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

281–290 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#281

Post by wpietri »

askafriend wrote: post #278
caconym_ wrote: post #236

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

Making it illegal is the the whole point of AB5. Contractor status was once for a very specific kind of worker: independent professionals who were basically solo businesses. It has turned into a giant loophole, where worker have the downsides of employment along with the downsides of being a contractor. AB5 aims to return to the status quo, where if you want to hire a bunch of employees, you really have to treat them like employees.

Re: Update on AB5

#282

Post by xmprt »

seanmcdirmid wrote: post #157
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?

> 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. Most of us don’t have such great experiences with taxis as you do. “Legally bound” still leaves a lot of wiggle room for really crappy experiences.

Not to mention that it's much harder to enforce something that's legally bound. If they give you a crappy experience, the only way you can do anything about it is by reporting it to the government (suing them?) which is usually a painful process. And if your case is even heard, you'll need evidence proving it.

Re: Update on AB5

#284

Post by xmprt »

wpietri wrote: post #280
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…

> 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 (tha…

> 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.

There's a lot fewer clients to choose from but doesn't driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously satisfy this to some extent?

Re: Update on AB5

#285

Post by xmprt »

TaylorAlexander wrote: post #148
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 know at least in some situations it goes like this: A group of people have been living off the land for centuries. At some point a government comes in and takes the land from them to sell to a factory owner so the government can profit. With no land to farm, working at that factory becomes their best option. But the workers get abused. Women get raped. Their pay is stolen. Still they don’t have a better option. The…

That's a tragic story but I don't see how it's relevant to Uber. There's absolutely no coercion going on. People are free to join and leave as they wish. I still believe that having the ability to drive for Uber is always better than not having that opportunity.

Re: Update on AB5

#286

Post by SomewhatLikely »

ilaksh wrote: post #71
Animats wrote: post #23

Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year. We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. B…

There is nothing about providing benefits to people who meet the criteria for employment that prevents Uber from allowing drivers choice. They will not be able to keep as many drivers or allow infinite drivers to sign up, and they will not be able to pay benefits to people who only work a very small amount per week (I assume this is in the law). But beyond that, there is absolutely no reason they cannot or should not…

What should they do to drivers who don't meet their minimum hours needed to pay for the benefits in a given week? Fire them? Immediately? Should it be a warning? How many warnings do you get? Meanwhile is Uber/Lyft still on the hook for all the benefits? How can they avoid these flaky drivers? Better screening upfront such as an interview? How will drivers feel when they get a notification they have to drive 8 hours today or they'll get a warning because it's the end of the week and they are short. What if it's a slow day and Uber doesn't need more drivers today? It would make more sense to spread drivers hours out of over the week. The relationship starts to sound drastically different for both parties. Especially for the 45% of drivers working less than 10 hours currently who will have to find other side jobs or go without.

Re: Update on AB5

#287

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

stickfigure wrote: post #260
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #201

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

You still have a choice where to work. Why do you think AB5 takes that away?

Re: Update on AB5

#288

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

chillacy wrote: post #276
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #82

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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.

But if they really needed the money, they would've gone through the hoops. Making rent and have food to eat tends to motivate people.

Re: Update on AB5

#289

Post by HALtheWise »

kwindla wrote: post #18

Could someone knowledgeable about employment law explain what will change for Uber/Lyft drivers if the companies are forced to reclassify them as employees? The post talks about "potential harm" and says that how many hours drivers have to work and whether they can work for competitors at the same time "would all change." Is that right?

There are some other excellent explanations in this thread, but it boils down to the idea that if drivers are employees, the company starts to care about how much they work. For example, if they work more than 40 hours in a single week, they need overtime pay. That means that a driver today who decides to work 80 hours one week and take a vacation the next would (if classified as an employee) be costing Uber a lot of money, so they will probably need to ban that behavior to stay competitive. From an employees perspective, this means they have less flexibility in their work schedule.

Re: Update on AB5

#290

Post by spookthesunset »

wpietri wrote: post #281
askafriend wrote: post #278

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can you explain how what they do is illegal?

Making it illegal is the the whole point of AB5. Contractor status was once for a very specific kind of worker: independent professionals who were basically solo businesses. It has turned into a giant loophole, where worker have the downsides of employment along with the downsides of being a contractor. AB5 aims to return to the status quo, where if you want to hire a bunch of employees, you really have to treat them…

Except they aren’t employees. They are something else. Make a new classification for them.
Post reply on HN