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

211–220 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#211

Post by darkwizard42 »

dtrailin wrote: post #55
justapassenger wrote: post #39

Would love to see source data that Uber is referencing (I know it's not possible, as it's highly guarded secret) - I suspect they cherry pick it a lot. "In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. [...] We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in Cali…

A very clever thing they're doing is conflating being an employee with not having flexible hours, as if part time jobs don't exist. Fast food chains don't hire independent contractors and yet lots of people have flexible shifts.

Not exactly...consider the following problem:

Fast food chain is busy from 12 AM - 2 AM, 5 PM - 7 PM. These shifts may be desirable or undesirable because of the time they occur. To be able to get the "easy" shifts (slow ones) at 10 PM or something, they can make it so that you HAVE to take a part of the other shifts... If you can't, you don't meet their eligibility and you lose your job.

If you are an employee in a shift based business, you definitely give up some rights to having completely flexible work hours.

Re: Update on AB5

#212

Post by duskwuff »

lr wrote: post #109

They continue to use the term "rideshare", which just boggles my mind. So, I guess "share" in this case means that Uber is "sharing" a "cut" of the proceeds with the driver. Maybe they should call it, "fareshare" (but then that would be a play on words that turns out to be an oxymoron).

That's an interesting point, actually. Uber and Lyft do both support shared rides (which they call Uber Pool and Lyft Line, respectively), but my understanding is that the vast majority of their rides are not actually "shared".

Re: Update on AB5

#213

Post by shkkmo »

smacktoward wrote: post #30
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 investi…

You may have missed this part:

> Importantly, our ballot measure will not ask voters to exempt us from AB5, even though nearly every other industry in California that works with independent contractors received an exemption from the ABC test through special amendments I mentioned earlier. Instead, we will ask voters to support the pro-driver policies we have advocated for: giving drivers access to benefits and an earnings floor and retaining the flexible access to on-demand work they enjoy today.

It doesn't sound like the proposal is intended avoid compliance with AB5 but to create conditions where new bills that make the ABC test harder pass will have less support.

Re: Update on AB5

#214

Post by spookthesunset »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #150
basch wrote: post #128

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They would be more like contractors if economies of scale favored open cross compatible ride sharing platforms, instead of proprietary institutions and and oligopoly. If there were 10 ridesharing apps, and any customer could reach any driver using a different app, would you still consider the driver as having not negotiation power? The driver could uncheck "allow riders from uber" if they didnt want uber provided lea…

But then the driver is at the mercy of the aggregator App. It's the same problem as working with Uber or Lyft directly, really.

Setting aside the rider... in my world Uber and lyft would have open apis so third party apps could somehow aggregate the two services.

These apps would be pretty basic and just let the driver accept rides from either service from within the same app.

Dunno if this is actually a problem though...

Re: Update on AB5

#215

Post by spookthesunset »

brianpgordon wrote: post #135
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #105

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The current employee model as codified in our tax and legal system definitely has lots of assumptions around only having a single W2 employer. Certaintly not impossible , but definitely not a good fit. I agree with the OP, and I am not just "repeating the Uber party line". I believe 3 categories of work are needed: 1. Employee (e.g. current W2), where you have a single full-time employer who is primarily responsible…

Many people have multiple jobs (even full-time jobs) and receive multiple W2s in the mail every year. I'm not an expert in employment law but I haven't seen evidence that the current multi-job system isn't workable here. You can have multiple part time jobs, and if one job goes over a certain threshold of hours then they have to provide you benefits. If you have multiple full-time jobs, all of them are required to of…

Uber and lyft and DoorDash etc aren’t paid as wall clock hours though. You can be “clocked in” to as many as you want at once. One drive you might be working for Uber and the very next might be some Postmates order. Maybe even both on the same trip.

Focusing on wall clock hours doesn’t make sense for these kinds of jobs.

Re: Update on AB5

#216

Post by bsder »

aliston wrote: post #131
pslam wrote: post #76

Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words. I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

The question isn’t whether they’re doing a job, it’s whether drivers are acting as contractors vs employees while performing the job. Ironically, taxi drivers are also contractors. I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that the status quo pre-Uber was a contractor model as well. The real problem is that the Dynamex decision is legislation from the bench that redefines “contractor.” The historical definition of…

Um, do you know what AB5 IS?

AB5 is a law codifying the Dynamax decision--the precise opposite of legislating from the bench.

Re: Update on AB5

#217

Post by IanCal »

spookthesunset wrote: post #206
eaurouge wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ebay doesn't control how much you sell your product for. Ebay doesn't police how you sell, package, or ship your product. It's mostly hands off. Compare this with the level of control Uber exerts on its drivers. Similarly, Ebay's service is less dependent on how well you provide your commerce services, it pretty much lets the market determine your prospects on its platform. On the other hand, Uber is highly reliant o…

Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn’t have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers. I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be bu…

Whether they need to do it for their business to work isn't that relevant, they are still doing those things.

In the UK we have two classifications that are different from self employed (contractors). We have worker and employee. They're similar but differ in the level of control the employer has and the responsibilities of the employer.

The case in the UK decided that the drivers were workers but not employees.

More info: https://www.gov.uk/employment-status

Re: Update on AB5

#218

Post by aliston »

bsder wrote: post #216
aliston wrote: post #131

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The question isn’t whether they’re doing a job, it’s whether drivers are acting as contractors vs employees while performing the job. Ironically, taxi drivers are also contractors. I’m surprised nobody has brought up the fact that the status quo pre-Uber was a contractor model as well. The real problem is that the Dynamex decision is legislation from the bench that redefines “contractor.” The historical definition of…

Um, do you know what AB5 IS ? AB5 is a law codifying the Dynamax decision--the precise opposite of legislating from the bench.

I was talking about the Dynamex decision, not ab5. Obviously legislation is not legislation from the bench.

Re: Update on AB5

#219

Post by dzader »

darkwizard42 wrote: post #193
dzader wrote: post #170

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

Except Uber doesn't dictate how you use the app, they set parameters on how you can use it. They also don't tell you that you HAVE to take all rides, but if you do not meet a quality bar or are abusing their product then they can kick you off it / revoke your access... The only difference here is the payment. And to that end, if Outlook supported the ability to transfer money then it still wouldn't make Microsoft you…

> Except Uber doesn't dictate how you use the app, they set parameters on how you can use it.

a distinction without a difference. if you don't follow their parameters they kick you off, which feels a lot like dictating how its used to me

Post reply on HN