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

331–340 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#331

Post by JMTQp8lwXL »

kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #306
JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #287

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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

It takes that away with Uber stops "hiring" me because now I am too costly to have because AB5 makes me their employee.

Whether or not it's profitable for Uber or any business to hire you, is that business' decision. It's not yours to make. And there is no evidence that ridesharing companies cannot afford to pay drivers more. What if prices go up 20-30% and the level of service stays exactly the same? Then it was a silly concern with no basis in reality. I don't think evidence shows that Uber will immediately fire all drivers if they must be classified as employees.

Re: Update on AB5

#332

Post by kwhitefoot »

koolba wrote: post #52
shawndellysse wrote: post #13

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Yeah, in your case it would make perfect sense to consider you an independent contractor instead of an employee. I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor.

> I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor. Why though? There's plenty of contractors in other industries that work exclusively for a single client, often for 40+ hours per week. In technology in particular it's more common than having multiple concurrent clients (per person, not per consultancy).

In some countries there are limits on how long a company can employ a contractor. I can't find it at the moment but I think that here (Norway) it is something like four years. After that the contractor is supposed to be either let go or offered permanent employment. Perhaps someone more familiar with the rules could chip in, I've only been contracting for a short period.

I think the situation is somewhat similar in the US except that instead of a legal maximum the contract must specify an explicit end date after which there must be a break in employment.

Re: Update on AB5

#333

Post by ilaksh »

SomewhatLikely wrote: post #286
ilaksh wrote: post #71

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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…

There would need to be a grace period and there would be a warning. There is no reason someone needs to be immediately fired just because they have a light week.

Re: Update on AB5

#334

Post by dragonwriter »

dnautics wrote: post #274
fmajid wrote: post #265

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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?

The new law enshrines the existing case-law test into statute, so if they are properly categorized as contractors under existing state law, then they are also properly categorized as contractors under the new law.

That said, if they were on on-demand W-2 temporary workers instead of contractors, then they’d probably be treated exactly like all such workers (who often are signed up with multiple agencies to receive assignments) are by their employers and not be paid when they were merely willing to receive assignments but only after they had been offered and accepted and were actually working on a particular assignment.

Re: Update on AB5

#335

Post by wavepruner »

jakelazaroff wrote: post #296
wavepruner wrote: post #163

Earlier quoted context omitted.

My point is that it's impossible for us to keep up and fix everyone's problem for them. We need to empower people to make their own choices. That's the best way to help.

There has to be a line somewhere, though, right? We don’t want people to be able sign away their labor for the next X years and accidentally reinvent indentured servitude, for example.

Yes, definitely. I would view that as restricting choice.

I think the best way to increase wages is more and more jobs so that workers have bargaining power. I've used Uber as a fall-back and it dramatically increases my bargaining power.

Re: Update on AB5

#336

Post by seanmcdirmid »

SomeOldThrow wrote: post #319
seanmcdirmid wrote: post #157

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> 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.

> Most of us don’t have such great experiences with taxis as you do. What kind of negative experiences did you have with taxis that you didn’t get with the ride hailing apps?

The usual: being taken for a ride (literally), not showing up for a pickup, broken credit card readers. American taxis are just horrid. Not as bad as SE Asia, but nowhere near Europe or other developed country standards.

Re: Update on AB5

#337

Post by basch »

jawns wrote: post #330
basch wrote: post #121

I think there is more truth to their argument than people are giving them credit for. It seems like an in bad faith perspective to not give their claim some credence. It makes YOUR argument stronger to first make the best version of Ubers argument before rebutting it. Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business? Does it make me an Ebay employee if I sell things through ebay? Until Uber e…

> The fact alone that they can have two messaging/dispatch apps open at once, on two phones, makes me question, which company do you think the driver works for? Both simultaneously? I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think many of us with full-time, salaried jobs tend to not be able to grasp that yes, you can be an employee of multiple companies simultaneously. You can't necessarily be paid by more than one…

What if you accept a Lyft ride before youve completed your Uber ride?

Im not even making the argument that they are employees or contractors, I am more saying that drivers are consumers of Ubers matching service, and that there is some accuracy in viewing Uber as a matchmaking service and payment facilitator.

Re: Update on AB5

#338

Post by [deleted] »

gandutraveler wrote: post #189
pslam wrote: post #76

Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words. I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

Isn't being a driver on Uber platform same as being a seller on Amazon marketplace? Amazon takes care of delivery, cancellation etc and charges a commission for those services.

[deleted]

Re: Update on AB5

#339

Post by stickfigure »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #331
kinkrtyavimoodh wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It takes that away with Uber stops "hiring" me because now I am too costly to have because AB5 makes me their employee.

Whether or not it's profitable for Uber or any business to hire you, is that business' decision. It's not yours to make. And there is no evidence that ridesharing companies cannot afford to pay drivers more. What if prices go up 20-30% and the level of service stays exactly the same? Then it was a silly concern with no basis in reality. I don't think evidence shows that Uber will immediately fire all drivers if they…

Do you genuinely believe that this change will have no effect on the market? That the number of people driving will be the same? That everyone will just be able to continue to drive for Uber/Lyft, on the same schedule that they currently do, but make 20-30% more?

I know that the answer is "no" since you've already said "they can just go work a fast food fryer". But that's hard to reconcile with this last statement of yours.

Re: Update on AB5

#340

Post by AaronFriel »

shkkmo wrote: post #255
AaronFriel wrote: post #243

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You're right about the article, I was responding to people in this thread: "broadcasting their intention [to break the law] in advance", "[admitting] that they will not adhere to the law" and so on. Those are the statements I am responding to.

I was responding to your incorrect assertion about the argument ABC's lawyers would advance (as indicated by the article.)

Perhaps you should have indicated that's what your disagreement was, I think we agree but you misrepresent what I mean by "apply". Since it's not clear what it means to "pass" or "fail" the ABC test, and Uber is using the term "pass" to indicate that condition of the test is false (i.e.: failed), I used the term apply.

For example, when the Lemon test applies to something, it's because all of its three prongs are true. Is that a "pass" or a "fail"? That distinction I think is irrelevant to the law, but I'm sure the litigants on both sides would argue that their argument is good ("pass"), and the opposing argument is bad ("fail").

A city putting up decorations for a religious event and denying others would argue that they have "passed" the Lemon test, while articulating that one of its conditions "fails".

A litigant against such a city would argue the city "fails" the test.

I did not want to use Uber's language ("But just because the [ABC] test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it") because their job is to frame things positively for their client. Passing the ABC test is trivial - I'm doing it right now! So are you! What we care about is whether or not the test applies to something, that is, it entails some consequences, and Uber is going to argue that one of the specific prongs of the test will fail. From their view, this is a win, and this is them "passing" the test.

So, I used the word apply.

Post reply on HN