[deleted]
Update on AB5
111–120 of 343 posts
Re: Update on AB5
#112Are they really trying to claim that Uber is not a transportation company but instead "a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces"? I guess we do live in a post-truth era.
The post was written by their CLO. They are not trying to claim as such, they are succeeding. I am not a lawyer, but I don't think this legal interpretation of the company is a lie. It seems like the classification is constantly under scrutiny. A legal falsehood like you claim it is would've fallen apart by now.
Lawyers argue all the time. It's not a legal truth because their chief attorney says so. They are entitled to claim (within reason) as much as anyone else is.
And, of course, they will claim the most favorable definition. In other situations, notably when they are arguing against entrenched transit/transport interests, they "become" a transport company. It's a question of which hat fits the day.
Re: Update on AB5
#113Uber'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…
>Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders. Honestly, just keep the 'we don't show drivers with a less than X star rating' in place, and allow the rider to give the driver a low rating for cancelling. Self co…
The user experience is much better not dealing with that shit. Reordering rides when you have somewhere to be is not a good time.
Re: Update on AB5
#114Why 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.
The bill specifically excepts a bunch of professions (doctors, lawyers, engineers...) Secondly the contractors for most of these Intel/Google, etc are employed by someone else.
Re: Update on AB5
#115Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, even being charitable, I don't see how Uber's model[1] is remotely reasonable. They pretty clearly take direct control over the relationship. The rider deals with Uber, and the driver deals with Uber. Nothing at all like the ebay/fiverr "hey find someone to link up with" model. [1] Edit: To clarify, I mean "the model they're promoting of what their core business is", i.e. the claim that "they're a lead-gen plat…
In fact, I'd argue that's the primary reason why Uber/Lyft got popular in the first place. At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. If Uber can't enforce something similar, why should I use Uber?
[deleted]
Re: Update on AB5
#116Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
But how is it better for the world if all of these Uber drivers, who clearly prefer driving for Uber to McD's, are forced to work at McD's instead?
Re: Update on AB5
#117Uber'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…
> Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders.
I'm going to go with yes. The only times I use ride sharing services (Lyft, not Uber) are in high-density situations like getting to and from the airport. Depending on the hour there will be dozens to hundreds of drivers hovering in the area trying to get rides. As soon as "rider available" appears on screen a dozen different drivers are mashing the accept button.
Up until a year or two ago, the drivers would then see where I want to go and then call me on the phone to say they didn't want to go there, telling me to cancel the ride they had accepted. I systematically refused every time so that (usually after a few minutes) they would give up and cancel it themselves. This would usually happen for 2 or 3 drivers in a row, making ride-sharing a miserable experience for me.
I assume the cancellation penalties have been made much more serious, because this hasn't happened to me in a while now.
Re: Update on AB5
#118I 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…
Ridesharing companies, Labor, and the California legislature missed an opportunity to identify a third type of employee. The truth is always somewhere in the middle, and the most objective truth (to me) suggests that rideshare drivers honestly sit somewhere between employees and contractors. The politics of what has occurred here is probably the pendulum swinging too far, but in the right direction: the classificatio…
> the legislature did its best to rectify that.
my experience is that this is hardly ever true in politics. Legislators are generally balancing what they think is right (or what they think voters think is right) with what is in their own self interest (such as getting re-elected). As a result, they most often do their best to serve their own self-interest first and foremost. They raarely try to rectify something if rectifying it is at odds with their self-interest.
Rectifying this situation would likely involve some third category "somewhere in the middle", but that's not what we got.
Re: Update on AB5
#119I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits. If Uber has to shrink their business in California or exit entirely, that won't be good for drivers either. It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap.…
While I agree with you that the unintended consequences of this bill will be a net negative, I take particular issue with this statement, "Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits." That's not how it works. Uber isn't operating at a profit because their current-investor-subsidized-rates are below the cost of their service. But th…
I don't think it will be a binary black or white, but rather a reduction. Which means a reduction in pay and a reduction of hours. Subsidy via VC money is an independent modifier.
Re: Update on AB5
#120Uber's former mission statement: > "Transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone" Sounds like transportation is their core business to me.
A mission statement is not a product or service offering. Google doesn’t sell “the world’s information”, for example.
Sure it does, it just doesn't sell it to you. You are not the purchaser of the information, you are providing the information that's being sold.