33 ms·

California Labor Bill, Near Passage, Is Blow to Uber and Lyft

167 points by koolba 7y ago

acollins1331 7y ago
I wonder when companies will just stop starting up in CA. It seems like they could just operate in another state and everything would be fine. You'd find plenty of programmers in a place like the NC research triangle.
- maxaf 7y ago
  This is a question of ethics, not domicile. Any company founded on the premise of an unethical and harmful business model that externalizes all of its costs deserves to be put down the same way.
  - AJ007 7y ago
    Releasing all of these drivers in to the general workforce could reduce wage pressure employers are feeling right now. While that might be the more ethical thing to do, no one else is going to benefit besides employers who want cheap employees.
    - maxaf 7y ago
      Simply shutting down the business isn’t the only possible outcome, nor the most desirable. The mere fact that Uber’s current business model is unethical doesn’t imply that it’s also incorrigible. Hire drivers as employees, pay Uber management roughly what a SV software engineer makes, and raise prices to compensate for the difference in order to become somewhat profitable, like a real business. The presumption that customers will simply stop using Uber is either naive or purposefully misleading, I really can’t tell which.
  - JeffL 7y ago
    How is Uber unethical? They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Maybe you could say they are fraudulent because the contractors don't understand the true costs/benefits of providing their own car, but isn't that a bit paternalistic and treating people as dumber than they really are?
- jrumbut 7y ago
  As they do that, NC will become what CA is today. It's pretty clear that NC has become a different state already compared to the one that used to send Jesse Helms to the Senate not too long ago, just as CA changed from the home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to what it is today.
- nvahalik 7y ago
  CA is not only a beautiful place to live, but the single place around which tech gravitates. There are many companies now starting up in places around the US. The funny thing is that nowadays you don't even need a real physical presence to get things done.
- lotsofpulp 7y ago
  >It seems like they could just operate in another state and everything would be fine I've heard this for a long time, and yet the most profitable companies continue to be concentrated in a select few HCOL areas that have comparatively better rights for workers.
  - bobwaycott 7y ago
    > ... the most profitable companies continue to be concentrated in a select few HCOL areas that have comparatively better rights for workers. It's rather odd, then, that these profitable companies keep reusing the same playbook—create companies whose value depends on undermining and/or ignoring workers' rights/protections, particularly by depending overwhelmingly upon placing workers in positions where they have to choose between exercising and enjoying these better rights or earning an income. It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions, as well as avoid shifting the burdens of their business model onto their "contractors". It'd be pretty awesome if these profitable companies would make it part of their core mission to be better than their competitors and peers where their labor practices and outlooks are concerned. Of course, they probably wouldn't even be profitable/highly valued in the first place if they were actually employing people at fair wages and treating them as first-class members of the companies. I'll be the first to recognize the incredible convenience of Uber, Lyft, et al. And as a person who has never even paid attention to the cost of a ride—or when I have, summarily forgotten about it minutes later—I would feel infinitely happier being a customer if I knew the driver wasn't feeling obligated to drive for both companies just to maximize their income potential for whichever one has the next ride—because that is the typical answer I get from drivers on the few occasions I use either service and directly ask them about it when I notice they drive for both services.
    - lotsofpulp 7y ago
      >It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions How can a private company accomplish this? Haven't consumers proven that they choose to purchase from a competitor that offers the same services/products at a lower price due to not offering the same benefits or conditions at work? If Uber took on this responsibility, then why wouldn't people just switch to using Lyft? The only way it makes sense to me is if the government mandates certain work conditions/benefits/quality of life to everyone.
- bryanlarsen 7y ago
  It's a common assertion that worker's rights (most notably the illegality of non-compete agreements) are the reason that Silicon Valley beat out Boston and other likely candidates.
  - dsfyu404ed 7y ago
    Beat out Boston for what? SV, NYC, Boston, DC and other HCOL metros are places you go to make large amounts money (in varying industries depending on the city) while hating every second of it. Some people have an exit plan. Many more go "oh crap, we need to move somewhere with good schools" and then wind up in the suburbs.
- james-mcelwain 7y ago
  Not all tech companies rely on exploitative labor practices.
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  never. California is the 5th largest economy in the world so choosing not to operate in California would be like giving up on a huge piece of the market. All that will happen is that the cost of goods will increase to cover the cost of increased regulation. This may increase competition somewhat but the size of the CA market will almost certainly make up for it.
preommr 7y ago
I thought this was supposed to be good for uber and lyft since it would choke out any smaller companies with less cash to burn in contrast to uber/lyft who have deep pockets.
- maxlybbert 7y ago
  Uber and Lyft will probably respond by directing the drivers more closely ( http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-forcing-uber-drivers-to-become-employees-may-hurt-many-drivers.html http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-for... ). They’re in a position to do so. You are correct that smaller companies probably couldn’t pull that off.
- css 7y ago
  It is, but a headline mentioning some small-time Uber competitor wouldn't get any clicks.
justinzollars 7y ago
Now Uber and Lyft will force a ballot measure, as they promised and we will probably learn that Sacramento is out of step with the average voter in California.
- nutjob2 7y ago
  That's not a given, I'm sure that labor will paint the big corps as taking advantage of the little guy in the name of their stock price. It's easier for riders to empathise with their drivers than rich tech guys and VCs.
ensignavenger 7y ago
I haven't read the bill, how does it effect other companies that have traditionally used sub contractors? Like for example, General Contractors? This bill is being touted as a poison pill to harm Uber and Lyft, but based on the articles I have read about it, it sounds more like a bomb with a much larger blast radius.
- choxi 7y ago
  I was the CEO/cofounder of Bloc, an online coding bootcamp. Our mentors started out as tutors but we eventually converted them all to employees and learned a lot about California labor law in the process. What was frustrating about the labor laws is that there were never any clear rules about what constitutes a contractor versus employee, there are just some "smell tests" and guidelines but it's ultimately deferred to the judgement of California's labor bureau. > a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business The new laws being proposed here don't look much different from the guidelines that already exist, they're just more black and white leave less room for interpretation. I think the most troublesome one for startups is "the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business", but it shouldn't affect general contractors unless they're working for a general contracting company.
