Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model • Hacker News Board

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#71

Post by jquery » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:49 PM UTC

bobthepanda wrote: post #40

vikramkr wrote: post #10

But they aren't employees. I still dont understand why people who get to work on demand whenever they want without a boss to report to or set hours are employees. The company doesn't get the benefits of having employees (schedule them in for rush hours, reliable controllable labor base), so why should drivers get the perks of becoming an employee without having to give up their flexibility and everything?

This just codifies an existing California Supreme Court ruling and applies it to general employment status. Explainer of the Supreme Court ruling: https://www.forbes.com/sites/tonymarks/2018/05/29/the-califo... > Under the newly adopted ‘ABC test,’ a worker is an independent contractor to whom a wage order does not apply only if the hiring entity establishes all of the following: (A) that the worker is free from the…

A third category needs to exist. Uber drivers are in a gray area between W-2 employees and completely independent contractors. It turns out that's exactly the common-sense compromise Uber is lobbying for. Other countries (such as the UK) have this third category.

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#72

Post by icebraining » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

marcosdumay wrote: post #45

vikramkr wrote: post #10

But they aren't employees. I still dont understand why people who get to work on demand whenever they want without a boss to report to or set hours are employees. The company doesn't get the benefits of having employees (schedule them in for rush hours, reliable controllable labor base), so why should drivers get the perks of becoming an employee without having to give up their flexibility and everything?

There is more to employment relations than set hours. Uber drivers absolutely have a boss to report too. Can they drive for other services? (I know that in Brazil they can, but Uber only started to allow it after a court ruled that exclusivity implies in employment.) Does Uber require a stable relationship? (Even the ranking system may imply in stability.)

> Even the ranking system may imply in stability.

Seems weak. Are restaurants employed by Yelp? Ranking systems abound nowadays, they imply little.

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#73

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:50 PM UTC

icebraining wrote: post #67

jakelazaroff wrote: post #37

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Uber isn't a real marketplace. "Sellers" (riders) don't set their own prices, and "consumers" (riders) don't get to choose who provides the service to them. Furthermore, prices are driven down artificially by investors who are willing to take a loss until other "markets" are forced out of business, at which point Uber will presumably raise its prices to actual taxi market rates.

> "Sellers" (riders) don't set their own prices They kinda do, by not accepting rides under a certain price and forcing a raise, like it has been reported. > Furthermore, prices are driven down artificially by investors who are willing to take a loss until other "markets" are forced out of business, at which point Uber will presumably raise its prices to actual taxi market rates. This will never happen. Anyone can st…

> They kinda do, by not accepting rides under a certain price and forcing a raise, like it has been reported.

Yes, kinda. My understanding is that once they're "on the clock", they get penalized for declining too many rides.

> This will never happen. Anyone can start a ride-sharing service with a tiny investment. There's no way bankrupting current companies will give Uber an unassailable market.

Except any startup will be forced to either price their rides above the cost of service, or find investors willing to take a loss in order to undercut the former.

Uber may not ever have an unassailable market, but they will have to eventually raise their prices or lower the cost of providing rides.

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#74

Post by icebraining » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:51 PM UTC

jammygit wrote: post #53

vikramkr wrote: post #10

But they aren't employees. I still dont understand why people who get to work on demand whenever they want without a boss to report to or set hours are employees. The company doesn't get the benefits of having employees (schedule them in for rush hours, reliable controllable labor base), so why should drivers get the perks of becoming an employee without having to give up their flexibility and everything?

Until there are 2-3 more large scale hailing services, they are employees, at best part-timers with 2 jobs. It isn’t really contracting if you have almost zero choice of client or the terms of your contracts ...might be a fun foss project to make a distributed alternative so people could be real contractors. GNUber or something

> ...might be a fun foss project to make a distributed alternative so people could be real contractors. GNUber or something

https://libretaxi.org/

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#75

Post by jquery » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 6:53 PM UTC

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

cle wrote: post #38

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Doesn’t Uber have competitors? And why shouldn’t we consider investors part of the market? (Pardon my ignorance if these are dumb questions...)

It does, but the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them and staying unprofitable longer than the competitors can stay solvent. > And why shouldn’t we consider investors part of the market? We can, but there are rules of "fair play" to the market that are supposed to be followed. What Uber is doing with SV money is, in saner sectors, called dumping, and generally considered illegal.…

>the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them

They keep undercutting Uber, should Uber ignore that? Besides, Uber doesn't set prices significantly below the competitors, it relies on being a superior service with lower wait times and higher vehicle utilization. If you open Uber and Lyft you will typically see very similar prices, with the main difference that Uber can be lower because they are a more efficient service, but Lyft will make up for this by subsidizing rides even more than Uber (something you can see very clearly in their S-1 and quarterly earnings reports).

