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

141–150 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#141

Post by carlob »

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…

As a matter of fact I know of one person who met a driver through Uber and decided to hire them daily to get to their job without going through Uber ever again. I think that this is extremely rare and that everything in Uber is set up to prevent something like this. Same thing goes for Airbnb and the obfuscation of emails.

Re: Update on AB5

#142

Post by slg »

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…

>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 server to the passengers.

Which is also one of the reasons that Uber became successful. A lot of the "Uber for..." companies that provided more personal services like massages or house cleaning failed for this exact reason. As soon as a user found a provider they liked it was easy for the two parties to come to a deal for ongoing service and cut out the tech company. That is how a lead generating company works. Uber doesn't function that way because the provider and the consumer don't have an ongoing relationship because the drivers have all been commoditized.

Re: Update on AB5

#143

Post by dragonwriter »

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #105
stefan_ wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You are just repeating the Uber party line that somehow "employment" is antithetical to flexible work hours. It's frightening to see people just lap that up because it happens to coincide with their day job. But nothing in labor law prevents a company like Uber from "disrupting work" and offering that flexibility to employees .

The current employee model as codified in our tax and legal system definitely has lots of assumptions around only having a single W2 employer. Certaintly not impossible , but definitely not a good fit. I agree with the OP, and I am not just "repeating the Uber party line". I believe 3 categories of work are needed: 1. Employee (e.g. current W2), where you have a single full-time employer who is primarily responsible…

> The current employee model as codified in our tax and legal system definitely has lots of assumptions around only having a single W2 employer.

No, it doesn't; multiple W-2 employees is a common thing and the law has no assumptions that conflict with it.

(Multiple full-time W-2 employers, maybe, are something of an issue, but not merely multiple W-2 employers.)

> "Flexible" employee, where the employee has full control over their hours and availability, and to work for multiple employers, but doesn't have control over rates or how the work is done.

This seems like regular on-demand temp work, where pretty much every feature of that is routine, and has always been W-2. Sure, technology including platforms like Uber, et al., make it practical to have more rapid offer/accept cycles and finer-grained work assignments, but they don't fundamentally change the nature of on-demand temp work in a way which requires any different treatment legally than such work has historically been given.

Re: Update on AB5

#144

Post by dymk »

FireBeyond wrote: post #112
joeyrideout wrote: post #46

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

FTA:

> But just because the test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it. In fact, several previous rulings have found that drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business, which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.

Previous rulings have found his statement to be accurate. So you don't have to take his word for it, you can take a judge's.

Re: Update on AB5

#145

Post by supernova87a »

What I have a hard time understanding is the 3rd of the 3 tests that determine if a person can be classified as independent contractor. [1]

I understand A & B, but as for C, why does someone's normal job have to be in that same line of work to be considered an independent contractor? What does whether a person is a driver professionally, or a teacher making money on the side, determine whether they're performing work as a contractor?

Maybe someone more expert can explain.

-------

[1] ABC Test that all 3 conditions must be satisfied for worker to be considered a contractor:

"... (a) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and (b) that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business; and (c) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as that involved in the work performed.”

Re: Update on AB5

#146

Post by addicted »

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.…

If Uber shuts down transportation won't disappear. People will have to switch to modes of transportation that may be a little more expensive but actually allow the workers to make a real living without taking on all the risk.

Re: Update on AB5

#147

Post by wavepruner »

slg wrote: post #97
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.…

This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections. People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate. That desperation allows their employer to take advantage of them. The government therefore needs to step in to protect the workers from being taken advantage of. In an ideal world that regulation would also come with some type of social safet…

I hear this argument a lot, and I wonder, would anyone who has gone through an extended period of poverty agree with it? I went through this myself, and all the worker "protection" laws just made it that much harder to get back on my feet because they limited how much I could work. Or forced me to allocate some of my pay to benefits I didn't need rather than the expensive treatment I desperately needed to stay alive in the short-term.

I drove for Uber and it was seriously the only job I could get and it saved my life. I know of many other drivers who are battling disabling conditions who drive for Uber as well. Jobs that are as flexible as Uber are non-existent.

I find it really disappointing how many people debate this issue without ever actually listening to the people in poverty. That means talking to real people doing the job. Not just the protestors in the streets. And frankly, if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor. The poorest of the poor work whenever they can and do not spend time on things that don't earn them money.

Re: Update on AB5

#148

Post by TaylorAlexander »

bko wrote: post #137
slg wrote: post #97

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections. People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate. That desperation allows their employer to take advantage of them. The government therefore needs to step in to protect the workers from being taken advantage of. In an ideal world that regulation would also come with some type of social safet…

> People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives

I know at least in some situations it goes like this:

A group of people have been living off the land for centuries. At some point a government comes in and takes the land from them to sell to a factory owner so the government can profit. With no land to farm, working at that factory becomes their best option. But the workers get abused. Women get raped. Their pay is stolen. Still they don’t have a better option. They try to unionize. The government police come in and kill the union leaders. The people keep working there because they have no better option. That does not mean the situation isn’t horrible.

It’s not enough to say they chose this job freely. A lot of coercion goes on. How prevalent is this stuff? I’m not sure. But don’t assume most sweatshop workers just decided this was best with no coercion. People like you and me aren’t paying much attention and a lot of bad stuff happens when we’re not looking. It doesn’t help that corporations benefit greatly from reduced labor prices and so the media and advertisers don’t want to talk about these issues.

Here’s a great documentary on some of these issues: https://youtu.be/PxFwA-jw3X4

Re: Update on AB5

#149

Post by rando56473 »

aliston wrote: post #131
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.

The question isn’t whether they’re doing a job, it’s whether drivers are acting as contractors vs employees while performing the job. Ironically, taxi drivers are also contractors. I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that the status quo pre-Uber was a contractor model as well. The real problem is that the Dynamex decision is legislation from the bench that redefines “contractor.” The historical definition of…

Just dropping in to say that “legislation from the bench” is a charged, shallow criticism that says nothing except about the critic’s own political philosophy. The fact is, courts have been legislating from the bench for as long as we have had courts, and before then — the U.S. inherited its judicial traditions from England, after all. California is a common law jurisdiction. The essence of common law is that courts create law in the course of issuing their holdings.

Re: Update on AB5

#150

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

basch wrote: post #128
malandrew wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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 lea…

But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.
Post reply on HN