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

161–170 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#161

Post by dlp211 »

crakenzak wrote: post #90
SnarkAsh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're getting off lightly. Uber demonstrates why we need a corporate death penalty. Serial lawbreaker Travis Kalanick should be in prison for the rest of his life, most of his criminal conspirators on the board should be there with him, and the company should be dissolved and forgotten. Recall that among their hundreds of other crimes, there are actual conspiracies to conceal criminal activities from law enforcemen…

what did kalanick do that's worthy of life in prison? genuinely curious

Broke the law in nearly every major US City for one.

Does he deserve prison for this, that is a complicated question, but I'd have had no problem with destroying Uber as an entity.

Re: Update on AB5

#162

Post by ixtli »

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…

> if you have time to protest, you're probably not that poor

i dont know what protests you've been attending but the one's ive helped at for laundry and warehouse workers were filled with people that were not only supporting families on minimum wage but also contained people who were here on visas.

in america you're always taking a risk by protesting an employer.

Re: Update on AB5

#163

Post by wavepruner »

slg wrote: post #160
wavepruner wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 aut…

My point is that it's impossible for us to keep up and fix everyone's problem for them. We need to empower people to make their own choices. That's the best way to help.

Re: Update on AB5

#164

Post by seanmcdirmid »

organsnyder wrote: post #70
DaiPlusPlus wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Don’t forget the “exempt” vs “non-exempt” status for W-2 workers though.

That impacts whether you're eligible for overtime pay. Given that contractors are never mandated to receive overtime pay, a contractor position can never be superior in this regard.

Exempt status also impacts whether your hours are fixed or not. If they tell you that you must be in the office from 9AM to 5 PM, then you aren’t exempt.

Re: Update on AB5

#165

Post by ixtli »

SnarkAsh wrote: post #81
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.…

They're getting off lightly. Uber demonstrates why we need a corporate death penalty. Serial lawbreaker Travis Kalanick should be in prison for the rest of his life, most of his criminal conspirators on the board should be there with him, and the company should be dissolved and forgotten. Recall that among their hundreds of other crimes, there are actual conspiracies to conceal criminal activities from law enforcemen…

Interesting that this comment is getting poor reception when this has shown, historically, to be a very effective way of dealing with oligarchs. Especially ones that, as you've correctly stated, have a long history of breaking laws and abusing workers and customers.

I challenge anyone reading this thread to really criticize why they believe their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in uber.

Re: Update on AB5

#166

Post by avocado4 »

tyxodiwktis wrote: post #62

When the ACA passed, mandating that large employers offer health insurance to all full time employees, there was a massive push by large employers in retail and food service to cap people's hours and make sure very few qualified as full time. This was because health insurance costs employers about $10k per employee per year, and if you are paying someone $10/hr ($20k/yr at 40hrs a week), raising labor costs 50% is a…

Real solution is universal healthcare.

Re: Update on AB5

#167

Post by slg »

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 would be curious to hear you expand on your point here. It is in the format of a correction that is refuting my comment, but I honestly see those two statements as nearly identical. People are desperate because they don't have any other better alternatives.

Re: Update on AB5

#168

Post by blaisio »

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.…

Isn't the law sort of protecting people from themselves? My understanding is the majority of Uber drivers don't even make money, they just convert equity from their car into cash. Making them employees might mean forcing it to be an actual viable job, and it might mean that job no longer exists. But these people are probably better off selling their cars (and buying economical ones) than working for Uber anyway.

Re: Update on AB5

#169

Post by pishpash »

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?

Because rideshare carefully uses economic incentives to generate outcomes by market means, not by "enforcing" through the heavy hand that only the government understands.

Re: Update on AB5

#170

Post by dzader »

basch wrote: post #121

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 e…

> Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business?

If Microsoft is the one paying you, and dictating how you use Outlook, what you can say, who you talk to you - then yes, it does.

Post reply on HN