Rideshare operations are being suspended in California • Hacker News Board

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#951

Post by bgorman » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

runarberg wrote: post #936

bgorman wrote: post #794

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Here is where the primary AB5 bill sponsors get their money: https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=37194&defa... https://www.followthemoney.org/entity-details?eid=133178&def... List of all sponsors: https://legiscan.com/CA/sponsors/AB5/2019 As you can see "Labor" is by far the biggest sponsor to the politicans who pushed through this initiative.

I don’t understand, why is that surprising? After all the reason behind this bill is to prevent unfair labor conditions. It is literally the job of labor unions to push forward and lobby for bills like these. I think you are guilty of bad faith reasoning here. First you state that “big labor unions want more power” and your evidence for that claim is “Labor unions push for bills that prevent bad labor practices” .

Instead of accusing me of acting in bad faith, how about you do some research instead of mudslinging on the internet. I have provided evidence. You have provided none.

To help point you in the right direction, why are the United Auto Workers acting in California when there are no unionized auto workers in California? These unions are always seeking to increase there member base because the more members they have the more powerful they are as an entity.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#952

Post by azinman2 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 10:45 PM UTC

manigandham wrote: post #563

azinman2 wrote: post #306

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If it's not profitable to treat those already working 40+ hours a week as an employee, then that's not a great business in the first place. We shouldn't rely on exploiting the lower class in order to provide basic services like transportation. Personally I think the idea of being a contractor to loosely pick up some extra cash is a great thing, assuming this is effectively an extra job and way less than 40h/week. I d…

That's your subjective opinion. Millions of riders and drivers think it's a great business, and full-time driving jobs already exist for those who want them. Why should drivers not have a choice? What if flexibility is important to them? Why do hours matter they're a contractor? Should they not set their own time? Do you also oppose freelance writers or artists that work 40+ hours?

Should kids have a choice if they want to engage in child labor? Should people be able to sell their organs or children for money? Opt into slavery?

The reason why we have legislation that creates regulation is because there's a body of people trying to look out for the larger common good, particularly when existing labor laws are being skirted around. If there wasn't a problem of exploitation of this entire business model (not just Lyft, but also Postmates, Instacart, task rabbit, etc), then CA wouldn't be intervening.

If NYTimes and all other news publishers had people working full time for only them, but only classified them as contractors (so much flexibility! except when you need to make a full time living), then yes I would have a problem with it. In fact, I believe that would be breaking the law.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#953

Post by cactus2093 » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 11:44 PM UTC

kllrnohj wrote: post #847

cactus2093 wrote: post #604

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service". The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growin…

Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally. Similarly, if a market is saturated with unde…

Uber & Lyft are just about as perfect an example as I can think of, of the fact that wealth isn't zero sum. You seem to be implying that it is.

How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise.

You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#954

Post by mixmastamyk » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 11:46 PM UTC

jameslk wrote: post #935

mixmastamyk wrote: post #703

Earlier quoted context omitted.

It's also forcing me into an $800 a year LLC I don't want for software contracts. :-/

The LLC won't protect the company you're working with from AB5. You would need to form an S-Corp and put yourself on payroll with benefits, or work through a staffing agency on W2, or become the company's employee, or move out of CA. In other words, your only options are to become an employee of a company or leave CA. Of course, its probably not in your best interest to mention this to the company you want to work wi…

I don't know enough either to be honest. They are a US govt contracting company on the east coast. A… staffing company as you put it. They are small and not prepared for CA employees, I'm the only one.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#955

Post by mcguire » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 11:55 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #464

mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

With employees, you can't rely on variable supply and demand pricing to ensure the most drivers are there at peak times -- instead, you have to do it through scheduling instead. And it's not so much anti-moonlighting as not being able to work for multiple companies at the same time (hour) . Right now, a driver often is waiting for both Lyft and Uber riders. If they're an hourly employee, they obviously can't do that…

Sure, you can use demand pricing. Offer the employee minimum wage or the commissions from rides, whichever is greater.

