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

Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

twitter.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

111–120 of 172 posts

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#111

Post by Arelius »

winrid wrote: post #84
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Why do they deserve benefits? When I'm a consultant or freelancer, I pay my own benefits. How is this different?

I suspect you have more leverage, choice, and likely a higher pay when working as a consultant or freelancer.

Having said that, maybe you deserve benefits too?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#112

Post by nearbuy »

mfer wrote: post #74
tpmoney wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It seems to me like this would have been the perfect opportunity to become the first state to decouple benefits from employment. Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways, and set up state sponsored benefit plans for gig workers. Start a mini UBI that covers 4 weeks PTO at the median California wage, open up medicaid eligibility, etc. If the problem is these people don't have benefit…

Who will pay into a system like that? Part of the deal for Uber, Lyft, etc is to push off expenses into others. Auto maintenance and repairs is another example. Changing the system doesn’t deal with the funding. Uber, Lyft, and others are trying to not be in the funding loop for this. Or, should other companies subsidize funding this for people who work for the gigs?

Taxes, presumably.

> Part of the deal for Uber, Lyft, etc is to push off expenses into others. Auto maintenance and repairs is another example.

It's kind of arbitrary to consider auto maintenance as being rightfully Uber's expense that's being pushed onto the car owner.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#113

Post by Barrin92 »

username90 wrote: post #99
Barrin92 wrote: post #64

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>Recognize that gig jobs are going to become more of a thing in various ways Is that a law of nature or something? An interesting way seeing ideology at work is when people start framing policy choice as the natural state of things. To what degree gig work permeates the economy is entirely in the hands of the lawmakers of California, and if they care about the long term accumulation of human capital they better nip i…

There is a huge demand for gig work and not a great demand for gig workers, exploring more ways to create demand for gig workers is a good thing. Lots of people don't want a stable job and I don't see why we should force them to get one just to feed themselves.

>Lots of people don't want a stable job

yeah, don't you just know tons of people who love to have no job security, don't know how much they'll make on any given day or whether they'll be unemployed in a month?

Of course people love stable jobs, some people however are dependent on gig work because of institutional failure on several fronts within California in particular. The solution to this is, as Russ Ackoff put it, not to do the wrong thing right, which will only will have you end up in a situation that is even wronger, and not to solve problems, but to dissolve them by changing the environment in a way such that the problem does not exist any more.

In pratictal terms this means for California, reform zoning laws and actually build housing, build mass transit, create good jobs. Don't build the UBI white collar welfare dystopia that the 10% of the state love who happen to own Uber stock.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#114

Post by abeppu »

I don't know the details, but doesn't California have requirements on for public reporting of spending on political advertising above a certain amount? Uber/Lyft are already on the record as having paid for a bunch of advertising around 22 through more typical channels, but I wonder -- how would/should Uber price ads through notifications within its own app?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#115

Post by lhorie »

acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

> exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance

That wasn't my understanding of it. This[1] says:

> Companies that employ drivers through apps — among them, Lyft, Uber, DoorDash and Instacart — would instead keep workers classified as contractors and be able to offer narrower benefits, including pay at least 120% of minimum wage, health care subsidies and accident insurance.

> Benefits under Prop. 22 would be tied to drivers’ “engaged time” completing passenger routes, excluding any wait time on apps between rides.

So if I understand right, current status quo is that companies aren't obligated to pay squat, "yes" on prop 22 commits to certain pay guarantees (which I assume means some increase in price to cover for those costs), and "no" on prop 22 means companies have to use employee model (which they argue means large increases in prices, as well as reduction of coverage due to needing to follow taxi density logistics)

I tend to think about Uber in a similar way as McDonalds (i.e. lots of competition, but strong worldwide presence and strong brand), and I suspect that it will be more or less fine regardless of the outcome because of its strengths.

Personally, I've had enough bad experiences with taxis that I can see the appeal for these companies wanting to maintain high driver volume. I guess what remains to be seen is whether "yes" would provide someone working 40 hours a week to get the same level of compensation as an employee would, while still allowing casual drivers to pocket extra money in between part time jobs or whatever.

The 120% of minimum wage + the possibility to earn linearly more given more hours certainly seems like a better outcome than an employee that makes exactly minimum wage for a maximum of exactly 40 hours, and hopefully other benefits are equally sensible, rather than a loophole for undercutting drivers. It would be great to get more clarity on how the rest of benefits numbers work out.

[1] https://calmatters.org/election-2020-guide/proposition-22-gi...

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#116

Post by Arelius »

bgorman wrote: post #66
acadien wrote: post #3

I am so against prop22 it pains me so here I am ranting on the internet. What's going on is a negotiation between the state and these companies that are able to take advantage of a gap in how insurance and other benefits work. Instead of actively negotiating with the state, Uber/Lyft/Doordash and many others have simply asked to maintain the status quo, screw the drivers, just business as usual. Drivers do not get be…

Uber will have to redo its software systems to account for the concept of full time drivers. This is why they will turn off the app, it takes time to make changes to comply with the new law. Regarding your other point, why do you think employers should be the providers of healthcare in the first place? This isn't the way it works in most countries.

