The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy • Hacker News Board

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#31

Post by greggyb » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

amateurpolymath wrote: post #29

greggyb wrote: post #22

An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…

eBay doesn't require any mandatory training, nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. However, the biggest difference is this: eBay doesn't set prices. It charges fees to sellers for the use of its service, but doesn't dictate the price of the items you sell.

I agree on the pricing issue and I am still thinking about that (see reply to sibling for more thoughts there).

>nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings.

It is my understanding that an Uber driver can choose when and how often to drive for Uber. Looking through the other comments on this article, that seems to be a common understanding. If this is incorrect I'd love to know and see a source for it.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#32

Post by dropit_sphere » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:40 PM UTC

xanadohnt wrote: post #21

The thing is Uber drivers are independent contractors. The ability to work whenever the hell you want or to drop into any city and make money, at will, are fundamental motivators to driving for Uber. Regular benefits means minimum regular work hours. When that's it play it completely changes Uber's marketplace and value-add.

This is a good point; more fertile ground might be the on-demand parking services in SF (Zirx, Luxe), which I understand have set shifts.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#33

Post by amateurpolymath » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:57 PM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #20

jkoudys wrote: post #10

This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then…

>While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. This is a well known phenomenon in public choice economics, colloquially referred to as "Bootleggers and Baptists"[0] after an obser…

I don't see the problem.

If Uber's costs will go up if they are no longer able to classify their employees as contractors, they can simply raise their prices. Uber appears to provide both a lower price and higher quality taxi service than traditional cabs, so even if their prices go up they will still be competitive.

If they have to raise prices above traditional cabs (highly unlikely), that suggests their service depended too heavily on a legal loophole that traditional cabs did not have.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#34

Post by amateurpolymath » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 3:58 PM UTC

greggyb wrote: post #31

amateurpolymath wrote: post #29

Earlier quoted context omitted.

eBay doesn't require any mandatory training, nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. However, the biggest difference is this: eBay doesn't set prices. It charges fees to sellers for the use of its service, but doesn't dictate the price of the items you sell.

I agree on the pricing issue and I am still thinking about that (see reply to sibling for more thoughts there). >nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. It is my understanding that an Uber driver can choose when and how often to drive for Uber. Looking through the other comments on this article, that seems to be a common understanding. If this is incorrect I'd love to know and see a sourc…

From the article (EDIT: emphasis mine):

"Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests, or for customer complaints.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#35

Post by subway » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:07 PM UTC

amateurpolymath wrote: post #34

greggyb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on the pricing issue and I am still thinking about that (see reply to sibling for more thoughts there). >nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. It is my understanding that an Uber driver can choose when and how often to drive for Uber. Looking through the other comments on this article, that seems to be a common understanding. If this is incorrect I'd love to know and see a sourc…

From the article (EDIT: emphasis mine): "Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests , or for customer complaints.

Trip requests only come in when the driver has marked themselves as available. Uber will often offer a guaranteed minimum for a given night if you mark yourself as available. The cut-off is to remove folks from the pool who sit at home declining rides while claiming to be available.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#36

Post by [deleted] » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:10 PM UTC

rayiner wrote: post #11

jkoudys wrote: post #10

This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then…

That's kind of an entitled attitude. Society puts certain obligations on businesses, and providing certain benefits to employees is one of them. If you're too small to meet those obligations, then you shouldn't get a free pass on them. That just leaves the workers out in the cold.[1] I'm certainly willing to entertain the notion that we should pay for those benefits with taxes instead of pushing the burden on employe…

[deleted]

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#37

Post by ahallock » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:20 PM UTC

amateurpolymath wrote: post #29

greggyb wrote: post #22

An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay. Some points: * eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules. * eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue. * eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels. * An eBay seller may d…

eBay doesn't require any mandatory training, nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. However, the biggest difference is this: eBay doesn't set prices. It charges fees to sellers for the use of its service, but doesn't dictate the price of the items you sell.

eBay has other restrictions, though. For example, there are caps to how much you can sell when you start out. I think these companies should be allowed to set these types of restrictions to protect consumers.

eBay doesn't set prices because it would be too onerous with the variation of items. It's more economical for them to have the market dictate pricing. Also, when I was a contractor using an agency to find work, I wasn't able to set my price for their clients. I'm fine with that because I traded my ability to set pricing for someone to find work for me.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#38

Post by greggyb » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:20 PM UTC

subway wrote: post #35

amateurpolymath wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

From the article (EDIT: emphasis mine): "Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests , or for customer complaints.

Trip requests only come in when the driver has marked themselves as available. Uber will often offer a guaranteed minimum for a given night if you mark yourself as available. The cut-off is to remove folks from the pool who sit at home declining rides while claiming to be available.

This was my understanding (not to mention how the article reads). Thank you for clarifying.

Not to be pedantic, but do you have a source handy that indicates this? I would just like to have one for reference.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#39

Post by greggyb » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:24 PM UTC

amateurpolymath wrote: post #34

greggyb wrote: post #31

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree on the pricing issue and I am still thinking about that (see reply to sibling for more thoughts there). >nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. It is my understanding that an Uber driver can choose when and how often to drive for Uber. Looking through the other comments on this article, that seems to be a common understanding. If this is incorrect I'd love to know and see a sourc…

From the article (EDIT: emphasis mine): "Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests , or for customer complaints.

See sibling. The highlighted section would be equivalent (using my analogy from above), to eBay banning a seller who repeatedly offers items, but does not deliver them upon sale.

You don't defraud eBay/customers by saying you have a good when you don't actually have it, and you don't defraud Uber/customers by saying you are available to drive when you actually aren't.

You can choose when to offer an item for sale, and when you choose to be available to give rides for Uber.

Re: The lawyer taking on Uber and the rest of the on-demand economy

#40

Post by nulltype » Fri, Apr 17, 2015, 4:28 PM UTC

wpietri wrote: post #17

jkoudys wrote: post #10

This right here is one of the driving forces behind American corporatism. While these cases are always launched claiming to be on the side of the angels, they ultimately ignore that all that extra legal overhead is not free, and only the currently large companies will be able to manage it, essentially barring any smaller competitors from entering the market. If a court rules that Uber drivers must be employees, then…

I agree US businesses would be better off if we make our health care system work like any other civilized country. Tying health care to employers has turned out to be a terrible mess. But I think you're wrong about the general dynamic of class action suits. There are two basic approaches to running a functioning society. You can establish a fair bit of regulation on how each thing is supposed to work and enforce it v…

Is there a way to remove the distinction between employee and contractor? It feels artificial to me, like everyone should be one or the other. Removing the link between health care and employment seems like a good start.

Does the distinction serve a useful purpose? It seems like they are both "people you hire to do work".