Update on AB5 • Hacker News Board

Re: Update on AB5

#151

Post by matz1 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:24 PM UTC

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…

>This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections

If the government really care about worker well being then the government should directly help them, instead of using company as middleman. For example by providing universal health care or universal basic income.

Re: Update on AB5

#152

Post by fountainofage » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:26 PM UTC

lacker wrote: post #127

hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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,…

I want to highlight very few Uber drivers make more than minimum wage once the total costs are taken into account.

Re: Update on AB5

#153

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:27 PM UTC

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…

Doesn’t Uber in the USA just assign rides automatically? Or do drivers opt into the rides they want? But what you describe is how didi works in China when interfacing with taxis (you could get a taxi or ride share through the app, drivers will simply ack any rides they want to take, payment is handled normally, didi doesn’t get a cut).

Re: Update on AB5

#154

Post by ixtli » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

matz1 wrote: post #151

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…

>This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections If the government really care about worker well being then the government should directly help them, instead of using company as middleman. For example by providing universal health care or universal basic income.

You seem to be implying a false choice here. Specifically that we (the government is comprised of individuals) can not engage both in labor protections at the same time as we attempt to create a universal health care system.

Re: Update on AB5

#155

Post by sgustard » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:28 PM UTC

shawndellysse wrote: post #7

Are 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.

eBay is a marketplace because people have always bought and sold stuff. There was no pre-existing marketplace of drivers looking to drive people around for money before Uber came along.

Re: Update on AB5

#156

Post by avocado4 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

addicted wrote: post #146

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.

You mean taxis?

Re: Update on AB5

#157

Post by seanmcdirmid » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:29 PM UTC

8ytecoder wrote: post #75

SilasX wrote: post #60

Earlier 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?

> 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.

Most of us don’t have such great experiences with taxis as you do. “Legally bound” still leaves a lot of wiggle room for really crappy experiences.

Re: Update on AB5

#158

Post by matz1 » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #154

matz1 wrote: post #151

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections If the government really care about worker well being then the government should directly help them, instead of using company as middleman. For example by providing universal health care or universal basic income.

You seem to be implying a false choice here. Specifically that we (the government is comprised of individuals) can not engage both in labor protections at the same time as we attempt to create a universal health care system.

I'm questioning the current convoluted way government have to do to protect worker.

What is the purpose of the labor protection in the first place ? To help the worker right ? Then why not just directly help the worker.

Instead of forcing company to provide health care to their worker, why not the government itself provide health care directly.

Re: Update on AB5

#159

Post by biggestdecision » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #148

bko wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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. The…

There's truth to that story, but it doesn't paint the whole picture.

Rural life is dull, you have a limited social circle and limited access to culture. And you have few opportunities. People today still crowd into overpriced cities with poor living conditions, because they dream of 'making it', and they can't bear the thought of toiling away at agriculture (or at a lesser job).

In China, an entire generation has been uplifted out of poverty by voluntarily relocating off of farms and into manufacturing jobs, and it's been so successful that it's cited as a reason for the popularity of current authoritarian leadership.

Re: Update on AB5

#160

Post by slg » Wed, Sep 11, 2019, 10:30 PM UTC

wavepruner wrote: post #147

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…

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…

I'm not a fan of the whole "late-stage capitalism" meme, but I think that perfectly describes your complaint here.

The ideal approach is two pronged, you raise the standard which benefits society as a whole and increase the social safety net to take care of those few lost in transition.

The same principle applies to a wide variety of economic changes from increased labor regulations, to housing, to free trade, to automation. Your complaint here is mainly that we haven't followed through on protecting those caught in transition. We shouldn't fall into the trap of mistaking that for a valid criticism against raising the societal standard.