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

141–150 of 172 posts

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

#141

Post by vkou »

imgabe wrote: post #119
vkou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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?

Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms.

As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature.

The demand for taxis is not going to go away anywhere. You can operate a taxi company (traditional, or sharecropper) with, or without prop 22. The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

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

#142

Post by ardy42 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #64
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…

>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…

>> 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.

It isn't, but it's a clever propaganda trick to make people think it is. How much opposition will you get if you convince people that to oppose you would be like arguing against having the tide coming in tomorrow?

How work is organized is a political decision for a society, and some people want that decision to be gigs for larger segment of workers. It's pretty easy to see who, when you think about who's taking more risk in such arrangements.

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

#143

Post by nullc »

There are many reasons to vote NO on 22, beyond the tasteless tactics being used to promote it.

One example I haven't seen discussed much is that it requires that any future changes Business and Professions Code chapter 10 require a seven-eighths vote and that the changes be "consistent with and furthers the purpose of" the chapter.

So not only is this a gross law that special cases particular businesses, but it's a nearly impossible to overturn suicide pact to do so.

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

#144

Post by thatswrong0 »

Cerium wrote: post #92

Even if it was true that everyone wants prop 22 to pass, I refuse to vote for a proposition that make an exemption for a specific industry or activity. If employment law is wrong change it, if it is right leave it. There is nothing unique about any one industry's relationship with employment, especially this one.

AB5 already has a bunch of exceptions. Idealism is great, but not practical

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

#145

Post by imgabe »

vkou wrote: post #141
imgabe wrote: post #119

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

> 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? Uber and sharecropping firms like it compete with eachother, as well as with traditional taxi firms. As I understand it, traditional taxi firms are already largely in compliance with the proposed legislature. The demand for taxis is not…

Something can't simultaneously have inelastic demand and also be a luxury good. Those things are kind of opposite.

Demand for taxis has dropped a lot because of Uber. Uber also gets passengers who would have otherwise not made the trip, taken a bus, or driven drunk. If Uber is no longer an option they'll go back to those options,not to taxis.

> The only difference will be in the price of rides - for what is largely a luxury good.

The price of rides makes a big difference and hugely effects demand. I don't know why you're treating it like it doesn't matter. Lower prices open the service up to more people. Indoor plumbing was once a luxury good. Generally progress means turning luxuries into commodities, not the opposite.

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

#146

Post by takeda »

Arelius wrote: post #107
AlphaSite wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Im concerned this is a false dichotomy, there could be other apps? That said i doubt they would match Uber and Lyft in quality, usually they are mediocre.

More importantly, it's unlikely they would match Uber and Lyft in price, since the rides wouldn't be subsidized as such.

I'm sure a non-profit service like in Austin run by the city could, anyway so Uber/Lyft still ride on their funding and driver's aren't paid much of you include their expenses, so it is obvious that either prices should go up or something needs to change to make it sustainable (and by sustainable it probably means self driving cars) if that's the end goal then what are really voting for? Continuing exploiting these people?

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

#147

Post by takeda »

imgabe wrote: post #119
vkou wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Their competitors that are obeying the law are taxis. Uber and Lyft were able to get lower costs, because they were using loopholes in the law, which AR5 fixes.

Currently Uber and Lyft don't even compete against each other, they compete against their drivers.

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

#148

Post by supercollision »

jkestner wrote: post #33
threatofrain wrote: post #22

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What's the threat of Uber going away? What's the moat? Wouldn't another company simply fill the vacuum? That is, unless Uber's whole venture is unprofitable.

This was always the plan. Operate at a loss on both riders/drivers until you can turn the screws. In the past, you could say you'll just switch to Lyft, but here they're working together. That should tell you something about who they're competing with. Their drivers.

I heard one plan was to gain market share and eventually replace drivers with self-driving vehicles altogether, but I should note I'm spreading at least third-degree hearsay.

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

#149

Post by supercollision »

EdJiang wrote: post #100
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…

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…

Thanks for surfacing the info on health care.

EdJiang, please note this isn't to you directly (either as a poster or Uber employee), my engineer-brain is sort of thinking of loopholes and unintended consequences. I'm not expressing an opinion here.

How many "real" working hours does it take to get 25 working hours? I only found one reference (Berkeley Law) that estimated 1/3 of the time is downtime, so very roughly 40 hours a week? Of course depends on location, chosen time of work, and much more.

More cynically, would these companies be able to distribute work such that rides are given to drivers with more "buffer" before hitting these ACA payouts?

Again, not at Uber, Lyft and others specifically but the USA is a country where if we mandate workers with 30 hours get healthcare, employers may try to schedule for 29. I think it's unfortunate, but that's the incentive.

(opinion mode on: we need to fix healthcare as a country; the current state of affairs and likely the state after the Supreme Court hears Texas v. California in three weeks is ridiculous)

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

#150

Post by winrid »

Arelius wrote: post #111
winrid wrote: post #84

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The answer is no, if I'm freelancing the company I work for should not pay me benefits. I could be working for five companies at once. Should they all be giving me Healthcare?

Should any app that pays you a few bucks for doing small jobs pay you Healthcare now?

Post reply on HN