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

21–30 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#21

Post by mason55 »

eridius wrote: post #5

> drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.

Uber's argument is that the core of their business is the technology which allows them to act as a two-sided marketplace and logistics company, connecting and routing physical goods and people.

Connecting riders and drivers is one thing which takes advantage of their technology but their are others. Connecting riders and scooters, connecting couriers to restaurants and hungry people, connecting people who want to go to the Hamptons with helicopters, etc.

Uber will argue that it has nothing to do with the driving part and the driving is just one of the many uses of their technology.

The difficult part of that argument will be that they have so many rules and regulations that they place on drivers and rides that's it's hard to argue they're just providing a hands-off matching & logistics service.

Re: Update on AB5

#22

Post by lonelappde »

npmaile wrote: post #8

As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…

What's wrong with being a temp employee with flex hours?

You raise a good point that labor law has an ugly bimodality regarding employee and independent contractor, where it might be better to refactor the law so that different protections apply based on some particulars of the arrangement. Working 20hrs/wk is one good place to draw a distinction.

Re: Update on AB5

#23

Post by Animats »

Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year.

We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. But we will also continue to advocate for the independence and choice that drivers tell us again and again in surveys, polls, focus groups, and personal conversations that they value most.

Uber management is not going to get the message until top management goes to jail for contempt of court.

Re: Update on AB5

#24

Post by zurtex »

npmaile wrote: post #8

As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…

Edit: Removed my comment as it conflicted with the guidelines

Re: Update on AB5

#25

Post by the-pigeon »

kwindla wrote: post #18

Could someone knowledgeable about employment law explain what will change for Uber/Lyft drivers if the companies are forced to reclassify them as employees? The post talks about "potential harm" and says that how many hours drivers have to work and whether they can work for competitors at the same time "would all change." Is that right?

This is just a PR post by Uber. Don't take any of it as fact.

No one knows the true impact of this. Companies will find lots of interesting ways to follow the letter of the law but not the spirit of it. As they always do.

If you really want speculation on it then find someone who's actually a lawyer and not directly affected by it (so they aren't biased). Which I haven't seen yet.

(Detailed writeup on why speculation on things like this is almost always wrong http://larvatus.com/michael-crichton-why-speculate/ )

Re: Update on AB5

#26

Post by FartyMcFarter »

ajkjk wrote: post #17

I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is neede…

I think you might be on to something here.

Re: Update on AB5

#27

Post by lonelappde »

buboard wrote: post #20
reaperducer wrote: post #16

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's like saying Yellow Cab is not a taxi company because the drivers are independent contractors who lease their cars from the company, and it doesn't actually drive anyone around. And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.

Or that e-bay is not a fashion store. (I think u re referring to a probably tiny part of uber that leases cars to drivers)

Ebay matches sellers (who choose what to sell) with buyers (who choose what to buy).

Uber tells drivers where to go, and when, if the driver agrees to do the work. Uber regulates the kind of cars acceptable, and regulates who does the work. Your Uber driver can't subcontract the drive to another driver.

Re: Update on AB5

#28

Post by chipperyman573 »

reaperducer wrote: post #16
buboard wrote: post #15

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.

That's like saying Yellow Cab is not a taxi company because the drivers are independent contractors who lease their cars from the company, and it doesn't actually drive anyone around. And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.

Source on uber leasing cars? I was only able to find this: https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/ which talks about paying for a rental car to uber people in

Re: Update on AB5

#29

Post by organsnyder »

npmaile wrote: post #8

As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…

There is very little downside for the employee to be classified as such rather than as a contractor. The vast majority of the downside is for the employer.

I'm a W-2 employee at the company I work for, and they don't dictate my hours.

Re: Update on AB5

#30

Post by smacktoward »

aznpwnzor wrote: post #6

> Our proposal avoids the potential harm of forcing drivers to be employees, whether or not they want to—and the vast majority tell us they don’t want to be. > Contrary to some of the rhetoric we’ve heard, AB5 does not automatically reclassify any rideshare drivers from independent contractors to employees. This may seem like an immediate contradiction, but I guess they've reframed it so their proposal is actually in…

I read it differently:

> Governor Newsom has already committed to sign AB5, which would go into effect in January 2020. Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent... drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year...

> Uber and Lyft together have already transferred $60 million into a campaign committee account, and we are open to investing more to put us in the strongest position possible to run a winning campaign... We are confident that California voters and the millions of riders and drivers who use Uber will step up to protect these important work opportunities.

Translation: "We're betting that we can get a ballot initiative passed legalizing what we do faster than the State of California can bust us for violating AB5."

Post reply on HN