Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

331–340 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#331

Post by 908B64B197 »

whyenot wrote: post #53
johnloeber wrote: post #32

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No they don't. Taxi drivers are exploited end-to-end. There's a reason why the medallions eclipsed a million dollars in price. The drivers have to lease their cars on a daily basis, and start at around $160 leasing fee in the hole. They're driving for many hours before they start making any money at all. That's not "power and control", that's getting totally screwed. And every Uber or Lyft driver who has ever driven…

I don't know about other major cities in California, but in San Francisco, taxi medallions were free until Gavin Newsom decided to "monetize" them in 2010. After that the city sold them for $250,000 each while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them. When Uber and Lyft arrived, their drivers didn't need medallions and there were no limits on how many drivers either compan…

>while providing low interest loans (via a local credit union) so drivers could pay for them

That's better than most predatory lending around these medallions in other cities.

>The medallion system collapsed and those who took out loans for them did indeed end up getting screwed.

Unless there was some wording in the medallion law that would prohibit competitors from entering the market or set a buy-back value, I don't think anyone was screwed. Risky assets imply... Risks!

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#332

Post by smhost »

nickpp wrote: post #259
smhost wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I know you may find this hard to believe, but there is a difference between sucking dick for fun and sucking dick because you have to pay the bills.

Please try to be civil. This language is unbecoming.

shill

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#333

Post by benjaminjosephw »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #246
auggierose wrote: post #155

Earlier quoted context omitted.

"ride sharing" is not how people use it. People use it as a cab.

And it doesn't matter. Now it's a fully consensual relationship between Uber and the driver (and the customer), where everyone involved agrees to the terms voluntarily. The law changes that, and will simply result in the loss of jobs.

How much choice do the drivers have if that's where all the customers are?

It sounds to me like you're confusing the willingness of drivers to relent to market forces outside of their control for their consent. Some are definitely happier than others but none have the degree of agency you seem to suggest they do.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#334

Post by brian_cloutier »

haroldegibbons wrote: post #220
brian_cloutier wrote: post #195

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't quite understand what you're saying. If I'm understanding you right then you don't quite understand what I'm saying. My claim is that it's disingenuous to say that Uber is exploiting their workers. If you think these are terrible conditions that nobody would ever work under unless they were being coerced you have to grapple with the fact that nobody is coercing anybody to become Uber drivers. If you think tha…

I think I hear you. Let people do what they want. Caveat emptor. Here is what I am saying. Imagine you're very poor and have a son who isn't very smart. He comes home excited about a new "job" washing the neighbor's car for $2 every other weekend because it means he'll be able to go to Disneyland this summer. Summer rolls around and it turns out he only made a quarter each wash because he had to replace his bike tire…

In another part of this thread I mention that there are some genuinely non-consensual or otherwise exploitive agreements which we are right to ban; the situation you're describing seems to veer into that territory.

To the extent that your counterparty lies to you about your future take-home pay that is fraud and is already illegal whether you're an employee or a contractor. To the extent they strongly imply you'll be taking home $2 per week or that you'll be able to afford Disneyland, well aware neither are true, that is likely also fraud.

To the extent that someone is genuinely dumb and naive it seems easier to legally put them into an exploitative situation but I reject the notion that this is an accurate description of most Uber drivers.

You have brought up a good point, the system I'm imagining doesn't have a good solution for people who are dumb and naive and who unknowingly put themselves into exploitive situations. Luckily I don't think there are many people like this, hopefully they have a network of friends/family guiding them, and hopefully the safety net I'm describing puts some bounds on their downside: by picking a bad job they might not make it to Disneyland but at least they won't make it into poverty.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#335

Post by rgossiaux »

bufferoverflow wrote: post #247
rgossiaux wrote: post #222

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If that was only in the US or other wealthy economies, maybe. But they're an international company. Some of those rides are in places where a $2 increase doubles the price of the ride. I think it would be more revealing to compare with their total receipts and see the % change that would be required.