Isn't Part-Time employee also an option?

Not the parent, but personally, I don't think employers should be the providers of healthcare, but we live in a country where that is currently the case. We should have the Universal Healthcare debate/option, but that's not the issue at hand.

Perhaps instead of trying to make 22 law, Uber/Lyft should put their weight/support behind a Universal Healthcare initiative.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#117

Post by EdJiang »

acadien wrote: post #110
EdJiang wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect. 1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the appl…

I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree. (1) you posted above completely miss-states the facts. From the voter pamphlet text itself; "A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees." I…

The text I quoted is directly from the ballot measure. If you click my link then click on "Text of Proposed Law (PDF)" in the sidebar, you will find:

> 7454. Healthcare Subsidy. (a) Consistent with the average contributions required under the Affordable Care Act (ACA), a network company shall provide a quarterly health care subsidy to qualifying app-based drivers as set forth in this section. An app-based driver that averages the following amounts of engaged time per week on a network company’s platform during a calendar quarter shall receive the following subsidies from that network company:

> (1) For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter.

> (2) For an average of at least 15 but less than 25 hours per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 50 percent of the average ACA contribution for the applicable average monthly Covered California premium for each month in the quarter.

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#118

Post by slg »

amadeuspagel wrote: post #90
slg wrote: post #40

There is a clause in Prop 22 that would make it nearly impossible for it to be amended or repealed except by another proposition.[1] >Amending Proposition 22 would require a seven-eights (87.5%) vote in each chamber of the California State Legislature and the governor's signature, provided that the amendment is consistent with, and furthers the purpose of, Proposition 22. Changes that are not considered consistent wi…

Direct democracy wouldn't work if the legislature could just overturn anything the people had voted for with a majority. It would be an endless back and forth between representatives voting for something, the people voting against it, and the represantives voting for it again. So unless you see direct democracy as "an absolute perversion of democracy" I don't know what your problem is.

There is a difference between making it harder to amend the result of direct democracy and making it nearly impossible. Many propositions are difficult to amend and require something as high as 67% of the legislature to change. That is at least achievable with broad support. However requiring 87.5% is in no way normal and some are calling it unprecedented[1]. It is high enough to make any changes practically impossible without another proposition.

The reason this is a perversion of democracy is because it is fundamentally a handful of companies banding together to buy their own law. They are only able to do it because of the huge amount of money they have. This is literally the most expensive ballot measure ever. They are straight lying to the public about who support it and hoping they can convince enough people to vote yes. It is a perfect combination of abusing the US's lax laws on corporate political speech and California's lax laws on propositions.

[1] - https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2020-07-07/uber-lyft...

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#119

Post by imgabe »

vkou wrote: post #77
imgabe wrote: post #42

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 1. exempt all drivers from getting basic benefits like health insurance > or else > 2. we're turning off our apps in California If you create a law that makes it unprofitable for a company to operate, are you really surprised that the company stops operating?

The company always has the option to lower wages, or raise prices on their product. It would, of course, mean that their law-compliant competitors would eat their marketshare. They are trying to tell us with a straight face, that a taxi-in-an-app business is impossible to operate under Prop 22. This is, of course, completely untrue.

I'm not sure I follow. The company can lower wages or raise prices to comply with the law. But then other companies, that also comply with the law, will eat their marketshare? How?

Where are all these competitors that offer full-time with benefits driver positions at Uber prices? Why aren't they sucking up the entire pool of available drivers right now? Why do we need a law to force Uber / Lyft to provide benefits if other companies already do it?

Re: Uber: “Yes on Prop 22” popups shown to drivers

#120

Post by nearbuy »

acadien wrote: post #110
EdJiang wrote: post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Your post has a lot of misinformation I'd like to correct. What you're stating about the current situation is factually incorrect. 1. Prop 22 gives app-based workers healthcare, minimum wage, and other protections and benefits. From the text: "For an average of 25 hours or more per week of engaged time in the calendar quarter, a payment greater than or equal to 100 percent of the average ACA contribution for the appl…

I appreciate your response but respectfully disagree. (1) you posted above completely miss-states the facts. From the voter pamphlet text itself; "A YES vote on this measure means: App-based rideshare and delivery companies could hire drivers as independent contractors. Drivers could decide when, where, and how much to work but would not get standard benefits and protections that businesses must provide employees." I…

> If you drive full time you deserve full time benefits. That means more than a 50% payment of ACA

You might have misread the parent comment, as it said full time drivers must get at least 100% payment of ACA.

Post reply on HN