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

151–160 of 172 posts

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

#151

Post by username90 »

Barrin92 wrote: post #113
username90 wrote: post #99

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 i…

> whether they'll be unemployed in a month?

Unemployment is a nonsense term for gig work. The fact that you view people as "employed" or "unemployed" speaks so much how damaged you are. I don't want to be "employed", I want to be a person who can work when I want instead of being forced to be a stable worker who predictably clocks in half of my time every week. Gig work moves us in this direction and is therefore a good thing. Americans instead want to force even more people to go full time and get tied down to a job, isn't that the horrible dystopia we all want to avoid?

> dependent on gig work because of institutional failure on several fronts within California in particular.

Those aren't most drivers though, and hurting most drivers just so that you can take the last lifeline of these poor drivers you speak of away since it doesn't meet some arbitrary standards you think these people should have makes you a horrible person imo. Also, Prop 22 actually ensures gig workers gets health benefits and minimum wage, so I am not sure why you are against it except you wanting to force people to tie themselves to a company via employment contract.

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

#152

Post by username90 »

takeda wrote: post #130
mayop100 wrote: post #79

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The drivers want 22. Overwhelmingly. Let them work!

That's absolutely untrue. The drivers I know are strongly against it.

They could just stop driving for uber if they wanted, I don't why they need politicians to force uber out to do it.

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

#153

Post by username90 »

Arelius wrote: post #109
username90 wrote: post #55

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber works by making drivers responsible over their time. By making Uber responsible for the drivers time they need to change their business model to that of a normal taxi service where they have more control over the drivers, since being responsible for something you don't have control over isn't a position you want to be in. And when they have to work as a normal taxi service then there is no point to Uber, they ca…

Could you point me to where and how AB5 would require Uber become responsible for their drivers time? It seems to not be the case to me.

It forces uber to employ them and pay them minimum wage and minimum benefits for their time. When you do that you start caring about how much money they make during the hours they work, meaning that Uber is now responsible to ensure their hours are spent productively instead of the worker deciding that himself. At this point there is no difference between Uber and a traditional Taxi company, since that is how Taxis operators. Uber can't survive as a traditional Taxi company since the laws and regulations around Taxis and employments are so different all over the world and they don't have the inhouse expertise to compete with local Taxi companies under those circumstances.

So the end result of AB5 is that Uber and Lift will exit California or become traditional taxi companies there. Either way California taxi state will go back to where it was before Uber and Lyft entered the market.

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

#154

Post by username90 »

jtchang wrote: post #47

Why is it uber cannot offer their drivers a choice of whether they want health insurance or not? Couldn't they have headed off this whole thing by providing health benefits at a discount to the drivers? Some drivers may indeed want to stay independent but still have health insurance.

That is already covered in prop 22 since it forces rideshare companies to give discount health benefits to drivers who drive a lot. It seems like a much better solution than AB5.

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

#155

Post by username90 »

makecheck wrote: post #60

We should fight for a system where people can actually be paid enough to live from ONE JOB. (This solves all kinds of other problems, like freeing up time so people can finally live more relaxed lives and invest in themselves, including in their own health.) Yet we live in a society where multiple jobs are often required just to survive. And in that scenario, it is strange to require “your employer” to give you benef…

Prop 22 ensures minimum wage and health benefits for drivers without making them employees, why would you be against that?

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

#156

Post by username90 »

29athrowaway wrote: post #41

I think the proposal should be: If you commit to work for the platform more than X number of hours in a regular basis, you are eligible for benefits. That means that you have a quota of worked hours to meet. If you can't commit to work for X number of hours in a regular basis, then you can work whenever you want, without benefits. And... the company commits not take any measures to keep the number of hours for an ind…

> If you commit to work for the platform more than X number of hours in a regular basis, you are eligible for benefits. That means that you have a quota of worked hours to meet.

That is in Prop 22, it is a compromise where drivers who drives a lot are eligible for benefits.

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

#158

Post by josefx »

username90 wrote: post #151
Barrin92 wrote: post #113

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>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 i…

> whether they'll be unemployed in a month? Unemployment is a nonsense term for gig work. The fact that you view people as "employed" or "unemployed" speaks so much how damaged you are. I don't want to be "employed", I want to be a person who can work when I want instead of being forced to be a stable worker who predictably clocks in half of my time every week. Gig work moves us in this direction and is therefore a g…

> I want to be a person who can work when I want instead of being forced to be a stable worker who predictably clocks in half of my time every week.

My job mostly requires me to be there for meetings and that my hours match up at the end of the year. As long as I can get my work done nobody really cares (except for laws against overwork).

> except you wanting to force people to tie themselves to a company via employment contract.

What kind of employment contract comes with a life time slavery clause?

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

#159

Post by lhorie »

threatofrain wrote: post #22
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…

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.

Both Uber and Lyft have stated they would pull out of California if they could not operate w/ contractor drivers. Any competitor left over would have to follow the taxi model, until Uber made changes to its platform to be able to come back.

This already sort of happened in Austin. Uber left, then a few years later it came back. When it did, everyone went back to Uber and a lot of the competitors flopped.

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

#160

Post by jkestner »

supercollision wrote: post #148
jkestner wrote: post #33

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

No, you're right, that was Uber's plan at one point. They did hire Anthony Levandowski.
Post reply on HN