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

391–400 of 887 posts

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

#391

Post by brendoelfrendo »

kingnothing wrote: post #367
kirykl wrote: post #237

Earlier quoted context omitted.

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 ec…

This sounds like it is bad for the customer experience of the rider, but is essential for the driver to be considered a contractor. It makes sense to me as a tradeoff: Uber can decide that the drivers are employees and dictate what routes and fares they must take, or they can decide that drivers are contractors who have the ability to review and decline those fares

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

#392

Post by rosywoozlechan »

ghaff wrote: post #43

Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement

so do you think Uber should be forced to keep its operations running in California?

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

#393

Post by gamblor956 »

manfredo wrote: post #203
jonahhorowitz wrote: post #174

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The requirements for contractors are (known as the ABC test)[0][1]: 1) Part A of the test requires that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact; and 2) Part B of the test requires that the worker performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s busines…

1) Uber drivers are totally at liberty to set their own hours, and drive in location of their choice ( destination are chosen by Uber, but a worker is at liberty to drive in San Jose one day and San Francisco the next). 2) The drivers are outside of Uber's business. Uber is a software and technology company, not a taxi service. 3) Drivers are independent workers, in business for themselves. 4) Same as above. With the…

1) True. But until about 1 month ago, Uber drivers didn't get to set their own rates, and they were punished for not accepting rides. Moreover, a key issue for this test is that Uber matches drivers to riders, so the normal independence that would be expected from a "platform" does not exist.

2) I laughed so hard I scared my neighbor's dog. Uber is a transportation service that happens to use technology (in the form of software) to provide it's service. Have you read their SEC filings or any of their other legal documents? In their own legally binding filings, they describe their primary business as providing transportation and food delivery services, not as a "platform" for whatever.

3 and 4) This is false, but it's a tricky point. Under AB5, it's not enough to just drive for multiple companies; a driver must satisfy certain legal formalities related to being in business for themselves, like setting up a legal entity, getting their own insurance, etc., to prove they are "customarily engaged" in the business. (Note that points 3 and 4 were distinct in the case law but were combined in AB5.) Most drivers haven't done this.

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

#394

Post by comex »

throwaway894345 wrote: post #369
dragonwriter wrote: post #271

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"? 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.

The new law merely codified a legal standard that the California Supreme Court had previously come up with (in Dynamex in 2018) as an interpretation of existing law.

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

#395

Post by zjaffee »

CountSessine wrote: post #360
defterGoose wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.

No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.

Is the existence of a unionized workforce against consensual adult labor? The expanded use of for contract work has largely been a tool to walk around legislation to improve labor standards.

In jobs where it is virtually impossible to organize others doing a similar task such as was the case with most of the jobs impacted by AB5, its totally reasonable for these folks to lobby the government to fight for their interests.

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

#396

Post by macspoofing »

ramshorns wrote: post #376
twblalock wrote: post #279

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if that was true, a new law would not have been needed. The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that m…

Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?

No they haven't. That's the point. This 'misclassification' only came in via this new law.

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

#397

Post by n4r9 »

CountSessine wrote: post #360
defterGoose wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.

No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.

It is murkier, but in many cases there's a strong argument that employment is exploitative whilst still consensual.

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

#398

Post by [deleted] »

ianmobbs wrote: post #255
ak217 wrote: post #199

Earlier quoted context omitted.

AB5 has not achieved its intended effect and has had a number of unintended consequences, including collateral damage in industries such as freelance journalism and other contract jobs where "full-time" employment results in the employer going bankrupt. Being familiar with some of these industries, I estimate that AB5 has led to a net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement in CA, again without achievin…

This is akin to saying the Fair Labor Standards Act was a "bad law" because it ended child labor, which I'm sure also caused a temporary "net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement"

[deleted]

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

#399

Post by Jotra7 »

CountSessine wrote: post #360
defterGoose wrote: post #305

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I mean, technically those small businesses using child labor weren't "doing anything wrong" before the law was passed either.

No, that's not true. They were doing something wrong, because children are generally recognized as not being fit to give consent for all sorts of things. The laws against child labor merely recognized this. The case for AB5, a law against consensual adult labour is murkier.

[dead]

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

#400

Post by dangus »

Grimm1 wrote: post #384
dangus wrote: post #374

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I’m confused, what does Uber have to do with salaried employees? This is the workflow. 1. Gig worker applies for Uber in the app. 2. Uber approves the employee as a W2 employee. Their schedule is...whatever they want. They never get scheduled for a shift. They never get “fired” unless they do something that would get them get kicked off the platform just as it works today. 3. When the driver starts the driving mode,…

https://www.integrated-payroll.com/difference-w2-employee-10... The setting your own working hours part. You're just a bit wrong there.

Okay, so Uber mixes both those scenarios.

I wonder if Uber has filed SS-8 to have the IRS evaluate the situation.

They have fixed performance guidelines (star ratings) and fire employees for not picking up jobs (rides). The employee also only works for Uber (not the individual customer, who is anonymous until the job is accepted), who determines the rate and is the ultimate decider if the completed work is accepted (they resolve all customer disputes and are the final say on whether you get paid, not the customer). Uber determines the method of completing work (e.g. how long you have to wait for customers before canceling).

Critically, these “contractors” are integral to Uber’s regular business operations. 100% of Uber’s product relies on its drivers.

On the other hand, they don’t provide equipment or set schedules. Clearly their mode of work blends aspects of W2 and 1099. But also, because these drivers are integral to Uber’s business, it’s possible they’re in violation by not compensating for/providing equipment. Again, the drivers are told who to pick up and where to go, and if they don’t do it while they’re on shift, they get “fired.”

The only factor that comes close to making them a contractor is the lack of schedule, and maybe the fact that they can go work for Lyft too. But every other aspect of the job looks like W2 to me. More checkboxes are on the W2 side of the guidelines.

So, California’s law fills in that logical gap by determining that, in this scenario, the workers are W2 employees.

If the IRS has a problem with the law in California, I assume they might have said something by now, or sued the state?

Post reply on HN