Live data from Hacker News

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

101–110 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#101
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay & Nay votes aren't the only job of legislators. They're often responsible for writing good legislation too -- something that's arguably difficult to do if you're new to the job, so the task (largely) falls back to special interests to "help" with the process. By way of example: Literature. It's easy to read a good book; it's much harder to write one without lots & lots of practice.

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. :| Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

British series "Yes, Minister" / "Yes, Prime Minister" immediately come to mind.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#102

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding like a stereotypical leftist, I'm struggling to see how more of the blame can be on term limits, and not just a side-effect of our current version of democracy under capitalism. Simply put, if I had 100B, and there was outside force threatening my business I would certainly invest to protect myself - this includes mundane things like investing in security and outside threats like regulation. I…

I've been looking for my copy of the LA Times article on this and have yet to find it. So allow me to recount from my not necessarily trusty memory. During an investigation of the impact of term limits on the California the times talked with former "long term" members of both the Assembly and the Senate. In that discussion the people who had served for longer terms felt that you needed the time to understand what mad…

>They found that the time clock on legislators terms made them more eager for "easy wins" rather than tacking complex problems. This was especially true of legislators who were hoping to jump into national politics.

Ah that actually makes a lot of sense to me. I did not actually consider that when you mentioned experience - a newer politician certainly has more pressure to put points on the board and it follows that they may introduce "buggy" laws.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#103

Earlier quoted context omitted.

At the risk of sounding like a stereotypical leftist, I'm struggling to see how more of the blame can be on term limits, and not just a side-effect of our current version of democracy under capitalism. Simply put, if I had 100B, and there was outside force threatening my business I would certainly invest to protect myself - this includes mundane things like investing in security and outside threats like regulation. I…

I've been looking for my copy of the LA Times article on this and have yet to find it. So allow me to recount from my not necessarily trusty memory. During an investigation of the impact of term limits on the California the times talked with former "long term" members of both the Assembly and the Senate. In that discussion the people who had served for longer terms felt that you needed the time to understand what mad…

Is a term limit of, say, 10 years, enough time to "get the feel for good laws"?

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#104
post #51

This ruling could pave the way for a model that is good for everyone. As of now the gig economy exploits the poor[0]. Unless you think making 70% less than minimum wage is fair. 0: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302041610/http://ceepr.mit....

Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?

I think the more fair deal would be employing them at a more fair job, as should be the goal of a responsible government.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#105
post #89

I remember FedEx was forced to reclassify it's delivery contractors as employees. Why Uber and Lyft any different than FedEx?

Some differences that come to mind: no scheduled shifts, no uniform, much less control over how workers service customers, ability to set your own rate. I'm sure there are more.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#106

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

With all due respect, my experience has been the complete opposite of yours. Do you by chance have any evidence for these claims or are they simply your best guess asserted as fact?

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#107
post #90

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> The number of special cased carve-outs is ridiculous - it's not a normal law. I looked up AB5 [1] and read about the "carve outs" last time the topic came up, among several other. It's far shorter than other nontrivial bills and I couldn't find a single one that didn't specifically mention a superseding precedent or specialized State or Federal law that had supremacy regardless. For example, the primary exceptions…

What's your point? Yes, these carveouts all fall back to a version of the law that is much more lenient on the definition of an independent contractor. That should be obvious...if there wasn't any pre-existing law that defined contractor, businesses would make every employee a contractor.

AB5 can't override past precedent and Federal supremacy. That they didn't try is a sign of the bare minimum of legislative competency that I would expect from a legislature.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#108

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

Most of the bullet points you listed are not a sign of bad drivers. Even you, were you a taxi driver, wouldn't take a long drive out of town if you weren't paid for the trip back, for example.

And yes, "my car my rules" because that is their car, and Uber imposes severe penalties for bad reviews.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#109

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

Only the first few bullets seem to be all that relevant here.

Ok so Uber has to show that ride information,"bad drivers" decline that work and your pay goes up on long rides you already take. Why are you opposed?

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#110
post #16

If Uber and Lyft don't win their proposition, they can either agree to classify their drivers as employees, or some company that is willing to classify drivers that way will take over the market. People are commenting as if app-based ride share will no longer be available. It might cost more, but it wouldn't be much more.

> It might cost more, but it wouldn't be much more.

It will cost substantially more. Employment taxes and benefits alone add another 30% to Uber's cost structure. On top of that, paying drivers for downtime (which will be inevitable in an employment model) will add who knows how much more. I wouldn't be surprised if prices rise by 50%+ in suburbs.

Post reply on HN