California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees • Hacker News Board

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

#361

Post by ChuckMcM » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 6:31 PM UTC

atomi wrote: post #317

dragonwriter wrote: post #301

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Watching this fight I wonder "Who is in charge of governing California?" is it the Legislature/Governor or is it special interests who can spend enough to put bespoke laws into effect and make bespoke changes to the state constitution? Neither. It's the people, who, after all the spending choose both the legislature and the governor, and choose the results ofinitiatives and referenda, and who have, on making all th…

No kidding. Did op forget that it's actual people who are voting on these referendums? California allows any coalition to initiate referendums and bring the vote to the people, if that's not democratic, I don't know what is. Edit: And it's a bit insulting to say California voters don't have the wherewithal to digest political advertisements and make their own decisions.

There is an old sailor's joke about who do you believe when the sailor on the deck says, "there is no land in sight" and the one in the crow's nest says "land off the starboard bow."

The wisdom in the joke is that both are correct from their own point of view but as a matter of trust, you want to go with the point of view with the person who has a better view of the bigger picture.

Representative forms of government have always relied on the chosen representative spending their time and energy to understand an issue and its relative merits and, with the understanding of what the people who elected them value, choosing the right path. They are "in the crow's nest" in this scenario.

Imagine a hospital scenario where the doctor announces your symptoms over the public address system and then all of the other patients in the hospital vote on your course of treatment. And the patients are voting while treatment company representatives walk around and tell misleading stories about how effective their particular drug or therapy is in treating what ever ailment has just been announced over the PA.

Of course in theory you choose your doctor based on the fact that they spent 12 years studying for their certification in medicine and perhaps their experience in treating cases like yours. You don't go to the hospital to hear what the other patients think you should do.

But even in this ridiculous scenario, the other patients can be sincere in their desire that you get better, and so will passionately advocate for vendor X's treatment if they believe that vendor X has the best treatment.

And as a result, your care stops being about finding the right treatment to a disease or condition, and becomes convincing the largest number of patients that an answer could be the right answer.

From my perspective, living as I do in California for many years, my perspective is that I don't think the people of California are well served by this state of affairs.

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

#362

Post by ryandrake » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

strawberrypuree wrote: post #360

atomi wrote: post #317

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No kidding. Did op forget that it's actual people who are voting on these referendums? California allows any coalition to initiate referendums and bring the vote to the people, if that's not democratic, I don't know what is. Edit: And it's a bit insulting to say California voters don't have the wherewithal to digest political advertisements and make their own decisions.

> And it's a bit insulting to say California voters don't have the wherewithal to digest political advertisements and make their own decisions. On top of this, voters don’t even need to digest political advertisements. The state sends a booklet that describes all the proposition, the pro position, rebuttals to the pro position, the con position and rebuttals to the con position , plus how much money was spent from ea…

Unpopular opinion, but I think we're giving a little too much credit to the average voter. There are a lot of low-information voters out there who don't pour through the booklets and published rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals. Media saturation works. It doesn't always work, and you can always go back and find exceptions, even some very high profile ones, but if it didn't work in general, we wouldn't see so much money pouring into political advertisements. There's a reason we track and measure campaigns by counting dollars spent.

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

#363

Post by ultrasaurus » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:05 PM UTC

tomp wrote: post #251

mehrdadn wrote: post #232

Earlier quoted context omitted.

No... it's not this simple. The mechanism for overriding a government existing is one thing, but making it so easy to trigger for the most random things left and right is quite another. I'm not sure if you've seen the CA ballots, but casting an informed vote is quite arduous for the average person, partly due to the nuances involved in the topics (experts who've spent their lives studying these topics can easily disa…

> casting an informed vote is quite arduous for the average person This argument always comes up when discussing direct democracy or similar ideas, but it completely collapses under even the most basic scrutiny! Direct voting is strictly better than delegated voting, because you can always ... wait for it ... delegate your vote! You don’t care enough about the issue to educate yourself? Simply cast the vote for the o…

Actually, that's an interesting UX idea "[ ] Let my selected representative vote for me on all unmarked propositions". Vote on the ones you have insight on, leave the rest.

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

#364

Post by okareaman » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:30 PM UTC

anoraca wrote: post #297

okareaman wrote: post #91

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

"Up to 70% of drivers are like me and do a good job, like the freedom to work when and where they want, and would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California." Do you work for a PR company?

No, I just really love be bopping around California doing ride share now that I am retired from computer programming. Napa Valley wine country is fun. I take breaks and go swimming in the Russian river when I'm not taking people up the river to float down. California meddling politicians and unions want to ruin it for me.

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

#365

Post by okareaman » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:44 PM UTC

anoraca wrote: post #297

okareaman wrote: post #91

As a retired programmer who drives Lyft/Uber, it's always interesting to hear my liberal programmer friends take the side of the "working class" drivers against the Big Brother-ish Big Tech companies. I might have been one of them in the past. I'll probably be one of them in the future when self-driving cars replace drivers. But for now... Most of the drivers who don't make enough money are bad at their job. Californ…

"Up to 70% of drivers are like me and do a good job, like the freedom to work when and where they want, and would like you to vote yes on Prop 22 if you are in California." Do you work for a PR company?

