Live data from Hacker News

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

reuters.com

211–220 of 423 posts

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

#211
post #59

What happens if Uber and Lyft pull out of California? Here is a list of Organizations and Individuals who are against Prop 22 Seems like there are a lot of Unions, School Districts, and every Democrat in Government from Biden all the way to the local level. https://sickofgiggreed.com/endorsements/

If they pull out, some other company willing to abide by the rules will probably appear to fill the gap, with the same service, but in terms where workers aren’t exploited.

1. workers aren't exploited :)))

2. cab companies already exist. no one uses them.

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

#213
post #9

This has been an interesting battle in terms of civil governance. Basically Uber & Lyft threatened to put the initiative they wrote, on the ballot if the legislature passed AB5, which they did. Uber and Lyft are now doing everything they can to get it to pass which will set up its own court fight. Watching this fight I wonder "Who is in charge of governing California?" is it the Legislature/Governor or is it special…

> California didn't help itself when it implemented term limits which had the unpleasant side effect of never having any legislators with enough experience in the job to know how to really get things done. I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out? The fear of rocking the boat effects anyone that, well, will live longer. Whether…

> I've never understood this argument. Potential "yay" and "nay" votes are both term-limited, so the "inexperience" should cancel out?

Your analysis seems to think that legislation is just pushing "yay" or "nay" buttons, and that discussion of experience simply is about people having the skill to find the correct button. (Though inexperience there wouldn't cancel out, either, even with a 50/50 split in intended votes, it would lead to reduced predictability.)

Legislators do more than push "yay" and "nay" buttons on packages that are assembled completely outside of their control, though.

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

#214
If uber/lyft doesn't allow their drivers to price themselves and not treat them as employers, they are more or less a cartel rather than a marketplace connecting buyers and sellers of a service.

Maybe they can show a optimal price and allow drivers to change that and charge drivers for the customers they get from the platform.

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

#215
post #112

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

> if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. The Uber workers most definitely are not making minimum wage. They actually see very well how much they’re making, and are not as gullible as HN likes to imply to not notice if they were ripped off. It is common for people here to make argument that Uber drivers make less than minimum wage, but that typically proceeds on some very dubious assumptions, wh…

Actually that is incorrect. The Hertz deal does not cover all maintenance expenses, for example if you blow a tire on a pothole, you have to pay for it. There are a lot more of those exceptions in the fine print, so be sure to read it all!

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

#216
post #26

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yay & Nay votes aren't the only job of legislators. They're often responsible for writing good legislation too -- something that's arguably difficult to do if you're new to the job, so the task (largely) falls back to special interests to "help" with the process. By way of example: Literature. It's easy to read a good book; it's much harder to write one without lots & lots of practice.

Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work. :| Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

> Even when the outside interests don't write the legislation, it's the staff and not actually politicians that too: politicians are basically constantly in meetings / at events and have no time for such work.

That's a little bit true but mostly misleading. As with any office with professional staff, most of the work of a legislative office is done by the staff, not the head of the office, true. OTOH, that doesn't mean the the skill, knowledge, and understanding of the head of the office is irrelevant, as the head directs the staff strategically, reviews, inquires, refines, and redirects work, etc.

> Nothing prevents the staff from being retained from when legislator to the next.

The new legislators not having the skill to select appropriate staff might, but a bigger problem isn't that the staff aren't retained but that they usually are; the less skilled the legislators are, the more the professional staff (who probably are shuttling back and forth between working for legislators and working for interest groups) do not only the detail work, but also control the agenda, and the less which faces the electorate sends to fill the nominally most important seats actually matter.

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

#218
post #139
post #100

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How do you think it should have played out? Laws were passed, special interests didn't like it and now there's a court battle. And immediately you say nothing can get passed that special interests oppose. California has the curve ball of the proposition system. Its not that hard to make it to the ballot with anything. It can be a little silly but it is what it is. How is this a term limits issue? What would you like…

>special interests didn't like it Almost no one liked it, least of all those supposedly benefitting from it.

Yeah my only issue with how this played out is that the proposition on the ballot written by Uber/Lyft gives ride-share companies a specific exemption, rather than just repeal AB5 for everybody. I would be a lot more forgiving towards they're lobbying effort if it was focused on fixing a bad law rather than just helping themselves only.

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

#219
post #139

Earlier quoted context omitted.

>special interests didn't like it Almost no one liked it, least of all those supposedly benefitting from it.

Yeah my only issue with how this played out is that the proposition on the ballot written by Uber/Lyft gives ride-share companies a specific exemption, rather than just repeal AB5 for everybody. I would be a lot more forgiving towards they're lobbying effort if it was focused on fixing a bad law rather than just helping themselves only.

It's designed so when the law makers give up on AB5 they have to admit it was the wrong move rather than letting the ballot proposition let them escape blame.

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

#220

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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?

I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying. My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers. If you think tha…

I think I hear you. Let people do what they want. Caveat emptor.

Here is what I am saying.

Imagine you're very poor and have a son who isn't very smart. He comes home excited about a new "job" washing the neighbor's car for $2 every other weekend because it means he'll be able to go to Disneyland this summer. Summer rolls around and it turns out he only made a quarter each wash because he had to replace his bike tires riding to and from the neighbor's house, and pay for soap and rags and stuff. You go to the neighbors and they tell you "tough shit" because your kid was too dumb to realize not even Mr Clean himself could make it to Disneyland washing cars for $2, and that the whole game was rigged from the start. Your neighbor just wanted a clean car without having to pay for it. Then after all this drama, they're texting your son that he should keep washing the cars for $2 because washing it for $10 isn't in his best interest.

Post reply on HN