Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

bbc.co.uk

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

261–270 of 387 posts

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#261

Post by JamesSwift »

snarf21 wrote: post #251
wonderwonder wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

These 4 points are all pretty critical to Uber's business though. 1. If the drivers set the fair, then customers have no idea what a trip will cost or if uber shows the drivers fair then why would the customer not always choose the cheapest causing a rush to the the bottom for pricing. 2. This one is open ended and I am not knowledgeable enough to comment on it. 3. If a driver is constantly rejecting rides this is go…

I don't understand your point #1. Uber could still set a baseline price of X as a suggested price for this trip. Each driver gets a chance to offer Y that what they will accept for the trip (maybe it is way outside of downtown so they want a lot more to compensate driving back). All it does it slow down Uber giving you an instant price. It would be trivial to have an instant online auction mechanism in the app. You s…

Yes, or Uber could eat the cost over the quoted price. They cant be "just the marketplace" as well as the one that sets the price unless they accept the risk that the actual price charged by the vendor is higher than the quote.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#262

Post by 1986 »

zthrowaway wrote: post #250

Did we all forget Uber operates at a massive revenue loss every year? This whole thread is filled with virtuous cheering yet not realizing Uber isn’t an endless stream of money. This will impact their business severely if it happens in the US. They will basically cease to exist, or become as shitty as regular taxi services where you have to wait an hour for one. I remember when everyone on here cheered that they were…

My understanding was that Uber is profitable in many of its markets. Furthermore that in those markets where they are not yet profitable, this is largely due to spending on incentives, marketing, etc in order to grow the network (on both sides of the market).

That being said, if Uber truly can only be profitable by breaking the law, or by creating its own laws (Prop 22), perhaps it doesn't deserve to do so.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#263

Post by cloudfifty »

sokoloff wrote: post #243
cloudfifty wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This comes across to me as very self-centered. Perfect service over having the drivers earning a livable wage?

Drivers aren’t likely to sustainably earn a livable wage by delivering cold food two hours after it was expected either.

Why are you going after the one-data-point anecdote instead of the broader picture?

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#264

Post by FeepingCreature »

pessimizer wrote: post #186
FeepingCreature wrote: post #130

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can't make a circumstance illegal.

Yes, you can. You can make it illegal for the accused to lack representation in court if they desire it, you can make it illegal for a person to walk the street without a certain minimum amount of money in their pocket, you can make it illegal for a person under age X to not be at school at a particular part of the day without a reasonable excuse, etc. It's been done. You can even always define an occurrence as an ac…

No I'm saying the notion of illegality does not apply, and in fact leads to absurd consequences.

For instance, if you make it illegal for the accused to lack representation in court, you can then sue them for not having representation, a suit from which they cannot defend themselves, lacking representation, which then opens them up to another suit, ad infinitum!

I think there's some conflation of "regulating" and "making illegal" going on here. Mandating that the state must provide everyone with a public defender is not equivalent to "making lacking representation illegal".

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#265

Post by chrisseaton »

vitus wrote: post #203
chrisseaton wrote: post #161

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If they did then what do they think is the infraction or offence that is being committed? They're being objectionable by committing or infracting... what? What law or regulation would they be breaking?

Trademark infringement is a big one, and yes, it can be applied even if the trademark isn't registered. https://www.law.cornell.edu/uscode/text/15/1125#a 1125(a)(1) is pretty unambiguous in this context. If Grubhub is using a restaurant's name to "deceive as to ... the origin, sponsorship, or approval of his or her goods", that's cause for civil action. California also has a new law explicitly addressing this issue:…

You're allowed to use trademarks to factually describe what a product is.

Your linked law suit is about something entirely different to what's being discussed in this thread - that's about describing restaurants as shut when they aren't.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#266

Post by Jochim »

chrisseaton wrote: post #191
varjag wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It could be eye opening to create an applestore-sf.com and try selling apple laptops there.

Or macrumors.com for a website about Macintosh computers! They'd surely shut that down since it uses a registered trademark! Oh no wait...

Except this kind of trademark abuse absolutely does happen. There was a post on HN about it yesterday [1].

Uber successfully had an app taken down that helped drivers determine whether Uber had cheated them out of wages they were owed. The important thing is that unless the people of UberCheats have a lot of money and time to burn they can't really challenge Uber's actions here.

Hell, a few weeks ago Apple forced a company to change their logo of a green pear because they claimed it was infringing on the Apple logo[2].

[1] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26184352

[2] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=26084387

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#267

Post by wtetzner »

FeepingCreature wrote: post #257
maxsilver wrote: post #207

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You can, actually, make a circumstance illegal. The vast majority of regulation explicitly make circumstances illegal. "That ladder just happened to be placed there" . "The forklift happened to be parked that way" . "The room happened to have too many people in it" . "The fire extinguisher happened to be expired and failed to fire" -- all illegal circumstances (in various parts of the US, based on Federal/State/Local…

You can make actions illegal, and you can make not taking an action illegal, but you can't make not having enough money illegal, because "having money" is not an action that you can mandate people take. > "They needed to sue, but couldn't get a lawyer" is absolutely a circumstance we could make illegal. I mean -- I guess, technically you can, but it's one of the most insulting things I have ever heard. What are you g…

You seem to be interpreting it the opposite of how I interpreted it.

You wouldn't take action against the person without money. You'd do something to fix the situation, like provide them with a lawyer for free.

Note I don't necessarily think that's a good idea (really haven't thought it through), but that's how I interpreted th comment.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#268

Post by ghaff »

devoutsalsa wrote: post #51
austhrow743 wrote: post #24

Earlier quoted context omitted.

20-30% to not have to have a dining area and be in a trendy location sounds pretty good.

You just described a ghost kitchen, a restaurant without a store front. Honestly, I don’t like delivered food that much. It’s usually cold, often gets screwed up (e.g. regular Pepsi instead of Diet Pepsi), and maybe low quality in general. I’m already hesitant to order with Deliveroo most of the time anyway, and if prices go up, I might just finally learn to cook.

TBH, I find it pretty amazing that anyone with a semblance of a kitchen hasn't been cooking over the past year. I admittedly don't have a lot of good options around where I live but I haven't gotten delivery in years and don't get takeout--from my local pizza place--very often.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#269

Post by JamesSwift »

zthrowaway wrote: post #250

Did we all forget Uber operates at a massive revenue loss every year? This whole thread is filled with virtuous cheering yet not realizing Uber isn’t an endless stream of money. This will impact their business severely if it happens in the US. They will basically cease to exist, or become as shitty as regular taxi services where you have to wait an hour for one. I remember when everyone on here cheered that they were…

If there is a real demand for what they do then the market will absorb the drivers. If that demand is actually just artificial because of VC subsidized rides, then it will not. This is not a moral dilemma.

Re: Uber drivers are workers not self employed, Supreme Court rules

#270

Post by sokoloff »

cloudfifty wrote: post #263
sokoloff wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Drivers aren’t likely to sustainably earn a livable wage by delivering cold food two hours after it was expected either.

Why are you going after the one-data-point anecdote instead of the broader picture?

The broader picture is that all of the money to pay the driver comes from the customer. If the driver-restaurant system isn’t creating enough value for the customer to pay them a living wage, they won’t get it. Either they’ll get a lesser wage, go out of business, or both.

That anecdote was immediately relatable to many of us who have gotten late, soggy, cold food delivery.

Post reply on HN