14 ms·

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 d

by 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]
maxehmookau 7y ago
I worry that you (and me, and others) have bought in to the "flexibility" bullshit that Uber often spouts. Most people still have the same rough, basic needs. A "supplementary" income is not enough to do this. Every single Uber driver I've ever asked does it as a full-time job, but doesn't get the pay or protections of a full-time worker. Especially in the UK and other more regulated countries than the US, becoming an Uber driver takes time and money as you require a licence. People aren't doing it as a side-gig. It's their job. And Uber knows it.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  While I agree in general, in specific, a significant proportion of Uber drivers I've used in Canada were doing it not even for supplementary profit, but for Fun. I've been picked up in $80k vehicles by guys who did it a few hours a week to see the town, meet people, kill time in productive ways. Of course, I've also seen people who were current or ex taxi drivers, working fulltime on several services.
  - kgrin 7y ago
    Taking that at face value, I'd say that "limit drivers doing it 'for fun' in exchange for better pay/protections for drivers doing it to eke out a living" seems like a reasonable trade-off...
    - i_am_proteus 7y ago
      No individual has any right to make a living doing anything they want to. If sufficient people are willing to do a job at a reduced wage because they enjoy it, that is their right. This is like saying that libraries should ban unpaid volunteers in order to justify the hiring of more librarians.
      - blub 7y ago
        Labour laws set minimum standards that all companies and employees / contractors / whatever should adhere to, because it reduces the likelihood of abuse. The "right" you mention doesn't exist in e.g. countries with minimum wage laws.
callmeal 7y ago
>- 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. Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? I can hold two jobs now if I wanted (even though I'm being paid way more than minimum wage), and that's as long as I honor the contract I have with my current employer. >- 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. This one too. I get that companies will start to prefer full time drivers, but just like in other industries, there will be temp workers and part time workers. And depending on how the laws are written, there will also be "contracting" companies that lyft and uber could use to fill up their drivers. Kind of like how Via is doing in NYC - from what I can tell very few drivers actually work for Via, instead they work for all these other car companies, and Via delegates rides down to those companies who then dispatch the vehicle. These regulations will cause a sea change in how this industry works. Whether it is for the better or not is something time will tell.
- NikolaNovak 7y ago
  >>Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? For most other jobs, you do two jobs sequentially. So I'm paid minimum wage working 4 hours for Home Depot, then minimum wage working 2 hours for Home Hardware. But drivers will be logged in to Uber & Lyft etc in parallel. How do you count, calculate, and enforce minimum wage? There's potential for double-dipping here. Or, if you only calculate minimum wage based on actual driving times, I think that's basically already effectively the case.
  - bluntfang 7y ago
    I don't see how this is a problem unique to uber or lyft. employees can game the system of any employer. This is an employer problem, not a legislation problem.
  - jawns 7y ago
ninth_ant 7y ago
> - I don't want regulations to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There's a real risk of this. The market has a giant moat, via the mind blowing amounts of VC and IPO cash that they used to buy market share. The “risk” of regulation stopping new entrants seems so laughably minor compared to this that it makes one question the impartiality of the whole argument.
bobloblaw45 7y ago
What would be an example (even if unrealistic) for drivers to earn sufficient income if there's no limit placed on the number of companies and drivers?
bbatha 7y ago
> I don't want quotas as NYC is doing. This is just recreating the taxi medallion system. The worst part of the medallion system were the title transfers. Quotas and a fair lottery system can be ok, and can even be in the public interest to reduce traffic. However, letting the medallions go to auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars creates perverse incentives that squeezes small players out of the market or force them into crippling debt.
- heliodor 7y ago
  Trade is an essential ingredient for a functioning society. Just because quantity is fixed and prices are high shouldn't mean the solution to the negative side effects is to just do away with the whole thing. As a thought exercise, what should we do about land ownership? Should we have quotas and a lottery system as you suggest is appropriate in such scenarios of fixed inventory and high prices?
- ctoth 7y ago
  "reduces traffic" is an interesting way to say that as a sighted person you can drive your own car whenever you want where ever you want, but as a blind person I will have to have my possible transportation options externally limited.
- cletus 7y ago
  If we really cared about traffic in NYC we'd stop subsidizing private vehicle ownership by giving away half the street space to free parking. Likewise, the proposed congestion pricing schemes in Manhattan should be punitively taxing private vehicle ownership, not taxis of the equivalent.
jjulius 7y ago
You use the phrase, "I don't..." quite a bit. I'm curious, are you a driver?
- dymk 7y ago
  What about “I don’t” signals that he’s a driver?
ilaksh 7y ago
There's no reason they should lose flexibility in terms of hours. That's just made up stuff that Uber puts out to try to make their argument. If you drive more than 30 hours per week or 120 per month for one company and meet the 5 criteria, you should get benefits and be taxed as an employee for that period from that company, unless you are already receiving benefits from another company. There is no reason to prevent them from logging in and out when they want.