  - ensignavenger 7y ago
    How does the law define the hiring entities business? A general contractor is in the business of building things. Uber is in the business of transportation. The GC contracts out the actual building tasks to sub contractors. Uber contracts out the actual driving to sub contractors.
bko 7y ago
From the bill: > a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business. Under these conditions, what position would qualify as a contractor? The first clause > free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work seems awfully broad. If I contract someone to clean my house, I would hope I have some control and direction of the person in connection to them cleaning my house. Or am I reading this wrong. The second clause > the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business means I can't contract out work that I normally do? So if I'm a cleaner, I can't contract out other cleaners if I'm swamped. The third clause > person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business I don't really know what that means Can someone shed some light on the text? [0] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019
- mo1ok 7y ago
  I think it means that contracting can't be a part of a company core business model - as is in the case for uber, lyft, or cleaning services. Examples of a contractor here would be: hiring a third-party graphic designer for a few months while you ramp up hiring at a startup.
  - graeme 7y ago
    The law says AND. You need to comply with all three conditions. So, you would also need to be sure that they were: >free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work And: >person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
- 7y ago
minikites 7y ago
If your business model entirely relies on paying your employees poverty wages, maybe it's not a very good business model.
- Rainymood 7y ago
  Maybe we should tip to make up the difference
  - wheelerwj 7y ago
    hah!
- nvahalik 7y ago
  That's true, but yet people still want to drive for Uber/Lyft. Perhaps people are just stupid and don't understand what they are getting into (though, that's a _lot_ of people)... or maybe they truly don't mind/don't care about the wages. I'm sure there are 3rd and 4th options, but regardless--you can piss on people's business models all you want, but they don't force anyone to work for them.
  - birdyrooster 7y ago
    The issue behind Uber and Lyft is not compulsory work. The problem is that the depreciation, injury risk, and opportunity cost of the job is misunderstood and people are being taken advantage of. In your argument, no one is forcing them to be taken advantage of and our society should eat the cost. You could use your same argument to say that businesses don’t need to legally pay minimum wage since someone is willing to take less. These conditions are bad for everybody and create a depressing effect on earnings for workers.
    - PorterDuff 7y ago
      Couldn't you simply require Uberlyft to run potential drivers through a quick course on depreciation, injury risk, opportunity cost? That's really not a bad idea generally. Give them full information and then treat them like adults.
cletus 7y ago
I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time. Here's what I don't want: - I don't want quotas as NYC is doing. This is just recreating the taxi medallion system. - I don't want each company to be forced to pay a minimum wage per hour that then means a driver loses the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once. - I don't want regulations to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There's a real risk of this. - I don't want drivers to lose the flexibility to do this on a casual or flexible basis. Quotas and the like will mean the only option is to drive full-time. I'm all for people being able to supplement income. I feel like this is useful to a lot of people. Note: I do want drivers to earn a sufficient income from this. It's just that quotas and company minimum wages aren't the way to do this.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  > It's just that quotas and company minimum wages aren't the way to do this. And what, in your opinion, is the way to do this?
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time. You can be available to drive for more than one company at a time, but that's generally true of W-2 on call temporary work, so I don't see how it is inconsistent with them being employees.
  - SkyBelow 7y ago
    I think in this case many people want being available to drive, as in being in the car with the app running, to count as working.
    - dragonwriter 7y ago
      I think most people want the same ml minimum paid shift and notice rules that apply to on call work generally, which is not exactly the same thing. It would require changes to how Uber/Lyft operate, becausethey would have to distinguish between available-but-not-yet-on-shift and on-shift workers within the app, and presumably would direct (not “offer”) new rides to available on-shift drivers and only offer shifts to available off-shift drivers if there was unmet demand (not just for a ride, but sufficient projected need to justify the shift.)
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
zaroth 7y ago
Discussing Uber and Lyft is boring because the companies are so reviled, but this bill is much bigger than Uber and Lyft. It seems the ABC contracting test is pretty detrimental to any kind of contract hiring that is done in an area which is closely related to a company’s core business. Software development contracting in particular seems like it would be particularly problematic under this test. I contract out work all the time which I closely manage many aspects of how the work is done, and for work which is core to my business operations, and within my core competency. Mostly this is to be able to quickly scale up development capacity during a project where there are isolated pieces that can be worked on concurrently. It’s often work that I could do, but for scheduling purposes, would rather hire out. I’ve also done “micro-contracting” where I break out specific problems which I could eventually figure out a solution but it’s easier to find an expert who can spend 5 hours on it while I keep moving on other pieces of the puzzle. What I’m doing seems like it’s exceptionally common, and because of how ABC test is a logical AND I’m not seeing the “escape hatch” where it wouldn’t be basically preventing software contracting work for software companies.
- xemdetia 7y ago
