation to contribute to the social safety net.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"personal risk" This is kind of the state of the country really. Ridesharing is an OK gig until you get into an accident, you're fine without health insurance until you get injured, you don't really need a union until you start getting treated unfairly, you can pay for college as long as you consistently have a good salary... we're being statistically gaslit with the idea that most people can scrape by without higher…

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that this personal risk is taken at personal choice. If someone wanted the arrangement that comes with an employee/employer relationship there are jobs that offer that. But not everyone wants that, some people prefer, for their own reasons that are really none of your business to be an independent contractor. This is about choice plain and simple.

I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#103
post #25

Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not just seek some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.

There was a time, not very long ago, when people "chose" to send their 12 year old children into dangerous factories for 12 hours a day. Government rightly restricted corporations from offering that option to desperate people.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#104
post #56

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> ...Uber drivers reported earning $13.47 per hour, which means that on average, drivers report that their car is costing them over $6 per hour to operate. If you were to drive full time, that would get you about 27k/year, which is about the average income that a taxi driver makes. Rideshare companies are asking you to take more personal financial risk than you might as a taxi driver, but giving you more flexibility.…

Who says driving for Uber/Lyft should be a full-time job, or statutorily viable as a full-time job? If you consider it only as a second or third job, then it makes a lot more sense that your second or third job is not going to pay as well or have the same benefits as your first job. Those aspects would be expected and reasonable. The low-risk, high-reward jobs fill your primary job slot, then you seek other options a…

This is just repeating TNC company propaganda. Nobody is saying this has to be a full-time job. Many, many people work part-time jobs and they are all employees of their workplace. Many of these people also have second part-time jobs, where they are also legally employees of the second company.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#105
The article links the appellate injunction here: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.... .

I read the following section in it “Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020”, but nothing about an October deadline.

Here is the relevant section in full.

>> start

On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) from classifying their drivers as independent contractors and from violating certain laws. Both Lyft and Uber have appealed the order, and the trial court stayed the injunction for ten days to allow them to seek relief in this court. Lyft (in case No. A160701) and Uber (in case No. A160706) have each petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas. The People have filed an opposition to the petitions. The petitions for writ of supersedeas are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. The petitions are granted and the preliminary injunction is stayed pending resolution of Lyft and Uber's appeals, subject to the condition that, by 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020, Lyft and Uber shall both file written consents to the expedited procedures specified herein. If Lyft and Uber do not both file such written consents, the stay shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020.

The procedures are as follows:

1. Lyft's and Uber's appeals shall be consolidated. Lyft and Uber may file separate briefs or combined briefs as they prefer.

2. Lyft and Uber shall proceed with an appendix in lieu of a clerk?s transcript on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.) They shall cooperate to prepare and file a single combined appellants' appendix, rather than separate appendices, which they shall file no later than the date they file their opening briefs. The appendix shall include a full copy of the index at the beginning of each appendix volume, and the digital copy of the appendix shall include pdf bookmark tabs for each entry on the index.

3. Briefing shall proceed on the following schedule. The appellants' opening briefs shall be filed no later than September 4, 2020. The respondent's brief shall be filed no later than September 18, 2020. The reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later than September 25, 2020. Absent unforeseen extraordinary circumstances, there shall be no extensions. Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020.

4. On or before September 4, 2020, each defendant shall submit a sworn statement from its chief executive officer confirming that it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal.

5. Should Lyft or Uber fail to comply with these procedures, the People may apply to this court to vacate this stay. Unless otherwise ordered, the stay will dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.)

Hopefully, the above should help others here figure out where the October deadline is coming from.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#106
post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for whatever job that can get that will help them eat and provide for their families.

I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.

That's a non-existent binary. There are plenty of other options, including regulating rideshare companies to ensure drivers are paid a living wage.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#107
post #68

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They can find work elsewhere then?

Didn't we already go through this line of reasoning during the industrial revolution? Didn't we already have our muckraking moments to show exactly why this line of reasoning is full of assumptions, totally devoid and dissociated from the actual reality of people's lives?

Where do people go if Uber does not exist?

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#108

When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.

Huh? As I understand it Uber/Lyft drivers are not eligible for unemployment benefits (recent laws/court rulings aside). So they don't depend on the safety nets in any way.

edit: Unemployment insurance is paid by companies for their workers who may use it in the future. It's not a shared social obligation from taxes. Nor is everyone eligible to use it merely by existing.

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#109

When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.

[deleted]

Re: Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

#110

Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving s…

California is about 5% of revenue for Uber.
Post reply on HN