jdavis703 7y ago
Let's say the bill is amended with a 10-hour or less "side hustle" carve-out. Do app-based taxi companies start gaming the system? For example in the Bay Area Uber could start five shell companies for the East Bay, SF, Peninsula, South Bay and North Bay. Then each driver is restricted or algorithmically encouraged to work in a different zone for each 10-hour segment. The TNCs already (or at least used to) operate different companies for different markets. This scenario doesn't seem to far fetched.
- zorked 7y ago
  Does American law really fall for that sort of cheap scheme? In most other places that would be an additional law broken.
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    Yes we fall for it. We have people setting up LLCs (essentially"disposable" shell companies) to buy up real estate. Then to avoid real estate taxes they sell the LLC, which avoids triggering a "sale" of the real estate property. This is perfectly legal. Every landlord I've rented from in California has done this.
- yifanl 7y ago
  This is the whole word vs spirit of the law thing. A reasonable court could easily spot this scheme, the law shouldn't be enforced by a series of if statements.
  - jdavis703 7y ago
    Like software engineers, lawyers make big bucks because they can spot problems in complex logic. A smart legislator is going to do everything to make sure the courts interpret the law as intended. Othetwise, what's the point of passing laws?
mdorazio 7y ago
fwiw, I use Uber or Lyft multiple times a week across multiple cities and generally ask drivers if they drive full time or just during free time. Out of the last 50ish rides, I think two of them were not doing it full time (as in they do 6+ hours a day). I'm fairly confident we're well past the original "gig" only-when-you-want phase of ride sharing.
- AnthonyMouse 7y ago
  If someone is driving for ten hours a day, they're ten times more likely to be your driver than someone who drives for five hours a week. So your two represents around twenty part time drivers. That's a significant number of people you're booting out of having a supplemental income.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  Someone above mentioned it was less of a by-city split and more of a by-area type. For example, city drivers are more likely to be full time, where suburban drivers are more likely to be part time.
- bluecalm 7y ago
  It depends on the region. Here a lot of people drive part time and I am yet to meet a driver who does it full time and doesn't drive for multiple companies.
panarky 7y ago
This is a false choice. Drivers can be employees AND retain flexibility. Being an employee DOES NOT require (1) only full-time work, (2) fixed schedules, or (3) exclusivity with one company. Being an employee DOES require employers to compensate for all work an employee performs. Drivers shouldn't have spend 20 minutes of every hour off the clock while driving to pick up riders. Drivers shouldn't have to spend 45 minutes off the clock in the airport cell phone lot waiting for their turn at the top of the queue. If the business model only works by making people work for free, then it's necessary for the state to set minimum standards.
- RHSeeger 7y ago
  > Being an employee DOES NOT require (1) only full-time work, (2) fixed schedules, or (3) exclusivity with one company. > Drivers shouldn't have to spend 45 minutes off the clock in the airport cell phone lot waiting for their turn at the top of the queue. If the driver is driving for more than one company, who pays for that cell phone lot time?
  - resfirestar 7y ago
    Assuming the post AB 5 system essentially has rideshare workers agree to take 2-4 hour "shifts" (just a guess based on the easiest adaptation and how Amazon's delivery system works), the 45 minutes of idle time would be paid for by the company the driver agreed to work the shift for. Needless to say, such a system would heavily incentivize Uber and Lyft to avoid having drivers sitting in airport lots.
  - kevingadd 7y ago
    In practice they just won't drive for two companies. With minimum wage / employee status that won't hurt them at all. In practice, Uber and Lyft already don't want you keeping both apps open - they encourage you to only keep their app open with incentives.
- tick_tock_tick 7y ago
  Technically that's true but why would Uber/Lyft accept the overhead of workers that are not?
lightedman 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." The reality isn't because of Uber and Lyft, it's because of Pizza Companies. When a company like Papa John's spins off itself and makes a company called "Red Delivery Guy" which they claim you're an independent contractor for, and then uses that company to rip off its employees (this actually happened with the Papa John's on Chicago Ave in Riverside, CA, illegally taking employee tips, classifying them as IC when they're in fact employees, etc.) Ubar and Lyft are just following that particular scam started by pizza companies. Hit the pizza companies instead of Uber and Lyft and you would see this practice disappear almost overnight.
fucking_tragedy 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. This is a non-point. People often have more than one job, and they're considered employees at each of their employers.
kevingadd 7y ago
Uber / Lyft already have really strong incentives/disincentives to discourage driving for two companies at once. I can't remember the last time my driver had both apps open on separate phones. Also, a minimum wage per hour is going to probably be much better than driving for both companies in practice, since you'll still be getting paid even if Lyft alone dispatches fewer rides. You're even saving money there since that idle time isn't burning up gas.
njnuyidhahbf 7y ago
> you can drive for more than one company at the same time. > the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once A point of clarification: Lyft effectively prevents XL drivers from dual-platforming. They "keep you busy"* with regular and shared rides which you're not supposed to turn down. Accepting these rides renders you unavailable for UberXL rides when Lyft has no XL rides to offer. * - 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-...
cityzen 7y ago
How long have you been driving for Uber/Lyft to support your family?

