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

Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

theverge.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

531–540 of 781 posts

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#531

Post by eru »

mleo wrote: post #367
hn_throwaway_99 wrote: post #291

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Current employment law really isn't well suited for cases where someone can be an "employee" of 4 or 5 companies at a time, and stop and start on a whim as they see fit. I mean, just look at unemployment insurance. When the nature of the job is essentially a bid out to people willing to do the work, what does it mean for someone to be unemployed in the first place if there is just less work to go around? Flexibility…

I wonder if a model, more like the SAG-AFTRA union would be possible. Register with the union and workers can operate on as many platforms as possible. Common reporting on hours could prevent worker overlapping across platforms against a minimum wage. Health insurance is available through union with companies paying portions in. Workers can choose platforms that maximize the worker's wages while platforms would need…

> I wonder if a model, more like the SAG-AFTRA union would be possible.

Possible in what sense? Legally possible, or do you mean economically feasible?

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#532

Post by eru »

keenmaster wrote: post #339
missedthecue wrote: post #319

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why not just raise taxes because either way, it's the consumer paying. Not Uber. It would take much less effort

Up to a certain point, corporate taxes do have a marginal benefit to society as a separate source of taxation. Generally speaking you want to spread your sources of tax revenue to minimize distortions and maximize revenue. This advice breaks down for small tax haven countries of course, and I think that larger countries should mitigate their most disruptive schemes. Citizens of large countries should not be deprived…

If you want a fair taxation scheme that's hard to evade, take Land Value Taxes. Economists of all stripes like them.

However, they are extremely unpopular politically. Especially in California, where they seem to hate all kinds of real estate taxation.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#533

Post by LudwigNagasena »

jojobas wrote: post #521
LudwigNagasena wrote: post #506

Earlier quoted context omitted.

How does allowing flexible work arrangement imply “race to the bottom”?

Nothing precludes proper employees with flexible arrangements. Forfeiting overtime pay and other labor protections afforded by law are definitely race-to-the-bottomy.

Nothing precludes contractors having labor protections either.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#534

Post by Akababa »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #472
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #395

The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job. An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired. Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time a…

> Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. As far I know, this is not true. Uber dictates the prices that drivers can charge, they cannot set an arbitrary price for their own labor. Is that not the case?

I'm not sure that this makes an economic difference - ultimately Uber's algorithm will set the price where supply intersects demand. Or equivalently, drivers can raise their own prices/restrict supply by only working during surge hours.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#535

Post by anticensor »

nl wrote: post #475
lackbeard wrote: post #364

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates. Hmm... How is an Uber driver different from a plumber here? Let's say Google needs some pipes fixed at one of its offices and they tell me how much they'll pay, refusing to budge from that figure. That doesn't make me Google's employee. I can choose to do the work for that price, or I can go fix Apple's pipes instead. What am I missing?

Because Uber sets the rates the customer pays, and the driver gets what Uber chooses. The driver doesn't have the ability to turn up a dial and say "I'm going to charge more now". (This isn't the only distinction between an employee and contractor though of course)

> The driver doesn't have the ability to turn up a dial and say "I'm going to charge more now".

A licenced taxi driver cannot do that, either.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#536

Post by exhaze »

quadrifoliate wrote: post #472
blisterpeanuts wrote: post #395

The judge does not understand what a "gig" is. Uber drivers can choose to drive one, twelve, or zero hours in any given day. They can suddenly stop working by simply not accepting any more ride requests. It's the ultimate remote, self-directed, self-managed job. An employee can't make such decisions; they do as they are told or they are fired. Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time a…

> Uber drivers are private, self-owned businesses that rent out their time and equipment to a corporation on a completely arbitrary basis. As far I know, this is not true. Uber dictates the prices that drivers can charge, they cannot set an arbitrary price for their own labor. Is that not the case?

Uber has been rolling out a feature to allow drivers in California to set their own prices, and today rolled it out to the entire state. https://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/americas/uber-calif...

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#538

Post by xmprt »

pb7 wrote: post #220
ghaff wrote: post #208

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I find it somewhat amusing there are still people bought into the self-driving hype other than in limited circumstances. Does anyone actually believe these companies at this point? Who actually aren't saying much any longer. I'd be far less surprised if Google shutdown Waymo in a year or two than if they actually introduced a door-to-door driving service in an urban area without a safety driver present.

You lack imagination. Only 66 years passed between the first manned flight on Earth and man stepping foot on the Moon. And technology is accelerating at a much faster rate today.

Would you believe someone who in 1970 said, "We landed a man on the moon. In 50 years we'll surely have flying cars!"

I'm sure a lot of people believed that in 1970 but look where we are now. Technology accelerates at a much faster pace but often times in ways that you don't expect. The people in 1970 probably didn't imagine smartphones with a global 4G network but instead of flying cars we got this.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#539

Post by baddox »

Wolfenstein98k wrote: post #528
c3534l wrote: post #523

Before just randomly spouting out whether you personally feel like Uber and Lyft are employers, it might be helpful to look at the ELI5 criteria California lists at https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/FAQ_IndependentContractor.htm > Under the ABC test, a worker is considered an employee and not an independent contractor, unless the hiring entity satisfies all three of the following conditions: > The worker is free from the c…

This is oddly specifically drafted to capture gig economy workers like this. My employer employs people (on a permanent ongoing basis) who meet some of these conditions to be classed as an independent contractor...

As stated, all three conditions must be met for a worker to be considered a contractor.

Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees

#540

Post by Akababa »

KKKKkkkk1 wrote: post #171

It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders patte…

As other commenters have mentioned, all the company has to do is disclose risks in their public filings and it's up to investors to do their due diligence. It's safe to say that unless they lied to investors, the majority of capital coming in is from people who know what they're doing and are comfortable with the risks.
Post reply on HN