Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

171–180 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#171

Post by dodobirdlord »

jmspring wrote: post #148
gonehome wrote: post #118

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I hope 22 passes. The current incentive structure between drivers, riders, and Uber is really good. The ability to scale up and down quickly based on demand, surge pricing, incentive to give more rides to make more, not wait around etc. This legislation seems like it’ll make things worse for most people, except people interested in doing the minimum number of fares possible to not get fired (and the teamsters pushing…

7/8 needed to modify things. Fuck this over reach. That simple thing will kill the bill. Right/left friends that is a power grab gone too far.

It's essentially a proposition to repeal a law passed by the legislature. Obviously the legislature doesn't like it, or the original law wouldn't have passed. If it wasn't essentially unmodifiable then the legislature would just annul it via amendment. There didn't need to be a measure allowing to be amended by the legislature at all, the 7/8th requirement is just in there to allow the legislature to do non-contentious fixup changes.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#172

Post by djur »

okareaman wrote: post #128
greendude29 wrote: post #116

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Anecdotally: 100% counter to what virtually every Lyft driver who drives full-time has told me. Data-wise: Where is your evidence? I thought that by now, the free market would have solved all of the above problems? Philosophically: No one's job should be dependent on tips. Tips ALWAYS are filtered via biases that tap into sexism, racism, xenophobia, and never a financially responsible way of building an economy. Vote…

Are you aware that the majority of drivers don't drive full time? If full time drivers don't like it or don't make enough they should apply for employment at a company that meets their needs. A lot of service workers depend on tips.

The service industry underpaying their workers shouldn't be an excuse for expanding the practice. The tip economy should be rolled back, not allowed to spread.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#173

Post by qeternity »

haroldegibbons wrote: post #111
brian_cloutier wrote: post #73

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that t…

> they have decided that this is their best option Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr? > why should only employed people deserve than minimum standard Why does Uber think unemployed people don't deserve the minimum standard? > Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living Do you think this ruling lines up with that?

> Do you think they'd still sign up if Uber was upfront about only paying ~$4/hr?

Do you think that people would continue to work for Uber after the first month if they were really earning $4/hr when they could walk into a fastfood chain and earn minimum wage?

So either your number is wrong, or the answer is yes. Either way, you're not arguing for what you think you are.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#174

Post by djur »

okareaman wrote: post #136
dmitriid wrote: post #108

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Most of the bullet points you listed are not a sign of bad drivers. Even you, were you a taxi driver, wouldn't take a long drive out of town if you weren't paid for the trip back, for example. And yes, "my car my rules" because that is their car, and Uber imposes severe penalties for bad reviews.

"bad drivers" as in "not making money" drivers. When you go out of town you stay there and take rides or set your direction home and pick up rides in that direction. Drivers who say they don't get paid coming back are ignorant.

Or the drivers could be paid a wage and it wouldn't be a problem. It sounds like the current system for compensating drivers creates an incentive for bad service in this instance, not good.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#175

Post by dodobirdlord »

qeternity wrote: post #161
ddulaney wrote: post #77

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I am generally skeptical about the “market-ness” of the labor market. There are many situations in which people are not as free to switch jobs as a free-market proponent might want them to be. There is the obvious example of slavery, historical and modern, but many other groups are not able to experience any real free market for labor. One that comes to mind is miners, who often develop highly-specialized skills and…

> I’m not sure if gig economy workers are in exactly the same boat, but be skeptical of free market claims when it comes to labor. Gig economy workers have the freest movement of labor possible. If they get a better job tomorrow, they just take it...they don't even have to tell Uber. That's the whole point of the "gig" in Gig Economy.

Moreover, many people literally drive for Uber and for Lyft at the same time, to the extent that it's an issue in determining how company-sponsored accident insurance should be applied.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#176

Post by manquer »

jonathan-neil wrote: post #153
okareaman wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Are you aware that the majority of drivers don't drive full time? If full time drivers don't like it or don't make enough they should apply for employment at a company that meets their needs. A lot of service workers depend on tips.

Do you have any data to back that up? You have made claim after claim on this thread with absolutely zero references for the information. Impossible not to classify you as a shill at this point.

Bartenders, and waiters heavily dependent on tips. As non American visiting it is always taxing for me to figure what to tip.

I am more accustomed to price including the waiters salary and rarely only tipping when service is truly exceptional.

This is also the reason I and many others prefer ride shares, price is transparent and upfront, in traditional taxies the negotiations depends on your local knowledge, knowledge of drivers' language etc and your people skills and it takes effort.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#177

Post by djur »

nickpp wrote: post #150
CameronNemo wrote: post #124

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is so off base. It sounds like a regurgitation of a Red State post. If anyone wants to read about Lorena Gonzalez-Fletcher, just check her Wikipedia page: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Lorena_Gonzalez#Early_life,_ed... She was involved with the AFL-CIO, but I see no mention of involvement with the Teamsters union.

"Dude. I am a Teamster. I ran for office as an organizer and labor leader. I believe in unions to my core. Stand in solidarity with workers every single day. Bought & paid for? No... I am the union." https://twitter.com/LorenaSGonzalez/status/11340878763904286...

Doesn't look like an "admission" to me. Looks like pride.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#178

Post by gonehome »

jayd16 wrote: post #166
gonehome wrote: post #142

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The idea is they’ll be an incentive to do the minimum amount of rides to remain employed. I’ve already had drivers accept my ride and then just sit waiting or drive around aimlessly waiting for me to cancel so I’ll be charged for it. I suspect this will be more common if giving rides is not directly tied to making money.

Ah you're assuming the apps will go the salaried route. My assumption is they'll do the work to classify drivers as proper contractors instead.

Yeah, it’s hard to predict the outcome/knock-on effects without knowing more specifics so it’s definitely possible I’m wrong about that bit.

I generally think it’s a bad idea though. I’d like to think I could be persuaded otherwise, but the arguments I heard in favor of AB5 or no on 22 didn’t seem that strong.

The sense I got from friends voting no was it was mostly driven by anti-Uber motivated reasoning without much thought about existing incentives and unexpected negative consequences.

The sense I took away from reading about AB5 was that it’s a push to get drivers marked as employees so the teamsters could unionize them and collect fees.

Basically a political battle behind the scenes is the real fight and this other stuff is just confusing the issue.

In that context Yes on 22 seemed like a good option.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#179

Post by jonathan-neil »

jayd16 wrote: post #163
jonathan-neil wrote: post #147

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You do know that social media accounts are primed then sold to achieve your exact reaction, no?

I am aware but if you actually look at the comments the author is posting about being an uber driver for 5 months or more interspersed with what seem like substantive comments.

Right, I did actually look, that's exactly what I was referencing when I said "primed".
Post reply on HN