Update on AB5 • Hacker News Board

Re: Update on AB5

#261

Post by cavisne » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:11 AM UTC

gandutraveler wrote: post #189

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.

Isn't being a driver on Uber platform same as being a seller on Amazon marketplace? Amazon takes care of delivery, cancellation etc and charges a commission for those services.

Interesting argument. And since marketplace is said to be more than half of sales now, maybe thats their primary business.

A coordinated Amazon/Uber/Lyft shut down in California would be something to behold.

Re: Update on AB5

#262

Post by ryanwaggoner » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

ixtli wrote: post #165

SnarkAsh wrote: post #81

Earlier quoted context omitted.

They're getting off lightly. Uber demonstrates why we need a corporate death penalty. Serial lawbreaker Travis Kalanick should be in prison for the rest of his life, most of his criminal conspirators on the board should be there with him, and the company should be dissolved and forgotten. Recall that among their hundreds of other crimes, there are actual conspiracies to conceal criminal activities from law enforcemen…

Interesting that this comment is getting poor reception when this has shown, historically, to be a very effective way of dealing with oligarchs. Especially ones that, as you've correctly stated, have a long history of breaking laws and abusing workers and customers. I challenge anyone reading this thread to really criticize why they believe their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have…

I don’t need my personal interests to align with someone to think that they don’t deserve the death penalty.

Also curious as to where you think it’s been “very effective” to deal with any kind of crime?

Re: Update on AB5

#263

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:13 AM UTC

slg wrote: post #167

bko wrote: post #137

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives

I would be curious to hear you expand on your point here. It is in the format of a correction that is refuting my comment, but I honestly see those two statements as nearly identical. People are desperate because they don't have any other better alternatives.

I'm not the poster you replied to, but I can weigh in with my experience. I think the two statements, while similar, are usually employed by those with opposing socioeconomic views.

>People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate

>People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives

The first statement is often part of a moral argument against exploitation and expressed in conjunction with a an desire or indifference to eliminating the job. The second is usually used in an argument which frames the worker as a rational actor and lacks the moral judgement.

A common, if inflammatory, example is sex work. On one hand, sex workers can be seen a desperate, vulnerable, and forced by circumstances into an inherently exploitative relationship. Those that hold this position often believe that sex work should be made or kept illegal to protect the individuals from this exploitation.

The alternative framing is that sex workers choose the job because it is the least bad of the available options. Removing the option will only push workers into a less preferable occupation.

Re: Update on AB5

#264

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:16 AM UTC

addicted wrote: post #146

lacker wrote: post #74

I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits. If Uber has to shrink their business in California or exit entirely, that won't be good for drivers either. It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap.…

If Uber shuts down transportation won't disappear. People will have to switch to modes of transportation that may be a little more expensive but actually allow the workers to make a real living without taking on all the risk.

Either that, or people will go back to driving and using public transportation more and the drivers will leave the labor market.

Re: Update on AB5

#265

Post by fmajid » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:25 AM UTC

dnautics wrote: post #254

dragonwriter wrote: post #180

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

They are not paid by either Uber or Lyft when they are waiting for a ride, so no, it's not simultaneous.

Re: Update on AB5

#266

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:30 AM UTC

brianpgordon wrote: post #226

spookthesunset wrote: post #215

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

I have a few parallel objections: 1. It's not like it would be difficult to track all of the little chunks of time worked and add them all up. Everything is automated anyway, and nobody is filing time cards. 2. In the end, the wall clock is how workers experience time when they're out doing work for these companies. They get their bike out and go deliver food for a few hours, or get in their car and drive around the…

in response to 2 and 3: What about the status quo where gig workers are running 2-5 apps at once. If they are payed between trips, do they collect minimum wage from all companies?

Re: Update on AB5

#267

Post by pishpash » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 2:44 AM UTC

eaurouge wrote: post #177

basch wrote: post #121

I think there is more truth to their argument than people are giving them credit for. It seems like an in bad faith perspective to not give their claim some credence. It makes YOUR argument stronger to first make the best version of Ubers argument before rebutting it. Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business? Does it make me an Ebay employee if I sell things through ebay? Until Uber e…

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…

That's a difference that arises out of a goods market (with some services attached) vs. a more pure-play labor/services market, but it's not a fundamental distinction about control or what is core to the platform provider. The whole gig economy is a new phenomenon, because it is enabled by the ease of communication that is only recently possible to create a liquid labor market, something that should be applauded.

The obvious Duck test is staring you in the face, that here is a new type of thing that only half looks like a duck, and should be treated as such, which is what rideshare companies have been arguing for forever, including at the legislative level. Instead of forcing a non-duck into a duck because of stupidity, lack of imagination, or pure emotional hatred for certain companies, the level-headed thing to do is to look at how such a new type of market really should work for the benefit of all participants. The race-to-the-bottom thing that drivers complain about is a consequence of ideological cock-blocking by pandering politicians unable to come up with a real solution between fucked-up taxi medallions and raw market forces. AB5's madness lies in pretending it's the 1950's and takes the cake in making it worse not just for gig companies but a shit load of other industries as collateral damage.

Re: Update on AB5

#268

Post by s1artibartfast » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 3:00 AM UTC

xxxpupugo wrote: post #94

As regards to the hour claim, if the law goes into effects, what would happen to those drivers who can't drive 40 hours per week?

If the court rules that Uber drivers are employees per the AB5, my guess is there will be no more drivers with 40 hours a week. Ride sharing companies will just do what fast food has done and cap working hours at 29 per week to avoid healthcare benefits. This will also mean that neither uber or lyft can capture the market, because they will need each-other to supplement hours to the drivers.

Re: Update on AB5

#269

Post by Frondo » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 3:03 AM UTC

compiler-guy wrote: post #176

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.

This is somewhat true for higher level jobs, but once you hit retail, and blue collar jobs generally, it stops being true. McDonalds doesn't care if I also work at Burger King. Target doesn't care if I also work at WalMart. A plumber is generally fine if their assistant also works for another one. All of this is subject to still doing the first job satisfactorially, of course.

Funnily enough, the fast food industry is rife with non-competes:

https://www.foodandwine.com/news/fast-food-non-compete-agree...

"Amazingly, Healey’s office suggests that 80 percent of fast food workers are locked into these types of agreements."

Wonder why. (Hint: it keeps wages low and workers tied to their places of employ.)

Re: Update on AB5

#270

Post by rrix2 » Thu, Sep 12, 2019, 3:06 AM UTC

lonelappde wrote: post #27

buboard wrote: post #20

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

> Your Uber driver can't subcontract the drive to another driver.

Drivers can absolutely sub-contract. most choose not to in the US but it's the core of how the Uber Black business functions (a limosine company with a number of employee drivers) and is still how it meets demand in developing markets or in developing economies.

https://help.uber.com/partners/article/i-want-to-become-a-fl...