by cletus 7y ago

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]

maxehmookau 7y ago

I worry that you (and me, and others) have bought in to the "flexibility" bullshit that Uber often spouts. Most people still have the same rough, basic needs. A "supplementary" income is not enough to do this. Every single Uber driver I've ever asked does it as a full-time job, but doesn't get the pay or protections of a full-time worker. Especially in the UK and other more regulated countries than the US, becoming an Uber driver takes time and money as you require a licence. People aren't doing it as a side-gig. It's their job. And Uber knows it.

NikolaNovak 7y ago
While I agree in general, in specific, a significant proportion of Uber drivers I've used in Canada were doing it not even for supplementary profit, but for Fun. I've been picked up in $80k vehicles by guys who did it a few hours a week to see the town, meet people, kill time in productive ways. Of course, I've also seen people who were current or ex taxi drivers, working fulltime on several services.
- kgrin 7y ago
  Taking that at face value, I'd say that "limit drivers doing it 'for fun' in exchange for better pay/protections for drivers doing it to eke out a living" seems like a reasonable trade-off...
  - i_am_proteus 7y ago
    No individual has any right to make a living doing anything they want to. If sufficient people are willing to do a job at a reduced wage because they enjoy it, that is their right. This is like saying that libraries should ban unpaid volunteers in order to justify the hiring of more librarians.
    - blub 7y ago
      Labour laws set minimum standards that all companies and employees / contractors / whatever should adhere to, because it reduces the likelihood of abuse. The "right" you mention doesn't exist in e.g. countries with minimum wage laws.

callmeal 7y ago

>- 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. Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? I can hold two jobs now if I wanted (even though I'm being paid way more than minimum wage), and that's as long as I honor the contract I have with my current employer. >- 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. This one too. I get that companies will start to prefer full time drivers, but just like in other industries, there will be temp workers and part time workers. And depending on how the laws are written, there will also be "contracting" companies that lyft and uber could use to fill up their drivers. Kind of like how Via is doing in NYC - from what I can tell very few drivers actually work for Via, instead they work for all these other car companies, and Via delegates rides down to those companies who then dispatch the vehicle. These regulations will cause a sea change in how this industry works. Whether it is for the better or not is something time will tell.