  I see your logical out being close to (IANAL): 1. with a contractor you are creating a contract around the deliverables and the time frame for those deliverables. You do not have the ability to reach into the contractor and have any say in how the work gets done (e.g. can Bob work on this task Tuesday instead of Thursday even though it's not related to interfacing with me). To me this satisfies the "person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work" part. 2. "the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business" is the tricky one, but I think it more has to do of what you explain your business to be. If you are running a SaaS platform and enter into a contract with someone who provides software development expertise the relationship between your business and the contractor is different. In the cleaner case in one of the other trajectories there is a difference between someone providing supplemental cleaning services for existing cleaning businesses and someone who provides cleaning services. The relation is probably distinct enough to be interpreted this way, as someone pursuing to sell their capacity to someone else is different than a business acquiring a contractor to deliver the goals of their business. In the Uber case a driver who works for Uber to deliver their core business is different than a company formed to provide taxi service capacity to other companies who are running a taxi service. 3. Then the last clause "the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business" I think for software development this is easy to say when someone is trying to demonstrate themselves as a contractor vs. someone who is 'hired' as a contractor. I think if you are worried about really the first case that is just something that should enter your contract language as a deliverable of the other entity. The relation between you and the entity you are contracting is different than discussions with the downstream contractors. Since the smaller contractors inevitably have this end up being the same person this could be confusing. Based on the writing of this rule I feel like you would be able to ask the entity for updates, information related to the deliverables, schedule meetings, and so on. You may be able to ask for accurate accounting for hours worked but you can't have any say when those hours were because the entity would be billing you the number of hours. For the second case I think you would be fine if you were soliciting someone to contract some hours to work for you because the other person would be representing themselves as a consultant who has hours to sell. You would be buying hours of work in expertise X which is different than your goal of selling Y. If the relationships were built this way then I think this satisfies the third clause as well as because then this contractor would be in an independent business who could satisfy the terms of a contract between entities. I feel like as long as you treat the other party as a business and not a person, and the other party understands this you are able to operate normally. You may have to emphasize this nature more to be compliant with this rule and focus on milestones and deliverables and contractual obligations (it is still fair to say to enter a contract that says it has to be delivered by 2pm Friday), but you have to keep your hands off defining hours to be available/hours on call/punch in and punch out times, etc. I would stick with buying and selling hours of work for some contractual outcome.
kryogen1c 7y ago
This reeks of regulatory capture in the making. I don't understand at all. How we got here: 1. Taxis are various forms of monopoly everywhere they exist 2. Startups Lyft/Uber capture market share because riders want an option 3. Drivers _flock_ to use this system voluntarily that didn't exist at all before and make money if they want to 4. ??? 5. Drivers are being taken advantage of by evil corporations Lyft and Uber are already operating at a loss. If this forces upward wage pressure in CA, do they just stop existing there?
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  two things: 1) Equating Uber and Lyft to taxis in the sense of employment rights isn't a fair comparison. 2) All that's going to happen is that Lyft and Uber are going to increase their prices to cover the cost of the overhead. The market will determine if the increased cost is worth the convenience.
code4tee 7y ago
The ultimate issue here for Lyft, Uber and such is not contractors vs employees but the amount of subsidy these companies need to give to get people to buy their product. Making people employees is only a big issue for these companies because it further increases the subsidy required to get people to buy. There’s an old saying that’s its easy to grow fast if you’re selling $2 bills for $1 and the Uber, Lyft, (and WeWorks) and such of the world are simply following that model. The market is finally smelling the BS on this strategy for long established “startups.” If such companies don’t have a viable path to profitability then the whole 1099 vs W-2 argument is moot.
microcolonel 7y ago
Because Uber and Lyft drivers are not employees, perverting the law to define them as such will have unintended consequences. Then again, it seems California is the land of unintended consequences.
- linuxftw 7y ago
  They're definitely employees. I hope the scam ends.
  - microcolonel 7y ago
    By what measure? Most I've seen contract through two or more systems at once, or use it as a way to make a bit of money off carpooling to work. No employee does that.
    - mdorazio 7y ago
      If you're going to post comments like this, please at least make an effort to read some of the content of the thing you are arguing against. In this case it is very clearly explained in multiple places that the proposed bill utilizes the ABC test to determine whether a person is a contractor or employee. Furthermore, working for multiple companies has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether you are an employee or not. There is nothing preventing a normal W2 FTE from working for two companies, provided their employee contracts allow it and they're able to sustain the hours. You also seem to be making the argument that since some rideshare drivers only work a few hours a week, the ones who drive full time should just suck it up for less than minimum wage and no benefits.
Const-me 7y ago
I don’t think these drivers are independent contractors. These people don’t negotiate prices they charge for their services. How’s that independent if the rates they’re paid are fixed by some other parties?
- mdorazio 7y ago
  While I agree with you, the counter argument is that they're not forced to take a fare offered - Uber/Lyft are basically posting the option to take a fare and the driver has to choose to accept it. It's similar to if you posted a project on Upwork for a fixed dollar amount - it's up to the workers on there to decide if it's enough or not without negotiating. This is why the whole ABC test of the new proposed law came into being.
  - njnuyidhahbf 7y ago
    What you're missing is drivers are specifically not told the value of a ride before accepting it. You often find out after you've driven 5-15 minutes to a pickup that you're about to spend 10-20 minutes in traffic and of the $9 they're paying you're only getting $3.75. The bad rides are essentially bundled with the good.
linuxftw 7y ago
If you believe in the ability of the state to regulate labor, you should have no problem with this bill. Uber and similar companies are exploiting 'independent contractors' to slash their labor prices. Those employees aren't being offered health insurance or even minimum wage. Good for California.
i_am_nomad 7y ago
This headline could easily have been written, “California Labor Bill, Near Passage, is Boon to Drivers.” It’s worth contemplating why it wasn’t written that way.
ilaksh 7y ago
This may actually kill Uber. I hope to see some popular decentralized alternatives (like Arcade City, but better or more popular?) within the next couple of years. Beyond 1-2 years I expect Waymo, Tesla and others to start deploying on a fairly large scale. At that point people may be discussing "basic income" etc. very seriously. Meanwhile, the US still will not have much manufacturing and our leads in other areas will be diminishing. China will be over dollars. Cryptocurrency will be threatening all fiat. There may be a war at first between China and the US, primarily driven by AGI invented in China. Then an international group of cyborgs and AIs may decide to end both China and the US and create a new global paradigm. We may only have another 10 years until the Singularity.
julianozen 7y ago
