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

California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

reuters.com

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

71–80 of 423 posts

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#71

Post by donor20 »

AB5 has been a total disaster.

The number of special cased carve-outs is ridiculous - it's not a normal law.

Obviously AB5 was hacked together by some special interests (unions maybe - what is history?). It's totally unworkable. The carveouts that keep coming are the sign of this - how many are there now, anyone have the list?

And yes, I'm a maxed out dem donor. If AB5 is the way workers rights are going to be advanced we are hosed. I can think of 5 much easier, fairer, high impact approaches.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#72

Post by karlp »

whyenot wrote: post #63
ende wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The academic literature is overwhelming support of the argument that legislative term limits have zero value. They only lead to inexperienced, ineffective legislators.

It would be nice to have a citation or two from said academic literature.

https://www.brookings.edu/blog/fixgov/2018/01/18/five-reason...

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#73

Post by brian_cloutier »

haroldegibbons wrote: post #36

This ruling could pave the way for a model that is good for everyone. As of now the gig economy exploits the poor[0]. Unless you think making 70% less than minimum wage is fair. 0: https://web.archive.org/web/20180302041610/http://ceepr.mit....

It's incredibly hard for me to consider this exploitation when people are freely entering into these agreements. I would not accept 70% less than minimum wage, and I'm sure these workers would all prefer to make more than 30% of minimum wage, but they have an entire labor market of other options and they have decided that this is their best option. The onus should be on you to explain why you think it's better that these jobs not be available to them at all.

If people deserve some minimum standard of living, why should only employed people deserve that minimum standard? I don't see why gig economy employers are the ones getting the blame here. Surely our legislature is to blame for allowing people to have such a low standard of living that they feel forced to accept such terrible jobs.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#74

Post by ChicagoDave »

syntaxing wrote: post #62

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

Except what all the employment hawks ignore is that 70% of ride-share drivers don’t want to be employees. Number one concern is pay. Number two is autonomy. Benefits aren’t even a consideration.

This whole thing is about lawyers and the taxi industry. It’s bullshit.

Uber is far from perfect, but let’s make sure we raise every point when arguing about it.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#75

Post by muglug »

whyrusleeping wrote: post #11
josh2600 wrote: post #6

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I always say this whenever this comes up, but, the number of duis since Uber has been operating have dropped precipitously. I don’t want to be on California roads late at night without Uber.

Wow, these are some impressive numbers: https://www.dmv.ca.gov/portal/uploads/2020/06/S5-260-1.pdf (note: uber launched in 2009) You can't say there's causation here necessarily, but the correlation is significant.

Important caveat: the number of alcohol-involved deaths & injuries hasn’t really changed, so it could just be a change in the way those crimes are policed.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#76

Post by tgv »

syntaxing wrote: post #62

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

I don't think that's an issue of freedom: drivers can drive for the company they like, just not as a wage slave.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#77

Post by ddulaney »

syntaxing wrote: post #62

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

I am generally skeptical about the “market-ness” of the labor market. There are many situations in which people are not as free to switch jobs as a free-market proponent might want them to be. There is the obvious example of slavery, historical and modern, but many other groups are not able to experience any real free market for labor. One that comes to mind is miners, who often develop highly-specialized skills and live in areas with few other opportunities (I can highly recommend Night Comes to the Cumberlands by Henry Caudill if you’re interested in the details). I’m not sure if gig economy workers are in exactly the same boat, but be skeptical of free market claims when it comes to labor.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#78

Post by muglug »

josh2600 wrote: post #6
umvi wrote: post #5

So does this mean it'll be more economical for me to just rent cars again and drive myself whenever I fly to California?

I always say this whenever this comes up, but, the number of duis since Uber has been operating have dropped precipitously. I don’t want to be on California roads late at night without Uber.

Yes, but it’s impossible to know how much of that is due to a change in policing. There’s a much less significant drop in the number of alcohol-involved car accident injuries.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#79

Post by brian_cloutier »

dybber wrote: post #68
dpc_pw wrote: post #51

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Is not being able to work for Uber and being unemployed more fair? Or do you or California's government have any more fair deal to offer these people?

That’s not the alternative scenario. The alternative scenario is that either Uber/Lyft or another company abides by the rules, and deliver the same service with hired employees. The demand is there. Yes, it will become a bit more expensive for the consumer, but that price difference, is what it costs to give decent benefits and rights to workers.

Your alternative scenario isn't entirely correct either. Yes, the workers you see will be paid more and they will appreciate the labor protections. However, there will be a number of people whom you will not see, because they will no longer be employed at all.

Re: California appeals court rules Uber, Lyft must reclassify drivers as employees

#80

Post by jimnotgym »

ChicagoDave wrote: post #74
syntaxing wrote: post #62

This has always been an interesting discussion morally. On one side, our free market should be able to allow any drivers to not work for any ride sharing company if they choose not to. On the other hand, the question I haven't been able to answer is if they truly have viable options or if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. It's hard to balance between the freedom of choice and regulations to p…

Except what all the employment hawks ignore is that 70% of ride-share drivers don’t want to be employees. Number one concern is pay. Number two is autonomy. Benefits aren’t even a consideration. This whole thing is about lawyers and the taxi industry. It’s bullshit. Uber is far from perfect, but let’s make sure we raise every point when arguing about it.

>70% of ride-share drivers don't want to be employees

Firstly, is that backed up by data? Secondly, what is their reason for not wanting to be employees? Is it something about immigration law, exploitative employers or truly something about freedom?

Post reply on HN