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

Update on AB5

uber.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#71

Post by ilaksh »

Animats wrote: post #23

Because we continue to believe drivers are properly classified as independent, and because we’ll continue to be responsive to what the vast majority of drivers tell us they want most—flexibility—drivers will not be automatically reclassified as employees, even after January of next year. We expect we will continue to respond to claims of misclassification in arbitration and in court as necessary, just as we do now. B…

There is nothing about providing benefits to people who meet the criteria for employment that prevents Uber from allowing drivers choice.

They will not be able to keep as many drivers or allow infinite drivers to sign up, and they will not be able to pay benefits to people who only work a very small amount per week (I assume this is in the law). But beyond that, there is absolutely no reason they cannot or should not continue to let drivers sign in and out when they want.

Re: Update on AB5

#72

Post by luckydata »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #40
eggpy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

Yeah, I'm not surprised they intend to violate the law. I'm surprised that they're broadcasting their intention in advance.

They are a public company. Not doing so could be a securities law violation.

Re: Update on AB5

#73

Post by DeusExMachina »

> Our current offer represents a new progressive framework that includes:

> Establishing — for the first time ever — a guaranteed minimum earnings standard

> So as you can see, we are not arguing for the status quo.

Well, ok. The real question though is why.

Only companies with massive investments can afford to burn cash to keep the price to the final user as low as Uber's.

Such regulation would reduce the number of competitors appearing on the market.

Re: Update on AB5

#74

Post by lacker »

I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits. If Uber has to shrink their business in California or exit entirely, that won't be good for drivers either.

It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap. The job wasn't great, but a lot of people really needed more hours. Unfortunately, there was a rule that nobody could work more than 29 hours a week. Everyone hated it. Employees hated it the most because if they needed extra money they couldn't take an extra shift. The managers hated it too because it was just more rules for them to deal with.

Apparently, this rule existed because there was a law saying that past 30 hours a week, employees had to get some extra benefits. Gap corporate just changed the job to avoid that law. As a result, that job got worse, and nobody got more benefits. Just unintended consequences.

Re: Update on AB5

#75

Post by 8ytecoder »

SilasX wrote: post #60
dawhizkid wrote: post #31

Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…

Yeah, even being charitable, I don't see how Uber's model[1] is remotely reasonable. They pretty clearly take direct control over the relationship. The rider deals with Uber, and the driver deals with Uber. Nothing at all like the ebay/fiverr "hey find someone to link up with" model. [1] Edit: To clarify, I mean "the model they're promoting of what their core business is", i.e. the claim that "they're a lead-gen plat…

In fact, I'd argue that's the primary reason why Uber/Lyft got popular in the first place. At least for me that's the only reason I use Uber. If they are, as they claim, just a lead-gen platform, I'd rather call a taxi. At least taxis are legally bound to provide me a certain level of service. If Uber can't enforce something similar, why should I use Uber?

Re: Update on AB5

#76

Post by pslam »

Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words.

I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.

Re: Update on AB5

#77

Post by DaiPlusPlus »

tracker1 wrote: post #41
landcoctos wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's not really sharing anyway.

Yeah, the term really got me when I first heard about Uber... my thoughts was it was more like a near-demand carpool service to pull together extra passengers for where you were going anyway (for a small fee). Reality it's more like a Taxi service with private vehicles. Still wouldn't mind seeing another ride share app with carpooling as the focus.

Waze Carpool

Re: Update on AB5

#78

Post by AaronFriel »

SauciestGNU wrote: post #40
eggpy wrote: post #34

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

Yeah, I'm not surprised they intend to violate the law. I'm surprised that they're broadcasting their intention in advance.

There's some nuance being lost here - they aren't saying they will violate the law, they are saying that their lawyers will advance an argument that the law (ABC test) does not apply to them.

I think the legislature and many on HN believe that courts will think it's absurd that Uber's drivers are doing work "outside the usual course" of Uber's business. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how well written the law was or whether California courts will include legislative intent in applying that language.

Re: Update on AB5

#79

Post by stefan_ »

ajkjk wrote: post #17

I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is neede…

You are just repeating the Uber party line that somehow "employment" is antithetical to flexible work hours.

It's frightening to see people just lap that up because it happens to coincide with their day job. But nothing in labor law prevents a company like Uber from "disrupting work" and offering that flexibility to employees.

Re: Update on AB5

#80

Post by vecter »

xg15 wrote: post #44
npmaile wrote: post #8

As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…

Genuine question: Why would classification as employee automatically mean an end to the flexible work times? To my knowledge, there are numerous business areas where it's possible to negotiate flexible work hours, so wouldn't this be here possible as well?

Mandated wage guarantees and the costs of benefits would force Uber/Lyft to implement supply controls, which would result it a large fraction of drivers not being allowed to go online and drive.
Post reply on HN