I feel like both sides of the “are they contractors or employees” arguments feel like they are trying to jam puzzle pieces that don’t fit together to make an argument. Clearly drivers are not employees in that they pick their own hours, and they can drive for as long and for whomever they want - and these are all things that make Uber/Lyft a great option for people between jobs, substitute teachers, actors, etc. At the same time it is pretty clear that your inability set prices, control which requests/routes you accept/decline and lack of differentiated work makes you an employee, especially if you drive 40+ hours a week. The law needs a way of handling this type of job, without forcing it into one camp or another because there are downsides for everyone by doing so. Let’s call them semi-contractors for the sake of differentiation. There should ways of getting health insurance pro-rated by multiple companies if you work X hours a week. There should be requirements around the workers insurance provided to these semi-contractors while on and off the clock. There should be guaranteed minimum wages after expenses. There should be strict rules about building out complex and accurate payout reporting for both regulators and semi-contractors including complex bonus payouts. It should be 100% illegal to steal tips from an app. Semi-contractors should have the right to tell Uber they don’t want to drive to east bay without penalty if they’re contractors that can have autonomy over their work. But none of these issues get solved by calling driver employees
- amluto 7y ago
  The insurance issue is a defect in the US insurance system and is not Uber or Lyft’s fault IMO. Insurance should either be purchased exclusively by individuals or should be a government service. Employers should not be involved. As I understand it, the US is essentially unique in the idea that jobs come with insurance.
jiveturkey 7y ago
Ah. I now understand a bumper sticker I saw 2 days ago, to the effect of: "No on AB5. I own this truck. AB5 will put me out of work." It was on a heavy double trailer dump truck, the kind that hauls dirt and debris to/from construction sites. I guess his thought is that AB5 will limit the ability to subcontract, forcing independent haulers of this type "out of business". As the services are still actually required, why the hiring company can't employ these folks rather than sub them out, I don't know. It might be fear of change. In my own (limited) 10 minute reading, and from https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-storms/ https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-stor..., ISTM that the existing law governing this is based on "Borello", and I guess that for uber/lyft, "Dynamex" (ABC) would apply instead. AB5 has an explicit carve-out for the construction industry, where the existing Borello test would continue to apply. If that reading is accurate, I don't know why this dump truck driver would have such a sticker on his trailer. The law doesn't change for him.
mises 7y ago
A gentle reminder to every one that Uber and Lyft (though mostly uber) broke the monopoly that was considered un-breakable. Such companies aren't supposed to provide a "living wage", they're supposed to be "gigs" on the side. Some people to live off them because they don't have jobs at the moment, but I'm not sure that makes it incumbent upon the services to change their models. You can have a day-job and also drive a bit for a ride-hailing service. They've provided more opportunities for people to pick up some extra work, in an industry where the previous option was zero dollars for any one trying to drive a taxi on the side. Bear also in mind that cities may have an ulterior motive of their own. Always ask, "Qui bono?" They sell expensive licenses, and don't like a revenue stream being lost (even if it's better for constituents). Maybe this is for the better, maybe not; but the motive of the cities is likely self-interest. On the other hand, Uber's long-term play is quite possibly self-driving cars. I'm guessing that this is the route all taxis will go eventually, but it's also worth considering that Uber is not sustainable without continuing investment as it stands today.
cobbzilla 7y ago
This looks a lot like rent control to me — optically it’s perfect, help the little guy; but in practice supply is restricted, prices rise, competition decreases, service gets worse. the poorest suffer the most (fewer driving jobs, higher prices). “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis
- sieabahlpark 7y ago
  Just let them vote for the bill that causes them more unemployment. California needs more homeless.
aabajian 7y ago
Can someone more informed than myself explain if this applies to AirBnB? I'm a host in Seattle. The city now requires short-term rental operators to register as their own businesses.* If I'm a contractor for AirBnb, this makes sense. However, if I'm an employee of AirBnb, then the Washington State income tax law would prohibit Seattle from collecting taxes on short-term operators. Note that 30+ day stays are not* required to register, which doesn't make any sense since you're still operating a business.
novok 7y ago
My guess what will happen with the bill - drivers cant deduct car expenses, and uber /lyft wouldn’t be able to do so easily, which will increase prices and thus decrease total revenue and thus the total amount of people employed by uber / lyft - drivers wont be allowed to drive full time to avoid benefit requirements like many places - uber / lyft will insist on exclusivity when you are driving, complete with shifts, locations and last minute schedule changes to compensate and because they can because they are employees. Just like working at walmart or mcdonalds. Working at both will be hard to juggle.
mrlala 7y ago
Maybe a start would be having universal healthcare so we don't have to worry so much about someone having a full-time job. I have to imagine a large part of this argument is rideshare drivers just want some healthcare without it costing a fortune. They are already making a lowish wage driving people around, how the hell can they afford healthcare on their own? Yes there are other workers rights that might be nice, and things like vacation time etc. But I have to imagine a large part of this conversation is directly related to healthcare...
njnuyidhahbf 7y ago
Driver here. Several years full/part-time. This looks like a situation where the solution is worse than the problem. And there is definitely a problem which is that Uber and Lyft (especially Lyft[0]) want to treat drivers like employees. I don't think the solution is to classify us drivers as employees but for them to stop treating us as such. [0] - the most egregious example of Lyft controlling drivers is the treatment of XL drivers. Uber gives XL drivers a toggle switch where you can turn off regular and carpool rides as desired, this allows you to dual-platform. Lyft does not. In an effort to "keep you busy"[1] Lyft tries to strong-arm you into accepting regular and carpool rides regularly. If you decide that, as an independent contractor running a small business, you would like to only give XL rides on both Lyft and Uber's XL tiers it's impossible to remain in good standing with Lyft and at all times you will live with the threat of deactivation hanging over your head. [1] - https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-to-become-a-Lyft-XL-driver https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-to-...
carapace 7y ago
Good. To hell with them. One more time, with feeling: "The Market Fairy Will Not Solve the Problems of Uber and Lyft" > Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”). > They don’t pay the cost of their capital. > The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human. > These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills. https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems-of-uber-and-lyft/ https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the...