Ah, you say, but what about them being "on the clock" while not actually being willing to drive? The same thing that happens if they turn down a Lyft ride because they're driving an Uber customer: you fire them. And possibly charge them with fraud.

From what I've read here, it seems like all of the "only way a business could operate" responses are based on Uber or Lyft propaganda.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#956

Post by mcguire » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:01 AM UTC

lhorie wrote: post #687

mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

It doesn't need to be mandated by the state. If the employer states that you cannot work for their competitor during your shift, then that is an enforceable term of employment (and FWIW, a very reasonable one that no one would bat an eyelid for in virtually any field of employment). For example, if you were employed by Lyft as a driver, then presumably you would be neglecting your job duties if you refused to pick up…

Yes, and?

The only way this industry can operate is if all of the drivers have to be searching for rides on all of the networks?

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#957

Post by tedivm » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:04 AM UTC

Majromax wrote: post #615

manigandham wrote: post #245

Earlier quoted context omitted.

That's nothing new. Employees can already have flexible hours and part-time employment. The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts and control rather than fluid supply meeting demand by the minute. This changes the service (which matters more than the price for customers) so that it no longer works at the current scale.

> The issue is that they're still considered employees which means predetermined shifts Is there anything in California labour law or AB5 that requires predetermined shifts? What would prevent Uber/Lyft from allowing its now-employees to volunteer for an X-hour shift at any point that demand forecasts suggest it would be useful?

There's nothing in California law that requires predetermined shifts. The only rules are that if you do have predetermined shifts, you have to pay for at least half the shift even if you send someone home early. All of these people talking about predetermined shifts are just pretty FUD with no backing in reality.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#958

Post by mike00632 » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:13 AM UTC

umvi wrote: post #933

mike00632 wrote: post #886

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Ummmmm, Uber and Lyft take a lot more than 1% from drivers. And Uber drivers are typically the polar opposite of bored teenagers. They are dedicated adults trying to make driving their profession.

> And Uber drivers are typically the polar opposite of bored teenagers. They are dedicated adults trying to make driving their profession Right, but were they the original target demographic? Just because a platform gets commandeered by desperate people doesn't mean the platform was originally designed to support them.

Is the intent most important here or is it who the workers actually are? The fact is that Uber and Lyft employ people in the way you typically think of (and in the way that the law thinks of). These aren't children driving around for spare cash.

Uber even has financing options to help drivers buy cars specifically for this job. What type of person buys an entire car to accomplish side hustle or to dally around? The fact that Uber accomodates such a large investment into being a driver speaks towards what their "target demographic" is.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#959

Post by mike00632 » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:17 AM UTC

crondung wrote: post #946

mike00632 wrote: post #798

Earlier quoted context omitted.

What if you can't choose the price, you don't know the details of the work before accepting and get punished for not doing enough work? That doesn't sound very independent to me.

You know it's a ride with pickup in an area. You are free to take the gig or not. You get paid for the gig. That is you choosing your work. That makes it a contract. People who do more work can be compensated better -that has nothing to do with whether or not its a contract. W2 means you get paid salary or by the hour. Have you ever seen a W2 stub? It doesn't have 'projects' on it. It has a pay rate. Becoming W2 for…

The idea of it being a "contract" isn't in dispute. It's about whether these employees can legally be classified as "INDEPENDENT contractors". They aren't independent in the normal sense of word (I'm paying particular attention to your gymnastics around how workers can't specify their rate) nor in the legal sense.

Re: Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

#960

Post by stjohnswarts » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 12:25 AM UTC

henryfjordan wrote: post #738

dmode wrote: post #231

I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill…

AB5 was an absolute cop-out by the CA Legislature. They should have defined a third class of workers with protections somewhere in between Contractors and Employees. But when it comes to the vote in November, a vote to exempt Uber/Lyft from AB5 is a vote to strip drivers of all protections. Uber and Lyft will be free to go back to exploiting drivers for Maybe you are hoping the legislature will eventually come up wit…

I think that this would have been the right idea. We need similar for union protection (white collar/digital salaried) and for digital monopolies for big corps that don't quite fit the old Standard Oil mold