NikolaNovak 7y ago
>>Those two things do not compute. How does the amount being paid determine where a person can/cannot work? For most other jobs, you do two jobs sequentially. So I'm paid minimum wage working 4 hours for Home Depot, then minimum wage working 2 hours for Home Hardware. But drivers will be logged in to Uber & Lyft etc in parallel. How do you count, calculate, and enforce minimum wage? There's potential for double-dipping here. Or, if you only calculate minimum wage based on actual driving times, I think that's basically already effectively the case.
- bluntfang 7y ago
  I don't see how this is a problem unique to uber or lyft. employees can game the system of any employer. This is an employer problem, not a legislation problem.
- jawns 7y ago

ninth_ant 7y ago

> - I don't want regulations to keep smaller competitors out of the market. There's a real risk of this. The market has a giant moat, via the mind blowing amounts of VC and IPO cash that they used to buy market share. The “risk” of regulation stopping new entrants seems so laughably minor compared to this that it makes one question the impartiality of the whole argument.

bobloblaw45 7y ago

What would be an example (even if unrealistic) for drivers to earn sufficient income if there's no limit placed on the number of companies and drivers?

bbatha 7y ago

> I don't want quotas as NYC is doing. This is just recreating the taxi medallion system. The worst part of the medallion system were the title transfers. Quotas and a fair lottery system can be ok, and can even be in the public interest to reduce traffic. However, letting the medallions go to auction for hundreds of thousands of dollars creates perverse incentives that squeezes small players out of the market or force them into crippling debt.

heliodor 7y ago
Trade is an essential ingredient for a functioning society. Just because quantity is fixed and prices are high shouldn't mean the solution to the negative side effects is to just do away with the whole thing. As a thought exercise, what should we do about land ownership? Should we have quotas and a lottery system as you suggest is appropriate in such scenarios of fixed inventory and high prices?
ctoth 7y ago
"reduces traffic" is an interesting way to say that as a sighted person you can drive your own car whenever you want where ever you want, but as a blind person I will have to have my possible transportation options externally limited.
cletus 7y ago
If we really cared about traffic in NYC we'd stop subsidizing private vehicle ownership by giving away half the street space to free parking. Likewise, the proposed congestion pricing schemes in Manhattan should be punitively taxing private vehicle ownership, not taxis of the equivalent.

jjulius 7y ago

You use the phrase, "I don't..." quite a bit. I'm curious, are you a driver?

dymk 7y ago
What about “I don’t” signals that he’s a driver?

ilaksh 7y ago

There's no reason they should lose flexibility in terms of hours. That's just made up stuff that Uber puts out to try to make their argument. If you drive more than 30 hours per week or 120 per month for one company and meet the 5 criteria, you should get benefits and be taxed as an employee for that period from that company, unless you are already receiving benefits from another company. There is no reason to prevent them from logging in and out when they want.

jdavis703 7y ago

Let's say the bill is amended with a 10-hour or less "side hustle" carve-out. Do app-based taxi companies start gaming the system? For example in the Bay Area Uber could start five shell companies for the East Bay, SF, Peninsula, South Bay and North Bay. Then each driver is restricted or algorithmically encouraged to work in a different zone for each 10-hour segment. The TNCs already (or at least used to) operate different companies for different markets. This scenario doesn't seem to far fetched.

zorked 7y ago
Does American law really fall for that sort of cheap scheme? In most other places that would be an additional law broken.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  Yes we fall for it. We have people setting up LLCs (essentially"disposable" shell companies) to buy up real estate. Then to avoid real estate taxes they sell the LLC, which avoids triggering a "sale" of the real estate property. This is perfectly legal. Every landlord I've rented from in California has done this.
yifanl 7y ago
This is the whole word vs spirit of the law thing. A reasonable court could easily spot this scheme, the law shouldn't be enforced by a series of if statements.
- jdavis703 7y ago
  Like software engineers, lawyers make big bucks because they can spot problems in complex logic. A smart legislator is going to do everything to make sure the courts interpret the law as intended. Othetwise, what's the point of passing laws?

mdorazio 7y ago

fwiw, I use Uber or Lyft multiple times a week across multiple cities and generally ask drivers if they drive full time or just during free time. Out of the last 50ish rides, I think two of them were not doing it full time (as in they do 6+ hours a day). I'm fairly confident we're well past the original "gig" only-when-you-want phase of ride sharing.