167 points by koolba 7y ago

I wonder when companies will just stop starting up in CA. It seems like they could just operate in another state and everything would be fine. You'd find plenty of programmers in a place like the NC research triangle.

maxaf 7y ago
This is a question of ethics, not domicile. Any company founded on the premise of an unethical and harmful business model that externalizes all of its costs deserves to be put down the same way.
- AJ007 7y ago
  Releasing all of these drivers in to the general workforce could reduce wage pressure employers are feeling right now. While that might be the more ethical thing to do, no one else is going to benefit besides employers who want cheap employees.
  - maxaf 7y ago
    Simply shutting down the business isn’t the only possible outcome, nor the most desirable. The mere fact that Uber’s current business model is unethical doesn’t imply that it’s also incorrigible. Hire drivers as employees, pay Uber management roughly what a SV software engineer makes, and raise prices to compensate for the difference in order to become somewhat profitable, like a real business. The presumption that customers will simply stop using Uber is either naive or purposefully misleading, I really can’t tell which.
- JeffL 7y ago
  How is Uber unethical? They aren't forcing anyone to do anything. Maybe you could say they are fraudulent because the contractors don't understand the true costs/benefits of providing their own car, but isn't that a bit paternalistic and treating people as dumber than they really are?
jrumbut 7y ago
As they do that, NC will become what CA is today. It's pretty clear that NC has become a different state already compared to the one that used to send Jesse Helms to the Senate not too long ago, just as CA changed from the home state of Richard Nixon and Ronald Reagan to what it is today.
nvahalik 7y ago
CA is not only a beautiful place to live, but the single place around which tech gravitates. There are many companies now starting up in places around the US. The funny thing is that nowadays you don't even need a real physical presence to get things done.
lotsofpulp 7y ago
>It seems like they could just operate in another state and everything would be fine I've heard this for a long time, and yet the most profitable companies continue to be concentrated in a select few HCOL areas that have comparatively better rights for workers.
- bobwaycott 7y ago
  > ... the most profitable companies continue to be concentrated in a select few HCOL areas that have comparatively better rights for workers. It's rather odd, then, that these profitable companies keep reusing the same playbook—create companies whose value depends on undermining and/or ignoring workers' rights/protections, particularly by depending overwhelmingly upon placing workers in positions where they have to choose between exercising and enjoying these better rights or earning an income. It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions, as well as avoid shifting the burdens of their business model onto their "contractors". It'd be pretty awesome if these profitable companies would make it part of their core mission to be better than their competitors and peers where their labor practices and outlooks are concerned. Of course, they probably wouldn't even be profitable/highly valued in the first place if they were actually employing people at fair wages and treating them as first-class members of the companies. I'll be the first to recognize the incredible convenience of Uber, Lyft, et al. And as a person who has never even paid attention to the cost of a ride—or when I have, summarily forgotten about it minutes later—I would feel infinitely happier being a customer if I knew the driver wasn't feeling obligated to drive for both companies just to maximize their income potential for whichever one has the next ride—because that is the typical answer I get from drivers on the few occasions I use either service and directly ask them about it when I notice they drive for both services.
  - lotsofpulp 7y ago
    >It's almost like the people creating these companies don't think they have any sort of legal, social, or ethical obligation to respect and perhaps improve workers' rights and conditions How can a private company accomplish this? Haven't consumers proven that they choose to purchase from a competitor that offers the same services/products at a lower price due to not offering the same benefits or conditions at work? If Uber took on this responsibility, then why wouldn't people just switch to using Lyft? The only way it makes sense to me is if the government mandates certain work conditions/benefits/quality of life to everyone.
bryanlarsen 7y ago
It's a common assertion that worker's rights (most notably the illegality of non-compete agreements) are the reason that Silicon Valley beat out Boston and other likely candidates.
- dsfyu404ed 7y ago
  Beat out Boston for what? SV, NYC, Boston, DC and other HCOL metros are places you go to make large amounts money (in varying industries depending on the city) while hating every second of it. Some people have an exit plan. Many more go "oh crap, we need to move somewhere with good schools" and then wind up in the suburbs.
james-mcelwain 7y ago
Not all tech companies rely on exploitative labor practices.
wheelerwj 7y ago
never. California is the 5th largest economy in the world so choosing not to operate in California would be like giving up on a huge piece of the market. All that will happen is that the cost of goods will increase to cover the cost of increased regulation. This may increase competition somewhat but the size of the CA market will almost certainly make up for it.

preommr 7y ago

I thought this was supposed to be good for uber and lyft since it would choke out any smaller companies with less cash to burn in contrast to uber/lyft who have deep pockets.

maxlybbert 7y ago
Uber and Lyft will probably respond by directing the drivers more closely ( http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-forcing-uber-drivers-to-become-employees-may-hurt-many-drivers.html http://coyoteblog.com/coyote_blog/2019/09/why-california-for... ). They’re in a position to do so. You are correct that smaller companies probably couldn’t pull that off.
css 7y ago
It is, but a headline mentioning some small-time Uber competitor wouldn't get any clicks.

justinzollars 7y ago

Now Uber and Lyft will force a ballot measure, as they promised and we will probably learn that Sacramento is out of step with the average voter in California.

nutjob2 7y ago
That's not a given, I'm sure that labor will paint the big corps as taking advantage of the little guy in the name of their stock price. It's easier for riders to empathise with their drivers than rich tech guys and VCs.

ensignavenger 7y ago

I haven't read the bill, how does it effect other companies that have traditionally used sub contractors? Like for example, General Contractors? This bill is being touted as a poison pill to harm Uber and Lyft, but based on the articles I have read about it, it sounds more like a bomb with a much larger blast radius.

choxi 7y ago
I was the CEO/cofounder of Bloc, an online coding bootcamp. Our mentors started out as tutors but we eventually converted them all to employees and learned a lot about California labor law in the process. What was frustrating about the labor laws is that there were never any clear rules about what constitutes a contractor versus employee, there are just some "smell tests" and guidelines but it's ultimately deferred to the judgement of California's labor bureau. > a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business The new laws being proposed here don't look much different from the guidelines that already exist, they're just more black and white leave less room for interpretation. I think the most troublesome one for startups is "the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business", but it shouldn't affect general contractors unless they're working for a general contracting company.
- ensignavenger 7y ago
  How does the law define the hiring entities business? A general contractor is in the business of building things. Uber is in the business of transportation. The GC contracts out the actual building tasks to sub contractors. Uber contracts out the actual driving to sub contractors.

bko 7y ago

From the bill: > a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that the person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work, the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business, and the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business. Under these conditions, what position would qualify as a contractor? The first clause > free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work seems awfully broad. If I contract someone to clean my house, I would hope I have some control and direction of the person in connection to them cleaning my house. Or am I reading this wrong. The second clause > the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business means I can't contract out work that I normally do? So if I'm a cleaner, I can't contract out other cleaners if I'm swamped. The third clause > person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business I don't really know what that means Can someone shed some light on the text? [0] https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019 https://legiscan.com/CA/text/AB5/2019

mo1ok 7y ago
I think it means that contracting can't be a part of a company core business model - as is in the case for uber, lyft, or cleaning services. Examples of a contractor here would be: hiring a third-party graphic designer for a few months while you ramp up hiring at a startup.
- graeme 7y ago
  The law says AND. You need to comply with all three conditions. So, you would also need to be sure that they were: >free from control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work And: >person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
7y ago

minikites 7y ago

If your business model entirely relies on paying your employees poverty wages, maybe it's not a very good business model.

