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

251–260 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#251

Post by [deleted] »

pishpash wrote: post #169
8ytecoder wrote: post #75

Earlier quoted context omitted.

In fact, I'd argue that's the primary reason why Uber/Lyft got popular in the first place. At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. If Uber can't enforce something similar, why should I use Uber?

Because rideshare carefully uses economic incentives to generate outcomes by market means, not by "enforcing" through the heavy hand that only the government understands.

[deleted]

Re: Update on AB5

#252

Post by dnautics »

carlob wrote: post #141
kstrauser wrote: post #106

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I totally agree. I'm neutral on Uber, but their advertising is that you book an Uber ride. You don't use Uber to find a driver you like and then hire that driver from now on. Basically, the drivers are treated as the fungible part of providing service to the passengers. Contrast with Airbnb where owners can treat it like an advertising network to market their rental room, and it's totally reasonable to expect that a…

As a matter of fact I know of one person who met a driver through Uber and decided to hire them daily to get to their job without going through Uber ever again. I think that this is extremely rare and that everything in Uber is set up to prevent something like this. Same thing goes for Airbnb and the obfuscation of emails.

I did this a few times (no ongoing commitments) when I was a Lyft driver.

Re: Update on AB5

#253

Post by eloff »

ma2rten wrote: post #249
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.

So can Uber, that's just a race to the bottom.

Re: Update on AB5

#254

Post by dnautics »

dragonwriter wrote: post #180
cortesoft wrote: post #132

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I do feel that driver's being able to work for multiple ride sharing companies at the same time does make it a bit different from a normal job. A majority of drivers have both Lyft and uber enabled at the same time.... so are they employees of both? How should benefits be calculated? If I am an employee of a company, they are probably not going to let me work for a competitor while I am on the clock with them.

> A majority of drivers have both Lyft and uber enabled at the same time.... so are they employees of both? Having the app enabled is being on-call for potential assignments, not actually working. In my youngest years, I did that for multiple temp agencies at the same time a lot. Are they employees of both? Sure. Multiple W-2 employers is not that uncommon for people doing temp work. > How should benefits be calculat…

"Multiple W-2 employers is not that uncommon for people doing temp work."

But not simultaneously. Once I went to a neghborhod where I knew I would not get any Lyft rides (stodgy white folk in suburban San Diego) and took Uber rides specifically to nail bonuses on both platforms.

Re: Update on AB5

#255

Post by shkkmo »

AaronFriel wrote: post #243
shkkmo wrote: post #192

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I was responding to your incorrect assertion about the argument ABC's lawyers would advance (as indicated by the article.)

Re: Update on AB5

#256

Post by tsycho »

maxerickson wrote: post #250
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.

True, but the majority opinion driving AB5 seems to be that most drivers are doing this as their full time jobs. Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for extra side income, but they don't count much. If the number of Lyft drivers falls significantly, consumers will have to wait longer to get a Lyft ride and they will start abandoning Lyft. Hastening the spiral.

Another comment mentioned that Lyft might pay drivers more to keep them, but given that both Uber and Lyft are hemorrhaging money, it seems unlikely that either will be willing to pay drivers more. Also, Uber just needs to pay the same as Lyft for a little while, and just wait out the decline of Lyft due to AB5.

Re: Update on AB5

#257

Post by dnautics »

grandmczeb wrote: post #174
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t Uber in the USA just assign rides automatically? Or do drivers opt into the rides they want? But what you describe is how didi works in China when interfacing with taxis (you could get a taxi or ride share through the app, drivers will simply ack any rides they want to take, payment is handled normally, didi doesn’t get a cut).

Uber presents a ride to the driver through the app and the drivers must accept the rides they want to take[1] [1] https://help.uber.com/partners/article/getting-a-trip-reques...

Yeah but it's round robin. You don't lose a ride by not mashing the button quickly enough.

Re: Update on AB5

#258

Post by unnamedprophet »

shawndellysse wrote: post #13
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…

Yeah, in your case it would make perfect sense to consider you an independent contractor instead of an employee. I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor.

Why not just provide both options to drivers? They can choose to be full-time employees, with whatever conditions that demands (e.g. exclusivity, hours, wages), or they can choose to take the independent contractor route, choosing their own hours, having control but being subject to whatever fares Uber wants to levy.

Re: Update on AB5

#259

Post by s1artibartfast »

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…

I am very curious to see how this will be implemented.

Will drivers be entitled to minimum wages from all of the apps they have active, or only when they have a fare?

Will there be a single union to bargain with all of the apps, or individual unions?

Re: Update on AB5

#260

Post by stickfigure »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #201
azylman wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point was that there's not an unlimited supply of low-skilled jobs. The fact that if you're qualified for one, you're qualified for another isn't really relevant when they can be very hard to find in some areas.

There's been a bifurcation in employment: high-skilled and low-skilled employees are most in demand. The service industry is hurting for people. Hotels, restaurants, fast food places, etc. In fact, the NYTimes recent wrote about the hotel industry: https://www.nytimes.com/2019/09/09/travel/hotel-jobs.html

Doesn't the worker get some say in this?

I, for one, would much rather drive for Uber than run a fryer. To the point of willing to take a significant pay cut to avoid the fast food industry.

Post reply on HN