AnthonyMouse 7y ago
If someone is driving for ten hours a day, they're ten times more likely to be your driver than someone who drives for five hours a week. So your two represents around twenty part time drivers. That's a significant number of people you're booting out of having a supplemental income.
RHSeeger 7y ago
Someone above mentioned it was less of a by-city split and more of a by-area type. For example, city drivers are more likely to be full time, where suburban drivers are more likely to be part time.
bluecalm 7y ago
It depends on the region. Here a lot of people drive part time and I am yet to meet a driver who does it full time and doesn't drive for multiple companies.

panarky 7y ago

This is a false choice. Drivers can be employees AND retain flexibility. Being an employee DOES NOT require (1) only full-time work, (2) fixed schedules, or (3) exclusivity with one company. Being an employee DOES require employers to compensate for all work an employee performs. Drivers shouldn't have spend 20 minutes of every hour off the clock while driving to pick up riders. Drivers shouldn't have to spend 45 minutes off the clock in the airport cell phone lot waiting for their turn at the top of the queue. If the business model only works by making people work for free, then it's necessary for the state to set minimum standards.

RHSeeger 7y ago
> Being an employee DOES NOT require (1) only full-time work, (2) fixed schedules, or (3) exclusivity with one company. > Drivers shouldn't have to spend 45 minutes off the clock in the airport cell phone lot waiting for their turn at the top of the queue. If the driver is driving for more than one company, who pays for that cell phone lot time?
- resfirestar 7y ago
  Assuming the post AB 5 system essentially has rideshare workers agree to take 2-4 hour "shifts" (just a guess based on the easiest adaptation and how Amazon's delivery system works), the 45 minutes of idle time would be paid for by the company the driver agreed to work the shift for. Needless to say, such a system would heavily incentivize Uber and Lyft to avoid having drivers sitting in airport lots.
- kevingadd 7y ago
  In practice they just won't drive for two companies. With minimum wage / employee status that won't hurt them at all. In practice, Uber and Lyft already don't want you keeping both apps open - they encourage you to only keep their app open with incentives.
tick_tock_tick 7y ago
Technically that's true but why would Uber/Lyft accept the overhead of workers that are not?

lightedman 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." The reality isn't because of Uber and Lyft, it's because of Pizza Companies. When a company like Papa John's spins off itself and makes a company called "Red Delivery Guy" which they claim you're an independent contractor for, and then uses that company to rip off its employees (this actually happened with the Papa John's on Chicago Ave in Riverside, CA, illegally taking employee tips, classifying them as IC when they're in fact employees, etc.) Ubar and Lyft are just following that particular scam started by pizza companies. Hit the pizza companies instead of Uber and Lyft and you would see this practice disappear almost overnight.

fucking_tragedy 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. This is a non-point. People often have more than one job, and they're considered employees at each of their employers.

kevingadd 7y ago

Uber / Lyft already have really strong incentives/disincentives to discourage driving for two companies at once. I can't remember the last time my driver had both apps open on separate phones. Also, a minimum wage per hour is going to probably be much better than driving for both companies in practice, since you'll still be getting paid even if Lyft alone dispatches fewer rides. You're even saving money there since that idle time isn't burning up gas.

njnuyidhahbf 7y ago

> you can drive for more than one company at the same time. > the flexibility to drive for multiple companies at once A point of clarification: Lyft effectively prevents XL drivers from dual-platforming. They "keep you busy"* with regular and shared rides which you're not supposed to turn down. Accepting these rides renders you unavailable for UberXL rides when Lyft has no XL rides to offer. * - 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-...

cityzen 7y ago

How long have you been driving for Uber/Lyft to support your family?