Rainymood 7y ago
Maybe we should tip to make up the difference
- wheelerwj 7y ago
  hah!
nvahalik 7y ago
That's true, but yet people still want to drive for Uber/Lyft. Perhaps people are just stupid and don't understand what they are getting into (though, that's a _lot_ of people)... or maybe they truly don't mind/don't care about the wages. I'm sure there are 3rd and 4th options, but regardless--you can piss on people's business models all you want, but they don't force anyone to work for them.
- birdyrooster 7y ago
  The issue behind Uber and Lyft is not compulsory work. The problem is that the depreciation, injury risk, and opportunity cost of the job is misunderstood and people are being taken advantage of. In your argument, no one is forcing them to be taken advantage of and our society should eat the cost. You could use your same argument to say that businesses don’t need to legally pay minimum wage since someone is willing to take less. These conditions are bad for everybody and create a depressing effect on earnings for workers.
  - PorterDuff 7y ago
    Couldn't you simply require Uberlyft to run potential drivers through a quick course on depreciation, injury risk, opportunity cost? That's really not a bad idea generally. Give them full information and then treat them like adults.

cletus 7y ago

I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time. Here's what I don't want: - I don't want quotas as NYC is doing. This is just recreating the taxi medallion system. - I don't want each company to be forced to pay a minimum wage per hour that then means a driver loses the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once. - I don't want regulations to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There's a real risk of this. - I don't want drivers to lose the flexibility to do this on a casual or flexible basis. Quotas and the like will mean the only option is to drive full-time. I'm all for people being able to supplement income. I feel like this is useful to a lot of people. Note: I do want drivers to earn a sufficient income from this. It's just that quotas and company minimum wages aren't the way to do this.

bobwaycott 7y ago
> It's just that quotas and company minimum wages aren't the way to do this. And what, in your opinion, is the way to do this?
dragonwriter 7y ago
> I'm not a fan of all these moves to treat drivers as employees for one simple reason: you can drive for more than one company at the same time. You can be available to drive for more than one company at a time, but that's generally true of W-2 on call temporary work, so I don't see how it is inconsistent with them being employees.
- SkyBelow 7y ago
  I think in this case many people want being available to drive, as in being in the car with the app running, to count as working.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    I think most people want the same ml minimum paid shift and notice rules that apply to on call work generally, which is not exactly the same thing. It would require changes to how Uber/Lyft operate, becausethey would have to distinguish between available-but-not-yet-on-shift and on-shift workers within the app, and presumably would direct (not “offer”) new rides to available on-shift drivers and only offer shifts to available off-shift drivers if there was unmet demand (not just for a ride, but sufficient projected need to justify the shift.)

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

zaroth 7y ago

Discussing Uber and Lyft is boring because the companies are so reviled, but this bill is much bigger than Uber and Lyft. It seems the ABC contracting test is pretty detrimental to any kind of contract hiring that is done in an area which is closely related to a company’s core business. Software development contracting in particular seems like it would be particularly problematic under this test. I contract out work all the time which I closely manage many aspects of how the work is done, and for work which is core to my business operations, and within my core competency. Mostly this is to be able to quickly scale up development capacity during a project where there are isolated pieces that can be worked on concurrently. It’s often work that I could do, but for scheduling purposes, would rather hire out. I’ve also done “micro-contracting” where I break out specific problems which I could eventually figure out a solution but it’s easier to find an expert who can spend 5 hours on it while I keep moving on other pieces of the puzzle. What I’m doing seems like it’s exceptionally common, and because of how ABC test is a logical AND I’m not seeing the “escape hatch” where it wouldn’t be basically preventing software contracting work for software companies.

xemdetia 7y ago
I see your logical out being close to (IANAL): 1. with a contractor you are creating a contract around the deliverables and the time frame for those deliverables. You do not have the ability to reach into the contractor and have any say in how the work gets done (e.g. can Bob work on this task Tuesday instead of Thursday even though it's not related to interfacing with me). To me this satisfies the "person is free from the control and direction of the hiring entity in connection with the performance of the work" part. 2. "the person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business" is the tricky one, but I think it more has to do of what you explain your business to be. If you are running a SaaS platform and enter into a contract with someone who provides software development expertise the relationship between your business and the contractor is different. In the cleaner case in one of the other trajectories there is a difference between someone providing supplemental cleaning services for existing cleaning businesses and someone who provides cleaning services. The relation is probably distinct enough to be interpreted this way, as someone pursuing to sell their capacity to someone else is different than a business acquiring a contractor to deliver the goals of their business. In the Uber case a driver who works for Uber to deliver their core business is different than a company formed to provide taxi service capacity to other companies who are running a taxi service. 3. Then the last clause "the person is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation or business" I think for software development this is easy to say when someone is trying to demonstrate themselves as a contractor vs. someone who is 'hired' as a contractor. I think if you are worried about really the first case that is just something that should enter your contract language as a deliverable of the other entity. The relation between you and the entity you are contracting is different than discussions with the downstream contractors. Since the smaller contractors inevitably have this end up being the same person this could be confusing. Based on the writing of this rule I feel like you would be able to ask the entity for updates, information related to the deliverables, schedule meetings, and so on. You may be able to ask for accurate accounting for hours worked but you can't have any say when those hours were because the entity would be billing you the number of hours. For the second case I think you would be fine if you were soliciting someone to contract some hours to work for you because the other person would be representing themselves as a consultant who has hours to sell. You would be buying hours of work in expertise X which is different than your goal of selling Y. If the relationships were built this way then I think this satisfies the third clause as well as because then this contractor would be in an independent business who could satisfy the terms of a contract between entities. I feel like as long as you treat the other party as a business and not a person, and the other party understands this you are able to operate normally. You may have to emphasize this nature more to be compliant with this rule and focus on milestones and deliverables and contractual obligations (it is still fair to say to enter a contract that says it has to be delivered by 2pm Friday), but you have to keep your hands off defining hours to be available/hours on call/punch in and punch out times, etc. I would stick with buying and selling hours of work for some contractual outcome.