I went through my comment history and there's nothing I want to hide so I'd be happy to identify myself, not to argue, but to share my experience. I am not doing rideshare right now because I'm 63 and Covid is surging, but I may do it again once there is a vaccine. I highly recommend it to any out of work programmers in Silicon Valley. I've had several chances to network if I was looking for a job.

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

#366

Post by benjaminjosephw » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:58 PM UTC

proc0 wrote: post #357

benjaminjosephw wrote: post #187

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You seem to be suggesting that some people don't deserve full-time employment but should be allowed to carry out the same kind of work under worse conditions because, otherwise, those people have no other options. Endorsing systematic exploitation like this is truly worrying. This gets even more problematic when these same hiring practices are normalized and exported to other industries where the same arguments are t…

Why do companies have to train you? Is this law or God's mandate? Is there even evidence that providing some safety net for your employee somehow creates a better employee and/or company? Ultimately this is about controlling others vs. not wanting others to control you. IMHO people need to fail in order to learn properly, and safety nets remove this risk which in turn also removes the learning, effectively preventing…

I got into software through a paid internship at a webdev company that was spinning out a startup on the side. The founders were great folk who invested a lot into the tech/startup scene in the city. They also invested in their employees and into me. Without them, I wouldn't have had the head-start that I did. I'm not suggesting that companies should be compelled to behave like this. I am saying that there's at least some social/ethical/civic responsibility a company has towards its employees.

If you've hired someone and they aren't doing a good enough job, it's in both of your best interests for that person to be trained and supported appropriately to help them improve. If they still aren't up to the job you should part ways but at least you've both tried to make it work. Employers and employees cooperating in the pursuit of aligned interests like this has nothing to do with control. Independently deciding what's good for people and how they will best learn sounds like it has a lot to do with control but that's what you're suggesting, not me.

I do agree that failure can sometimes be a great teacher. In my experience, the best work happens in places where it's acceptable to fail and where failures can be recovered from. Safety nets exist to allow for more risk and more failure, not less.

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

#367

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 7:59 PM UTC

jacobush wrote: post #262

WalterBright wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> democracy under capitalism Left wing systems also have powerful special interests.

Hopefully more accountable though.

History doesn't lend much hope for that.

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

#368

Post by WalterBright » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

nemothekid wrote: post #320

WalterBright wrote: post #239

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> democracy under capitalism Left wing systems also have powerful special interests.

What do you mean by "left wing systems"? And do they wield power through any other means than capitalism? In America, at least, I do not see any significantly powerful, economically left, political structures.

> What do you mean by "left wing systems"?

Non-capitalist ones.

> And do they wield power through any other means than capitalism?

Sure. For an obvious example, see public sector unions. For another, NASA. The public school system. In the news lately are the police interests. The military. Organized religion.

They wield considerable political power via controlling large voting blocks.

Other means historically used are military power. The end of the Roman republic is an obvious example, but the historical examples are endless. (Even in the US, George Washington was offered a military dictatorship, but turned it down.)

None of these are capitalist, and all are present in non-capitalist systems. The idea that under non-capitalism there wouldn't be powerful special interests is hopelessly untrue.

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

#369

Post by dragonwriter » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:14 PM UTC

ryandrake wrote: post #362

strawberrypuree wrote: post #360

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> And it's a bit insulting to say California voters don't have the wherewithal to digest political advertisements and make their own decisions. On top of this, voters don’t even need to digest political advertisements. The state sends a booklet that describes all the proposition, the pro position, rebuttals to the pro position, the con position and rebuttals to the con position , plus how much money was spent from ea…

Unpopular opinion, but I think we're giving a little too much credit to the average voter. There are a lot of low-information voters out there who don't pour through the booklets and published rebuttals and rebuttals to the rebuttals. Media saturation works. It doesn't always work, and you can always go back and find exceptions, even some very high profile ones, but if it didn't work in general , we wouldn't see so m…

> but if it didn't work in general, we wouldn't see so much money pouring into political advertisements.

We might, because professional political strategists (who advise campaigns on what works) tend also to be involved in the firms that do this work, and direct their clients to spend money with entities in which they have a financial interest. It is an industry which is absolutely rife with the kinds of conflicts of interest that wouldn't be tolerated for long elsewhere.

And its also an industry where people very often fail upward due to connections rather than succeeding on their track record.

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

#370

Post by carapace » Fri, Oct 23, 2020, 8:31 PM UTC

schalab wrote: post #145

Lets say I have a club I own, but I need to keep the riff raff out. I cant openly ban poor or low society people from entering which would be considered "evil". But what if I mandated every service from a staff must be tipped with atleast 100$, because we value our workers more here. This achieves the same purpose and I get to pretend to be egalitarian. If this law is passed, ride sharing apps will still exist. They…

This is kind of a bullshit argument because Uber is a venture-back corporation not a welfare agency.

If there are people who truly "cannot contribute work of sufficient quality to be paid for full time work and benefits" then we give them a check.

Are you really suggesting that uber/lyft driving is work therapy for mental invalids?

https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the...

> They [Uber and Lyft] don’t pay the cost of their capital.

> The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human.

> These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills.

> This sharing economy shit works in a shitty economy. In a good economy, where people have what they need, it doesn’t work.