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

241–250 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#241

Post by mbell »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #3

I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.

The only existential threat to Uber is how long it takes self driving cars to become a reality. Human drivers are a speed bump in their business model. It only affects the length of their runway and thus when they intersect with self driving cars.

Re: Update on AB5

#242

Post by asdfgasd »

matz1 wrote: post #227
asdfgasd wrote: post #224

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Right, but you're questioning a position that doesn't really exist. Pretty much everyone that is a strong advocate for labour protections would also like universal healthcare, it's just much more likely we can achieve labour protection in the short term than universal healthcare.

I'm arguing that this kind of labour protections of changing employee classification rule is a weird thing to fight for. Just because the fix is easier and more likely to achieve but if it doesn't address the core issue, its useless.

Sure, but if that is your position you should go out and advocate for this better thing instead of bemoaning the efforts other people are making as misplaced.

This shows up anytime people try to make some sort of progressive improvement to society, people come out of the woodwork to complain that it's not the right solution, without doing anything (other than complaining I guess) to motivate a better solution.

Re: Update on AB5

#243

Post by AaronFriel »

shkkmo wrote: post #192
AaronFriel wrote: post #78

Earlier quoted context omitted.

There's some nuance being lost here - they aren't saying they will violate the law, they are saying that their lawyers will advance an argument that the law (ABC test) does not apply to them. I think the legislature and many on HN believe that courts will think it's absurd that Uber's drivers are doing work "outside the usual course" of Uber's business. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how…

The article pretty clearly states that Uber believes it will continue to pass the ABC test.

You're right about the article, I was responding to people in this thread: "broadcasting their intention [to break the law] in advance", "[admitting] that they will not adhere to the law" and so on. Those are the statements I am responding to.

Re: Update on AB5

#244

Post by jasonhansel »

Summary: "This bill does absolutely nothing to affect us. But please don't pass it, or at least let us compromise, since it would affect us so much."

Seems a little bit contradictory?

Re: Update on AB5

#245

Post by jasonhansel »

> We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now.

Translation: "We want to help our workers by fighting against their own attempts to assert their legal rights. We will do so in special courts where we hire and pay the judges. This will be perfectly fair."

Re: Update on AB5

#246

Post by basch »

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.

I'm thinking more like email, ActivityPub, XMPP, or hate to say it, blockchain. There doesnt need to be an aggregator App if its a federated protocol or a shared database. A blockchain would be a central store of truth regarding ride history and reputation. Your reputation would build across access clients. If a client doesnt keep innovating, and there is demand for more features, newer ones would come along, without throwing away the database and starting over.

Re: Update on AB5

#247

Post by matz1 »

asdfgasd wrote: post #242
matz1 wrote: post #227

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm arguing that this kind of labour protections of changing employee classification rule is a weird thing to fight for. Just because the fix is easier and more likely to achieve but if it doesn't address the core issue, its useless.

Sure, but if that is your position you should go out and advocate for this better thing instead of bemoaning the efforts other people are making as misplaced. This shows up anytime people try to make some sort of progressive improvement to society, people come out of the woodwork to complain that it's not the right solution, without doing anything (other than complaining I guess) to motivate a better solution.

Well, if not me, at very least maybe someone out there that read this will be inspired to do something about it.

Still better than not saying anything.

Re: Update on AB5

#248

Post by [deleted] »

rando56473 wrote: post #228
aliston wrote: post #202

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Without going down the rabbit hole of Constitutional Law, I’ll just point out that there are folks on the Federal Supreme Court that disagree, in principle, that courts should be making laws. That aside, if you think it’s a shallow criticism in this case, why do you think it required legislative action to have any effect? In other words, if this wasn’t legislation from the bench, ab5 is a noop.

I’m well aware that there are Supreme Court justices who claim to believe that courts should not make law. And yet... they continue to make law every time they contribute to a majority opinion. As to AB5, I’m not really educated on the particulars of Dynamex or the political process around AB5 to opine on why it’s been codified. There are many possible reasons, ranging from a desire to try to freeze the law in place,…

[deleted]

Re: Update on AB5

#249

Post by ma2rten »

tsycho wrote: post #240

IIUC, AB5 might end up making Uber a monopoly in California (and US if other states follow suit) via regulatory capture. Currently, most drivers seem to drive for both Uber and Lyft (based on their cars having stickers for both). But if classified as employees, and being guaranteed a minimum wage, then Uber/Lyft might require them to be exclusively available. As a result, the drivers will have to choose either Uber a…

Lyft can simply offer more money and accept lower margins.

Re: Update on AB5

#250

Post by maxerickson »

tsycho wrote: post #240

IIUC, AB5 might end up making Uber a monopoly in California (and US if other states follow suit) via regulatory capture. Currently, most drivers seem to drive for both Uber and Lyft (based on their cars having stickers for both). But if classified as employees, and being guaranteed a minimum wage, then Uber/Lyft might require them to be exclusively available. As a result, the drivers will have to choose either Uber a…

Not that many people will agree to exclusivity for minimal wages, certainly not for hours they aren't scheduled and paid.
Post reply on HN