kryogen1c 7y ago

This reeks of regulatory capture in the making. I don't understand at all. How we got here: 1. Taxis are various forms of monopoly everywhere they exist 2. Startups Lyft/Uber capture market share because riders want an option 3. Drivers _flock_ to use this system voluntarily that didn't exist at all before and make money if they want to 4. ??? 5. Drivers are being taken advantage of by evil corporations Lyft and Uber are already operating at a loss. If this forces upward wage pressure in CA, do they just stop existing there?

wheelerwj 7y ago
two things: 1) Equating Uber and Lyft to taxis in the sense of employment rights isn't a fair comparison. 2) All that's going to happen is that Lyft and Uber are going to increase their prices to cover the cost of the overhead. The market will determine if the increased cost is worth the convenience.

code4tee 7y ago

The ultimate issue here for Lyft, Uber and such is not contractors vs employees but the amount of subsidy these companies need to give to get people to buy their product. Making people employees is only a big issue for these companies because it further increases the subsidy required to get people to buy. There’s an old saying that’s its easy to grow fast if you’re selling $2 bills for $1 and the Uber, Lyft, (and WeWorks) and such of the world are simply following that model. The market is finally smelling the BS on this strategy for long established “startups.” If such companies don’t have a viable path to profitability then the whole 1099 vs W-2 argument is moot.

microcolonel 7y ago

Because Uber and Lyft drivers are not employees, perverting the law to define them as such will have unintended consequences. Then again, it seems California is the land of unintended consequences.

linuxftw 7y ago
They're definitely employees. I hope the scam ends.
- microcolonel 7y ago
  By what measure? Most I've seen contract through two or more systems at once, or use it as a way to make a bit of money off carpooling to work. No employee does that.
  - mdorazio 7y ago
    If you're going to post comments like this, please at least make an effort to read some of the content of the thing you are arguing against. In this case it is very clearly explained in multiple places that the proposed bill utilizes the ABC test to determine whether a person is a contractor or employee. Furthermore, working for multiple companies has absolutely nothing at all to do with whether you are an employee or not. There is nothing preventing a normal W2 FTE from working for two companies, provided their employee contracts allow it and they're able to sustain the hours. You also seem to be making the argument that since some rideshare drivers only work a few hours a week, the ones who drive full time should just suck it up for less than minimum wage and no benefits.

Const-me 7y ago

I don’t think these drivers are independent contractors. These people don’t negotiate prices they charge for their services. How’s that independent if the rates they’re paid are fixed by some other parties?

mdorazio 7y ago
While I agree with you, the counter argument is that they're not forced to take a fare offered - Uber/Lyft are basically posting the option to take a fare and the driver has to choose to accept it. It's similar to if you posted a project on Upwork for a fixed dollar amount - it's up to the workers on there to decide if it's enough or not without negotiating. This is why the whole ABC test of the new proposed law came into being.
- njnuyidhahbf 7y ago
  What you're missing is drivers are specifically not told the value of a ride before accepting it. You often find out after you've driven 5-15 minutes to a pickup that you're about to spend 10-20 minutes in traffic and of the $9 they're paying you're only getting $3.75. The bad rides are essentially bundled with the good.

linuxftw 7y ago

If you believe in the ability of the state to regulate labor, you should have no problem with this bill. Uber and similar companies are exploiting 'independent contractors' to slash their labor prices. Those employees aren't being offered health insurance or even minimum wage. Good for California.

i_am_nomad 7y ago

This headline could easily have been written, “California Labor Bill, Near Passage, is Boon to Drivers.” It’s worth contemplating why it wasn’t written that way.

ilaksh 7y ago

This may actually kill Uber. I hope to see some popular decentralized alternatives (like Arcade City, but better or more popular?) within the next couple of years. Beyond 1-2 years I expect Waymo, Tesla and others to start deploying on a fairly large scale. At that point people may be discussing "basic income" etc. very seriously. Meanwhile, the US still will not have much manufacturing and our leads in other areas will be diminishing. China will be over dollars. Cryptocurrency will be threatening all fiat. There may be a war at first between China and the US, primarily driven by AGI invented in China. Then an international group of cyborgs and AIs may decide to end both China and the US and create a new global paradigm. We may only have another 10 years until the Singularity.

julianozen 7y ago

I feel like both sides of the “are they contractors or employees” arguments feel like they are trying to jam puzzle pieces that don’t fit together to make an argument. Clearly drivers are not employees in that they pick their own hours, and they can drive for as long and for whomever they want - and these are all things that make Uber/Lyft a great option for people between jobs, substitute teachers, actors, etc. At the same time it is pretty clear that your inability set prices, control which requests/routes you accept/decline and lack of differentiated work makes you an employee, especially if you drive 40+ hours a week. The law needs a way of handling this type of job, without forcing it into one camp or another because there are downsides for everyone by doing so. Let’s call them semi-contractors for the sake of differentiation. There should ways of getting health insurance pro-rated by multiple companies if you work X hours a week. There should be requirements around the workers insurance provided to these semi-contractors while on and off the clock. There should be guaranteed minimum wages after expenses. There should be strict rules about building out complex and accurate payout reporting for both regulators and semi-contractors including complex bonus payouts. It should be 100% illegal to steal tips from an app. Semi-contractors should have the right to tell Uber they don’t want to drive to east bay without penalty if they’re contractors that can have autonomy over their work. But none of these issues get solved by calling driver employees

amluto 7y ago
The insurance issue is a defect in the US insurance system and is not Uber or Lyft’s fault IMO. Insurance should either be purchased exclusively by individuals or should be a government service. Employers should not be involved. As I understand it, the US is essentially unique in the idea that jobs come with insurance.