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#76

Post by jakelazaroff » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:03 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #69

bobthepanda wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I could imagine, most clown contracts don't actually specify the exact articles of clothing down to the UPC; anything that looks reasonable is permitted. Whereas Uber has a list of specifically permitted vehicles.

That's a distinction without a difference. There's only so many car models, what alternative would you suggest to a whitelist of acceptable cars for UberBlack?

Allowing the worker to choose their car. Quoting GGP:

> (A) that the worker is free from the control and direction of the hirer in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of such work and in fact;

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#77

Post by [deleted] » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:17 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #75

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them and staying unprofitable longer than the competitors can stay solvent. > And why shouldn’t we consider investors part of the market? We can, but there are rules of "fair play" to the market that are supposed to be followed. What Uber is doing with SV money is, in saner sectors, called dumping, and generally considered illegal.…

>the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them They keep undercutting Uber, should Uber ignore that? Besides, Uber doesn't set prices significantly below the competitors, it relies on being a superior service with lower wait times and higher vehicle utilization. If you open Uber and Lyft you will typically see very similar prices, with the main difference that Uber can be lower becaus…

[deleted]

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#78

Post by cannonedhamster » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:26 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #69

bobthepanda wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I could imagine, most clown contracts don't actually specify the exact articles of clothing down to the UPC; anything that looks reasonable is permitted. Whereas Uber has a list of specifically permitted vehicles.

That's a distinction without a difference. There's only so many car models, what alternative would you suggest to a whitelist of acceptable cars for UberBlack?

There's only so many computers. Graphic designers deliver an end product regardless of this. The end result is all that matters. The business of Uber is conveying people from point a to point b safely. Their contractors should have the ability to use whatever vehicle safely conveys people from a to b. If they don't have a choice then they are employees not contractors.

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#79

Post by cannonedhamster » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:34 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #75

TeMPOraL wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It does, but the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them and staying unprofitable longer than the competitors can stay solvent. > And why shouldn’t we consider investors part of the market? We can, but there are rules of "fair play" to the market that are supposed to be followed. What Uber is doing with SV money is, in saner sectors, called dumping, and generally considered illegal.…

>the competitors are having a hard time because Uber can keep undercutting them They keep undercutting Uber, should Uber ignore that? Besides, Uber doesn't set prices significantly below the competitors, it relies on being a superior service with lower wait times and higher vehicle utilization. If you open Uber and Lyft you will typically see very similar prices, with the main difference that Uber can be lower becaus…

No... Uber is not more efficient than a taxi service. They were at one point but now they aren't. Taxi businesses have similar apps, drivers who know the area, and regular hours. If it were more efficient, than they wouldn't have needed all that SV money, they still need SV money while cutting worker wages, commanding a ton of the market, and externalizing most of their costs. There is no way Uber exists without someone dumping money in to keep them artificially in business.

Re: Bill Could Destroy Uber's Unsustainable Business Model

#80

Post by bobthepanda » Sat, Jul 20, 2019, 7:57 PM UTC

jquery wrote: post #69

bobthepanda wrote: post #59

Earlier quoted context omitted.

As far as I could imagine, most clown contracts don't actually specify the exact articles of clothing down to the UPC; anything that looks reasonable is permitted. Whereas Uber has a list of specifically permitted vehicles.

That's a distinction without a difference. There's only so many car models, what alternative would you suggest to a whitelist of acceptable cars for UberBlack?

You could discriminate based on the Blue Book value or some other agreed upon value for a car, combined with commonly agreed upon ratings for a car.

For example, under the current UberBlack rules for NYC, you couldn't drive a BMW 6 series, any Porsche, a Toyota Sequoia, a Nissan Armada, any Dodge, and this is just comparing cars listed on Blue Book with similar ratings and starting prices: https://www.kbb.com/car-finder/5/?pricerange=65000-max&inten...

If you need a whitelist because some of these cars under arbitrary rules won't meet your criteria even though they're comparable, that's less "contracting for the job" and more "specifying the terms of how you work."

When you ask for a plumber, you ask that they show up with tools, you don't tell them only Black&Decker, Craftsman, etc. are acceptable and any deviation from the list won't do. (I know nothing about tool brands and quality, this is just a hypothetical example.)