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

If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

latimes.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

51–60 of 131 posts

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#51

Post by denormalfloat »

jackschultz wrote: post #6

Anyone else see these and think about how maybe there should be some other type of worker other than employee or contractor? Those are hard definitions, and creating laws to reflect this type of worker is incredibly difficult considering people and companies figure out loopholes, but really feels like there should be another category to go with this type of work that's going to become more and more common.

There's a non-trivial chance there will only be two jobs: employee and robot. Waymo and Uber are definitely betting on this model.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#52

Post by RHSeeger »

baby wrote: post #25
denormalfloat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. There is a market for non-fulltime jobs that would not exist at all if it was forced to be full time. Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven.

“How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America. Honestly. This market is not a problem in European country where you get free health care. Why would uber/lyft make an exception for the US? If they can get away with it of course they will.

> “How much does he deserve”. Welcome to America.

I'm assuming there's sarcasm in that statement. However...

> My father has been truck driver his entire life and for the last 20 years worked as a contractor, while driving his own truck and trailer, since it gives him more $$$ than average driver who works as employee.

One of the primary reasons one makes more as a contractor is because the company isn't paying for those safety nets (insurance, pension, etc). That extra money the contractor is making is supposed to be going towards those things. If said contractor is not using it to buy health insurance and contribute to retirement, then it's that contractor's fault.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#53

Post by alkibiades »

newprint wrote: post #7

I'm kind of torn on this. My father has been truck driver his entire life and for the last 20 years worked as a contractor, while driving his own truck and trailer, since it gives him more $$$ than average driver who works as employee. However, he has non-existent social net. No health insurance, no pension benefits. If he out of work or has serious health issues that ground him for months, he has to dig into savings…

he can... buy insurance?

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#54

Post by StudentStuff »

ams6110 wrote: post #45
badfrog wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> My cost for health insurance on the group plan? $560/mo. Is that the full cost, or is your employer also paying something?

That's his cost. The employer is probably paying twice that much more behind the scenes. Money they could otherwise be paying him.

Money spent on healthcare for employees is untaxed, effectively a 30% bonus.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#55

Post by alexcnwy »

User23 wrote: post #3

Human drivers are just mechanical turks to build market share while self-driving cars become commercially viable.

Market share and data. I actually think the market share angle is far less important because the switching costs from the perspective of the rider are very low.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#56

Post by furi »

newprint wrote: post #7

I'm kind of torn on this. My father has been truck driver his entire life and for the last 20 years worked as a contractor, while driving his own truck and trailer, since it gives him more $$$ than average driver who works as employee. However, he has non-existent social net. No health insurance, no pension benefits. If he out of work or has serious health issues that ground him for months, he has to dig into savings…

Seems like the problem here is that the various safety nets don't extend to such people in the first place. It would also probably go a long ways to curbing the "employ ten people for 4 hours a week each" strategy we see used to avoid similar obligations.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#57

Post by alexcnwy »

gotocake wrote: post #33
User23 wrote: post #3

Human drivers are just mechanical turks to build market share while self-driving cars become commercially viable.

Human drivers are just mechanical turks to build market share while self-driving cars become commercially viable. Don’t they have to exist before we worry about commercial viability? You’re not the only one talking like FSDV’s are just minutes away, when the truth is that when you cut through the hype and wishful thinking, they’re an indeterminate period of time away. The conversation around this subject reads like p…

Is it possible that all the uber-style transport in a single city could be self-driving in the next 10 years? What would you say the probability of this happening would be?

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#58

Post by viscanti »

zbentley wrote: post #32
denormalfloat wrote: post #23

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. There is a market for non-fulltime jobs that would not exist at all if it was forced to be full time. Forcing Lyft to hire employees instead of contractors won't mean there will be more workers with a safety-net; it means there won't be any Lyft. That would be bad for both drivers and the people being driven.

> How much help did he earn? How much does he deserve? The money a driver gets paid is the help. That seems naïve and inhumane. Compensation and benefits are understood to be separate things in the US at this time. From social security to health insurance, the costs of securing such things without an employer (an entity on the other side of the wealth gap, usually) are often untenable. > Forcing Lyft to hire employee…

> The choice between untenably-expensive benefits as a contractor or untenably-unaffordable benefits as an unemployed person is no choice at all--especially for people with health problems/children/debt.

It appears that lots of people choose to drive for Lyft knowing they won't get those benefits. Why ignore their choice? If they're choosing to do it and Lyft can't give them the same opportunity along with the benefits it's effectively saying they shouldn't have any opportunity for work until they have the perfect opportunity. I'm not convinced that it's better for someone to starve than to have the opportunity to drive for Lyft.

The people choosing to drive for Lyft do so over all other work opportunities. If there was something equally good that also provided health benefits, then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers as everyone would pick that better alternative. Given there's not a better alternative, why pick on Lyft? They're the most appealing opportunity for work for lots of people.

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#59

Post by [deleted] »

StudentStuff wrote: post #54
ams6110 wrote: post #45

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's his cost. The employer is probably paying twice that much more behind the scenes. Money they could otherwise be paying him.

Money spent on healthcare for employees is untaxed, effectively a 30% bonus.

[deleted]

Re: If Lyft can't keep its drivers as contractors, it may never be profitable

#60

Post by viscanti »

btown wrote: post #27
jackschultz wrote: post #6

Anyone else see these and think about how maybe there should be some other type of worker other than employee or contractor? Those are hard definitions, and creating laws to reflect this type of worker is incredibly difficult considering people and companies figure out loopholes, but really feels like there should be another category to go with this type of work that's going to become more and more common.

Something like “A contractor who accepts tasks through electronic communications generated by an automated system, and where the automated system could reasonably collect sufficient data to know how much time is spent exclusively on that task by the contractor, shall be entitled to at least minimum wage and ... for the time spent on the task.” We don’t want to remove the ability for a true contractor to work on spec,…

> But if you’re being given orders by an inhuman system, you deserve at least some of the protections employees receive against inhumane employers.

Why? If there were better options out there then Lyft wouldn't have any drivers. Lyft has over one million drivers, which means that for those people there weren't any better opportunities. Lyft isn't profitable even at that lower level without benefits or the extra protections you're arguing for, but still over a million people choose to drive for them. Why take away the best opportunity those people have? Why not put the blame on literally every other company out there, because they all failed these Lyft drivers, leaving Lyft as their best work opportunity.

Post reply on HN