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

91–100 of 343 posts

Re: Update on AB5

#91

Post by dragonwriter »

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…

> they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want)

You can work only when the platform routes a job to you, not “whenever you want”. It's on-demand temporary work with a faster “job is available, do you accept it?” cycle than most, but the general idea of such on-demand work as regular W-2 employment has been around for a long time.

Re: Update on AB5

#92

Post by dawhizkid »

I wonder what'd the courts would say if Uber decided to charge a nominal fee (say $1/year) for the driver app in the App Store? That would make it more obvious that it's a piece of software that is being licensed by drivers for lead generation.

Re: Update on AB5

#93

Post by 40acres »

Why aren't other industries up in arms about this? I work for Intel and we have a ton of contractors, so does Google. Under 'A' of the 'ABC' test, it seems to me that most contractors for these companies would now be employees.

Re: Update on AB5

#95

Post by henryfjordan »

Camillo wrote: post #65

I would be interested in hearing a principled defense of the exception that was granted to other industries. Would anyone care to try?

Some of the exceptions were for professions like Lawyers, Accountants, and Professional Engineers. There are already well established protocols for interacting with these people, so let's not complicate things with AB-5.

I'm sure some of the exemptions are not so cool though.

Re: Update on AB5

#96

Post by sneak »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #84

Uber's former mission statement: > "Transportation as reliable as running water, everywhere for everyone" Sounds like transportation is their core business to me.

A mission statement is not a product or service offering. Google doesn’t sell “the world’s information”, for example.

Re: Update on AB5

#97

Post by slg »

lacker wrote: post #74

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.…

This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections. People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate. That desperation allows their employer to take advantage of them. The government therefore needs to step in to protect the workers from being taken advantage of. In an ideal world that regulation would also come with some type of social safety net to protect the workers in event of any of these negative repercussions. That safety net is much more difficult to get support for politically (because it costs money) so it is usually an afterthought.

Re: Update on AB5

#98

Post by stickfigure »

JMTQp8lwXL wrote: post #82
lacker wrote: post #74

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.…

I don't think we can be certain that displaced drivers won't find other opportunities. I imagine most of the appeal is the low friction to entering rideshare driving vs. traditional employment (fast food chains, etc). The talking point that people are somehow skilled enough for rideshare driving, yet not other low-skill work, seems to me like a talking point to have discouraged AB5 from happening. I question the fact…

This seems like a weird statement. The people driving for Uber presumably looked at their options and decided to drive instead of apply to fast food chains. If they wanted to work in fast food, they could have?

Maybe I misunderstand, but what you're saying sounds vaguely like "I know what's better for you".

Re: Update on AB5

#99

Post by hn_throwaway_99 »

lacker wrote: post #74

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.…

While I agree with you that the unintended consequences of this bill will be a net negative, I take particular issue with this statement, "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."

That's not how it works. Uber isn't operating at a profit because their current-investor-subsidized-rates are below the cost of their service. But there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there: there rates are low because they want to gain marketshare, which is only enabled by the flood of VC/IPO money.

Eventually, all of the rideshare companies will need to raise their rates to cover the cost of service, and that cost should include reasonable remuneration for their workers. If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place.

Re: Update on AB5

#100

Post by jfk13 »

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.

Yes, calling it "ride-sharing" has always been disingenuous at best. I suspect the idea was to make it sound more small-scale and personal, less formal and commercial, so that people wouldn't feel it needs regulation or oversight as much as a commercial transportation service.
Post reply on HN