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

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

cnbc.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

361–370 of 887 posts

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#361

Post by tathougies »

gamblor956 wrote: post #284
jquery wrote: post #214

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities . Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn ca…

I don't think you actually understand how fast food restaurants operate. You actually can take several months off from McDonalds if you want and come back. Many employees do, especially the ones that work at college-town McDs... Moreover, you can switch shifts at will, so long as you find another employee to exchange shifts with. Pretty much the difference between fast food and Uber is that fast food is a minimum 8 h…

And what happens if you decide you won't show up today to work at McDonalds? And tomorrow, and the next day? Without telling anyone? Yeah... that's right.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#362

Post by dangus »

chrisco255 wrote: post #194
vkou wrote: post #185

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.

Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?

All of this is beside the point.

Uber has been breaking the law and refusing to comply. It doesn’t matter if the law is good or bad. That debate already happened.

California’s elected representatives debated and passed the law. Californians by proxy want this law. If they don’t want it anymore or want it to change based on feedback they’ll make their voice heard and that may happen.

Uber and Lyft didn’t exist not that long ago and they don’t just have the right to exist if their business model can’t work within labor laws. And personally, I think it can work just fine - they’re just crying and complaining that they won’t get to hit their growth targets because they’ll have to charge the real price instead of the subsidized one.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#363

Post by Grimm1 »

free_rms wrote: post #330
Grimm1 wrote: post #283

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Except these are adults of sound mind willingly entering into the agreement. I absolutely loathe these types of arguments first because its false equivalence and secondly, because why do you know better than the Freelance Journalists who were hurt by this? Stop nannying.

This argument has been made against every single expansion of worker rights in American history. When the dust settles, business carries on just fine while we get to enjoy things like a 40-hour week with overtime pay if the employer needs more, safety regulations, sick leave, etc.

Do you have an actual point?

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#364

Post by tathougies »

Uber, lyft, and related services have single handedly saved lives by reducing the drunk driving rate in California. Moreover, they have kept many cars off the road. Previously, it was impossible to have a night out responsibly, or for people without cars to get around. Now, with uber and lyft, California finally became somewhat more liveable.

Good to see the state deciding to make things worse.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#365

Post by sobellian »

ericmay wrote: post #17
ceejayoz wrote: post #8

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Uber hasn't been preparing internally for the possibility of losing this suit, they've been irresponsible in the hopes that California would go "oh shit, they're gonna shoot the hostage".

Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healt…

People depend on Uber for transport because Uber has made their service available, but I strongly doubt that anyone would be stranded at home were they to shutter - and remember, former commuters are flocking to remote work anyway. Uber would be fools to position themselves as too big to fail. They're clearly a marginal business, but even if they were indispensable I think that would just stir CA legislators to further action against them.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#366

Post by TrackerFF »

trixie_ wrote: post #172
ocdtrekkie wrote: post #2

Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.

Dangerously simplistic viewpoint assuming laws are good and the outcomes of those laws are fair. I'm sure if there was a law personally affecting you negatively you wouldn't feel the same way.

Don't like the laws? Campaign to get them changed. Until that - follow the laws. It's pretty simple.

The "startups should bend laws because the laws suck" mantra is equally simplistic and immature (not pointing at you, but it's been thrown around A LOT in this sector)

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#367

Post by kingnothing »

kirykl wrote: post #237
pininja wrote: post #166

I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…

Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features

I used to work at Uber.

I'll focus on one particular point: allowing drivers to see where riders are going before they accept the trip. Uber, at least when I worked there, was heavily against this functionality as it allows drivers to discriminate against riders who are going to poor neighborhoods or from cities to suburbs where they may have difficulty in getting another rider. That feature is bad for the overall ecosystem. Because of it, you may not be able to get a ride to the airport during rush hour, or home from the bar when you live 30 minutes away from downtown. The overall service becomes less useful if there's doubt as to your ability to be able to use it when you need it.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#368

Post by marcosdumay »

hangonhn wrote: post #218
Aunche wrote: post #204

Earlier quoted context omitted.

To play devil's advocate, even if they wanted to follow the law in good faith, they'd need to completely restructure their business. Until they can do so, they'd need to be shut down.

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? Or does it have to be done ASAP? The latter seems sort of infeasible. Curious about how these judgments are resolved. My feeling is that judges and the government aren't out there to hurt anyone since compliance is t…

> can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"?

IANAL, but well, this is kinda basic. All laws come with instructions about that. Some do give them that time, other laws do not and say they must be followed immediately.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#369

Post by throwaway894345 »

dragonwriter wrote: post #271
hangonhn wrote: post #218

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? Or does it have to be done ASAP? The latter seems sort of infeasible. Curious about how these judgments are resolved. My feeling is that judges and the government aren't out there to hurt anyone since compliance is t…

> Can someone with legal expertise chime in but in cases like this, can a company like Uber lay out a plan for restructuring and be like "ok we'll comply but over the course of a year and here's the plan"? No, except perhaps as a settlement offer, but because the law gives specific rights to workers which State executive officials don't have the authority to bargain away, I don't know that would be effective except a…

> Yes, it's risky to have a business plan that depends on breaking the law.

The business plan didn’t break the law; a new law was introduced to disrupt the existing business plan. This is pretty obvious no matter your opinion about Uber’s business model or the novel law in question.

Re: Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

#370

Post by [deleted] »

Grimm1 wrote: post #317
vkou wrote: post #294

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Adults of sound mind enter into all sorts of highly regulated agreements, starting from employment, to tenancy, to gym memberships, to even things like marriages [1]. The reason for why all those agreements are highly regulated isn't because they adults entering them are not of sound mind. The reason for it is that there is often a large imbalance of power between the two parties in the contract. This kind of regulat…

Economic regulation of this order has not been around > 300 years in fact it's only been really been a question of what is the right balance since post industrialization. And the fact we're having this discussion at all means there are arguments to be had in either direction for worker regulation of this nature. I personally believe over regulation is harmful and we're currently seeing that harm play out to independe…

[deleted]
Post reply on HN