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

121–130 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#121

Post by basch »

I think there is more truth to their argument than people are giving them credit for. It seems like an in bad faith perspective to not give their claim some credence. It makes YOUR argument stronger to first make the best version of Ubers argument before rebutting it.

Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business? Does it make me an Ebay employee if I sell things through ebay? Until Uber eliminates the ability for drivers to drive Uber and Lyft simultaneously, and bounce between the services at will, I DO view it as drivers paying for 1) a dispatch and messaging service 2) payment processing 3) insurance 4) a resume host 5) a customer funnel. Thats more than just a technology or software company, Uber sells transportation services to drivers. The fact alone that they can have two messaging/dispatch apps open at once, on two phones, makes me question, which company do you think the driver works for? Both simultaneously? Just the one that the passenger is from? Is having both Uber and Lyft open looking for passengers any different than listing something I have for sale on Etsy, Ebay and Amazon, and pulling the listing once it sells out?

Re: Update on AB5

#122

Post by sharkmerry »

koolba wrote: post #52
shawndellysse wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in your case it would make perfect sense to consider you an independent contractor instead of an employee. I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor.

> I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor. Why though? There's plenty of contractors in other industries that work exclusively for a single client, often for 40+ hours per week. In technology in particular it's more common than having multiple concurrent clients (per person, not per consultancy).

And some of those probably should be classified as employees.

Re: Update on AB5

#123

Post by dragonwriter »

sneak wrote: post #96
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #84

Uber'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.

> Google doesn’t sell “the world’s information”

No, it exchanges it for attention, which it sells, but an exchange of the world's information for other valuable commodities is key to it's business model.

Re: Update on AB5

#124

Post by amyjess »

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 issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders.

This is the exact reason I want Uber to lose this. Anything that would keep drivers classified as contractors is harmful to the actual customers, because the drivers being employees mean that they have to actually follow policies set by Uber.

Re: Update on AB5

#125

Post by amyjess »

bscphil wrote: post #117
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…

> 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. Dependin…

> 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've only had that happen a couple of times for me, but that's because I'm mostly a Lyft user. What was more common on Lyft was drivers calling me to ask "Where are you going?", and when I'd respond with "I already put my destination into the app", they'd hang up and cancel on me.

Edit: About the cancellation penalties. I don't know about Uber, but on Lyft when I as a rider have to cancel on somebody, I sometimes see options pop up saying "driver asked me to cancel" or "driver is not moving". They know when drivers are using trickery to get out of dinging their cancellation rate. And when I have to cancel for "driver is not moving", I also get a message saying they'll waive the cancellation fee because there was an issue with my ride (note: I get this message before I see the list of cancellation reasons to pick from, not after).

Re: Update on AB5

#126

Post by spiznnx »

xg15 wrote: post #44
npmaile wrote: post #8

As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…

Genuine question: Why would classification as employee automatically mean an end to the flexible work times? To my knowledge, there are numerous business areas where it's possible to negotiate flexible work hours, so wouldn't this be here possible as well?

It wouldn't be an end to flexible work times, but due to per-employee overhead costs, the cost/benefit to the employer from the number of hours an employee works clearly spikes at a few different points due to overheads. At 0hrs/week, there is no overhead. At 20hrs, this is another ideal point since while you do have to give your labor a lot of rights, you don't need to offer certain benefits (vacation, sick pay, disability, health insurance) in many states (notably this works differently in california). At 40hrs, this is another good point since you don't have to pay overtime rates (but at least this cost isn't a big spike).

Basically there's a bunch of laws that spike certain expensive costs for employees if they work different amounts. Therefore its not very profitable to allow completely flexible work times. Otherwise many of their Hawaii drivers would drive for 21 hours for benefits, and the labor costs would be higher than if you were required to either drive for 20 hours or 40 hours.

I think ideally employees wouldn't be mandated to provide any expensive benefits to full-time employees and benefits would be centralized and funded through more taxation instead.

But mostly, uber is complaining because labor laws are complex

Re: Update on AB5

#127

Post by lacker »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #99
lacker wrote: post #74

I 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…

If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place.

I think we basically agree. The dangerous outcome is that Uber becomes more expensive for end users in California, Uber drivers become employees, but they make exactly minimum wage because that's the minimum Uber can pay them, and Uber's profits in California go to zero. (I doubt the Uber business will cease to exist because taxis are so bad in comparison.) Uber's market shrinks because they became more expensive, so they can hire fewer people.

Is that better for anyone? It sounds worse for both Uber drivers and for Uber users than the status quo. Unless you think that a minimum wage job is superior to the current job of Uber driver, and we really need more minimum wage jobs.

Re: Update on AB5

#128

Post by basch »

malandrew wrote: post #118
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #88

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 r…

They would be more like contractors if economies of scale favored open cross compatible ride sharing platforms, instead of proprietary institutions and and oligopoly.

If there were 10 ridesharing apps, and any customer could reach any driver using a different app, would you still consider the driver as having not negotiation power? The driver could uncheck "allow riders from uber" if they didnt want uber provided leads. Ride hailing should be as open as SMS, and then drivers AND passengers would gain power in the relationship. By using government to benefit consumers and shun proprietary lockin, the issues could be solved without creating a new employee class. The root need for that class in the first place is Ubers anti-competitive side.

Re: Update on AB5

#129

Post by matz1 »

The government seems to be solving the wrong issue. Shouldn't the government instead fix the Whatever it is that makes being classified as contractor suck in the first place?

Re: Update on AB5

#130

Post by velosol »

kstrauser wrote: post #106
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…

I would think in addition we'd have to see the ability to book with a specific driver for a future ride for 'lead generation' to hold up.
Post reply on HN