jiveturkey 7y ago

Ah. I now understand a bumper sticker I saw 2 days ago, to the effect of: "No on AB5. I own this truck. AB5 will put me out of work." It was on a heavy double trailer dump truck, the kind that hauls dirt and debris to/from construction sites. I guess his thought is that AB5 will limit the ability to subcontract, forcing independent haulers of this type "out of business". As the services are still actually required, why the hiring company can't employ these folks rather than sub them out, I don't know. It might be fear of change. In my own (limited) 10 minute reading, and from https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-storms/ https://www.mulfil.com/dynamex-borello-prepare-umbrella-stor..., ISTM that the existing law governing this is based on "Borello", and I guess that for uber/lyft, "Dynamex" (ABC) would apply instead. AB5 has an explicit carve-out for the construction industry, where the existing Borello test would continue to apply. If that reading is accurate, I don't know why this dump truck driver would have such a sticker on his trailer. The law doesn't change for him.

mises 7y ago

A gentle reminder to every one that Uber and Lyft (though mostly uber) broke the monopoly that was considered un-breakable. Such companies aren't supposed to provide a "living wage", they're supposed to be "gigs" on the side. Some people to live off them because they don't have jobs at the moment, but I'm not sure that makes it incumbent upon the services to change their models. You can have a day-job and also drive a bit for a ride-hailing service. They've provided more opportunities for people to pick up some extra work, in an industry where the previous option was zero dollars for any one trying to drive a taxi on the side. Bear also in mind that cities may have an ulterior motive of their own. Always ask, "Qui bono?" They sell expensive licenses, and don't like a revenue stream being lost (even if it's better for constituents). Maybe this is for the better, maybe not; but the motive of the cities is likely self-interest. On the other hand, Uber's long-term play is quite possibly self-driving cars. I'm guessing that this is the route all taxis will go eventually, but it's also worth considering that Uber is not sustainable without continuing investment as it stands today.

cobbzilla 7y ago

This looks a lot like rent control to me — optically it’s perfect, help the little guy; but in practice supply is restricted, prices rise, competition decreases, service gets worse. the poorest suffer the most (fewer driving jobs, higher prices). “Of all tyrannies, a tyranny sincerely exercised for the good of its victim may be the most oppressive. It may be better to live under robber barons than under omnipotent moral busybodies. The robber baron’s cruelty may sometimes sleep, his cupidity may at some point be satiated, but those who torment us for our own good will torment us without end for they do so with the approval of their own conscience.” — C.S. Lewis

sieabahlpark 7y ago
Just let them vote for the bill that causes them more unemployment. California needs more homeless.

aabajian 7y ago

Can someone more informed than myself explain if this applies to AirBnB? I'm a host in Seattle. The city now requires short-term rental operators to register as their own businesses.* If I'm a contractor for AirBnb, this makes sense. However, if I'm an employee of AirBnb, then the Washington State income tax law would prohibit Seattle from collecting taxes on short-term operators. Note that 30+ day stays are not* required to register, which doesn't make any sense since you're still operating a business.

novok 7y ago

My guess what will happen with the bill - drivers cant deduct car expenses, and uber /lyft wouldn’t be able to do so easily, which will increase prices and thus decrease total revenue and thus the total amount of people employed by uber / lyft - drivers wont be allowed to drive full time to avoid benefit requirements like many places - uber / lyft will insist on exclusivity when you are driving, complete with shifts, locations and last minute schedule changes to compensate and because they can because they are employees. Just like working at walmart or mcdonalds. Working at both will be hard to juggle.

mrlala 7y ago

Maybe a start would be having universal healthcare so we don't have to worry so much about someone having a full-time job. I have to imagine a large part of this argument is rideshare drivers just want some healthcare without it costing a fortune. They are already making a lowish wage driving people around, how the hell can they afford healthcare on their own? Yes there are other workers rights that might be nice, and things like vacation time etc. But I have to imagine a large part of this conversation is directly related to healthcare...

njnuyidhahbf 7y ago

Driver here. Several years full/part-time. This looks like a situation where the solution is worse than the problem. And there is definitely a problem which is that Uber and Lyft (especially Lyft[0]) want to treat drivers like employees. I don't think the solution is to classify us drivers as employees but for them to stop treating us as such. [0] - the most egregious example of Lyft controlling drivers is the treatment of XL drivers. Uber gives XL drivers a toggle switch where you can turn off regular and carpool rides as desired, this allows you to dual-platform. Lyft does not. In an effort to "keep you busy"[1] Lyft tries to strong-arm you into accepting regular and carpool rides regularly. If you decide that, as an independent contractor running a small business, you would like to only give XL rides on both Lyft and Uber's XL tiers it's impossible to remain in good standing with Lyft and at all times you will live with the threat of deactivation hanging over your head. [1] - https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-to-become-a-Lyft-XL-driver https://help.lyft.com/hc/en-us/articles/115012926367-How-to-...

carapace 7y ago

Good. To hell with them. One more time, with feeling: "The Market Fairy Will Not Solve the Problems of Uber and Lyft" > Here is the thing about Uber and Lyft (and much of the “sharing economy”). > They don’t pay the cost of their capital. > The wages they pay to their drivers are less than the depreciation of the cars and the expense of keeping the drivers fed, housed, and healthy. They pay less than minimum wage in most markets, and, in most markets, that is not enough to pay the costs of a car plus a human. > These business models are ways of draining capital from the economy and putting them into the hands of a few investors and executives. They prey on desperate people who need money now, even if the money is insufficient to pay their total costs. Drivers are draining their own reserves to get cash now, but, hey, they gotta eat and pay the bills. https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the-problems-of-uber-and-lyft/ https://www.ianwelsh.net/the-market-fairy-will-not-solve-the...