The proposition is California-specific. Will not change anything outside of CA.

This comment thread is discussing Uber's profitability and how much they'd need to raise prices to break even independent of Prop 22.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#336

Post by C1sc0cat »

yeetman21 wrote: post #290
C1sc0cat wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To be fair only "workers" and employees should be able to vote on employment law then, no students no pensioners. This is why employment law needs to be take away from the states - have one federally defined set of laws - stops a race to the bottom.

minimum wage should be set at the state level, or even lower

Why do you think that? its stops states playing beggar my neighbour is one good argument against doing this.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#337

Post by mlrtime »

ericmay wrote: post #269
C1sc0cat wrote: post #267

Earlier quoted context omitted.

So if a US state did something like Ireland and Holland do and help big companies dodge taxes - you'd be fine with that? There is a good argument (for the good of the country as a whole) that sales tax should be harmonised.

As I said, I prefer keeping many things at the state level, not necessarily all things. What you're describing here might be a good example of something that should be or continue to be regulated at the federal level, but keep in mind that we do have "tax dodging" scenarios to this day if you move to different states with different rules. (you can also apply this globally as well, tax havens, etc.) Over time I've bec…

The problem is that the Federal Govt. takes too many taxes and can enforce federal laws or states don't get funding.

In order for states to take back power they need the income.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#338

Post by dragonwriter »

smaryjerry wrote: post #316
dragonwriter wrote: post #308

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> You have basically said that the republicans are simply bad in the state because they “campaign like it’s Kansas,” which is ridiculous because candidates are always local. The state party officials (and party aligned interest groups) have a big impact on candidate grooming, funding, selection, and messaging, and the influence they exert results in campaigns that are ineffective in much of the state. And it wasn't a…

You are making this out to be a political argument which it is not. The point is when all levels of government align under one party, which has leaders, it becomes more like a dictatorship. I don’t care how bad you personally consider the Republican party, there are those who consider Democrats the same way. That polar mindset is the problem. It’s not as black and white as you make it out to be and many people often…

> You are making this out to be a political argument which it is not.

No, I'm not. I'm making it out to be a factual argument about the causes of the present political situation, which it very much is.

You seem to be unable to separate evaluation of the factual causes and effects of political situation with moral evaluation of the involved actors.

> The point is when all levels of government align under one party, which has leaders, it becomes more like a dictatorship.

Not really, especially with the jungle primary system which limits the ability of party leaders to control candidate selection in districts where the other major party fails to maintain competitiveness, and especially not where the people retain the powers of initiative, referendum, and recall, and entities outside the dominant party (including, but not limited to, the second place party) are able to bring issues directly to the people through those avenues against the desires of the dominant party.

> I don’t care how bad you personally consider the Republican party, there are those who consider Democrats the same way

I have said a word (in this thread) about how bad I consider the Republican Party, only how poorly chosen their recent electoral strategy has been for the realities of the State. There's other states (and, though to a far lesser extent, other times in not-too-distant California history) where I would say the same broad kind of things (with different details about the problem) about the Democrats.

> but when one side becomes to strong you are forced to essentially agree with all positions of that dominant side.

Maybe, in some abstract sense, but not on any concrete sense that actually has any bearing on the actual situation in California.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#340

Post by mrguyorama »

manquer wrote: post #176
jonathan-neil wrote: post #153

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Do you have any data to back that up? You have made claim after claim on this thread with absolutely zero references for the information. Impossible not to classify you as a shill at this point.

Bartenders, and waiters heavily dependent on tips. As non American visiting it is always taxing for me to figure what to tip. I am more accustomed to price including the waiters salary and rarely only tipping when service is truly exceptional. This is also the reason I and many others prefer ride shares, price is transparent and upfront, in traditional taxies the negotiations depends on your local knowledge, knowledg…

In regular taxis there is no negotiation. The meter says a number, you pay that number, and if the driver doesn't like it, that's their problem
Post reply on HN