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

31–40 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#31

Post by dawhizkid »

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 want a job, but depending on the scenario you can be punished if you don't want to take a job.

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.

Re: Update on AB5

#33

Post by buboard »

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.

uber has in the past successfully claimed that its customers are its drivers and its users are .. its users. They classify both as clients, and it seems to have worked so far.

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

Even if their ToS does not allow it , it's not the law

Re: Update on AB5

#34

Post by eggpy »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #3

I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.

> you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law

I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

Re: Update on AB5

#35

Post by toomim »

zurtex wrote: post #24
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…

Edit: Removed my comment as it conflicted with the guidelines

Do you think the author is fake? Go read his comment history: https://news.ycombinator.com/threads?id=npmaile

Re: Update on AB5

#36

Post by jakelazaroff »

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…

The bill is intended to protect people for whom driving is one of their primary sources of income. Not to be callous, but most people aren't particularly worried about how this affects those who drive for Uber on occasion when they're "a little bored and looking for something to do".

Re: Update on AB5

#37

Post by sharkmerry »

shawndellysse wrote: post #7

Are they really trying to claim that Uber is not a transportation company but instead "a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces"? I guess we do live in a post-truth era.

This is how they've always been. Uber's "customers" are the drivers. They are buying access to the platform, thats how they categorize driver bonuses and incentives to "marketing" expenses apparently

Re: Update on AB5

#38

Post by skybrian »

zurtex wrote: post #24
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…

Edit: Removed my comment as it conflicted with the guidelines

This is against Hacker News guidelines:

"Please don't make insinuations about astroturfing. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried, email us and we'll look at the data."

https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

Re: Update on AB5

#39

Post by justapassenger »

Would love to see source data that Uber is referencing (I know it's not possible, as it's highly guarded secret) - I suspect they cherry pick it a lot.

"In the US, 92% of drivers drive less than 40 hours per week, and 45% of drivers drive less than 10 hours per week. [...] We will continue to defend the innovation that makes that kind of choice, flexibility, and independence a reality for over 200,000 drivers in California".

1. Does this distribution looks in California, not across whole US? Why talk about two different cases, unless you cherry pick? 2. How does this % look like, when we look at drivers that work for more than few months?

Re: Update on AB5

#40

Post by SauciestGNU »

eggpy wrote: post #34
SauciestGNU wrote: post #3

I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.

> you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

Yeah, I'm not surprised they intend to violate the law. I'm surprised that they're broadcasting their intention in advance.
Post reply on HN