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

271–280 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#271

Post by pishpash »

henryfjordan wrote: post #95
Camillo wrote: post #65

I would be interested in hearing a principled defense of the exception that was granted to other industries. Would anyone care to try?

Some of the exceptions were for professions like Lawyers, Accountants, and Professional Engineers. There are already well established protocols for interacting with these people, so let's not complicate things with AB-5. I'm sure some of the exemptions are not so cool though.

What have established protocols got to do with anything? The question at hand is, is Dynamex a good, widely applicable test or not? Yes or no? If it is, then use it. If it isn't, something is severely broken, which you plainly see with so many exemptions, and it should not be used.

Re: Update on AB5

#272

Post by aianus »

bscphil wrote: post #117
dawhizkid wrote: post #31

Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…

> Part of me thinks Uber could get away with this if they just relaxed some of their current driver policies (e.g. more limited penalties for cancellations). The issue is whether doing so would drastically deteriorate the quality of the service for riders. I'm going to go with yes. The only times I use ride sharing services (Lyft, not Uber) are in high-density situations like getting to and from the airport. Dependin…

This comment doesn't make sense to me (as a part time Uber driver myself).

First, the driver doesn't see your destination until he picks you up.

Second, there is no competition or reason to rush to "mash" the button, the ride request is exclusive to you as a driver for the 10 seconds that you see it.

Re: Update on AB5

#273

Post by aianus »

tsycho wrote: post #256
maxerickson wrote: post #250

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mention…

> Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for extra side income, but they don't count much.

The post from Uber clearly states "In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week."

Re: Update on AB5

#274

Post by dnautics »

fmajid wrote: post #265
dnautics wrote: post #254

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"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.

Not currently, because they are contractors. Who can say under the new law?

Re: Update on AB5

#275

Post by delfinom »

tyxodiwktis wrote: post #62

When the ACA passed, mandating that large employers offer health insurance to all full time employees, there was a massive push by large employers in retail and food service to cap people's hours and make sure very few qualified as full time. This was because health insurance costs employers about $10k per employee per year, and if you are paying someone $10/hr ($20k/yr at 40hrs a week), raising labor costs 50% is a…

>raising labor costs 50% is a nonstarter.

This is where one can say sure. But in reality with the lack of public healthcare, it's just hiding an large cost on society when the person ends up running up medical bills and is unable to pay.

Re: Update on AB5

#276

Post by chillacy »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #82
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.…

I don't think we can be certain that displaced drivers won't find other opportunities. I imagine most of the appeal is the low friction to entering rideshare driving vs. traditional employment (fast food chains, etc). The talking point that people are somehow skilled enough for rideshare driving, yet not other low-skill work, seems to me like a talking point to have discouraged AB5 from happening. I question the fact…

I have fully employed friends who have driven uber during moments when they needed more cash, who would not have gone through hoops to work a second formal job.

Re: Update on AB5

#277

Post by chillacy »

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…

> their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in CorpX

Is that really the bar we should be using? My interests don't align with the corner store small business owner who sells bread in a small rural town, should I be okay with terminating her business too?

Re: Update on AB5

#278

Post by askafriend »

caconym_ wrote: post #236
spookthesunset wrote: post #206

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn’t have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers. I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be bu…

A corporation's illegal business practices don't become legal just because they're required to sustain its business model. I don't think your post makes a strong statement to this effect, but it suggests it, and it's good to be clear on this point.

Can you explain how what they do is illegal?

Re: Update on AB5

#279

Post by kadoban »

aianus wrote: post #273
tsycho wrote: post #256

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 mention…

> Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for extra side income, but they don't count much. The post from Uber clearly states "In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week."

How are they counting? Would not be surprised if those numbers were only including time driving to pick up and driving to drop off.

Re: Update on AB5

#280

Post by wpietri »

spookthesunset wrote: post #206
eaurouge wrote: post #177

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn’t have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers. I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be bu…

> These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist.

This isn't necessarily wrong, but if you want to make the claim, you'll have to say what that new classification is.

Current employment law has a well-evolved set of protections that help prevent employees getting too badly screwed. Traditional contractor relationships, on the other hand, use the power of the market (that is, the contractor ability to either easily switch clients or maintain multiple clients) to keep things fair.

If there's something in between, it can't be the status quo (we treat you like employees when it's convenient but call you contractors so we can screw you over). And it also can't be some midpoint, like an employee-lite, where Uber, etc, just exploit people 50% less than now but 50% more than they could with real employees.

Post reply on HN