4 ms·

>Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing dri

>Experts said that there is nothing in the bill that requires employees to work set shifts, and that Uber and Lyft are legally entitled to continue allowing drivers to make their own scheduling decisions. Well yeah, it doesn't force them to. Who are these "experts"? If Uber takes on 100,000 new employees and all of the costs that go along with them, why wouldn't they also manage them like... employees? You can't have it both ways.

wjmao88 7y ago
because then those drivers would go work for lyft or some other company that doesn't do it? I mean this is why we want competition.
- chrischen 7y ago
  Lyft would likely do the same thing, since they’re already employees...
- username90 7y ago
  It wont be possible for any taxi company to provide minimum hourly wages without enforcing peoples schedules. I mean, a group of drivers could choose to drive only between 22-06 during weekdays and thus get paid minimum wage for basically sleeping in their car.
  - dragonwriter 7y ago
    > It wont be possible for any taxi company to provide minimum hourly wages without enforcing peoples schedules. Sure, they have to control how many people are on-pay at any given time. That doesn't require preset schedule; you can have a combination of: (1) Minimum hourly wage, (2) Dynamic, demand-based minimum targets and maximum on-payroll quota, where additional drivers aren't permitted to come on-shift of the current quota is reached. (3) Dynamic, automatic, first-come first-served offers of above-minimum pay if current local staffing is below the minimum target. No set shifts are required.
farisjarrah 7y ago
There are plenty of companies who have successfully figured out the whole part-time flexible employee thing. I quit my last company, but they didn't want to lose me, so they wanted to keep me on as a flexible-part-timer and I didn't even have a set amount of hours I needed to work every week. As long as I was working less then something like 30 hours a week then they didn't need to provide me additional benefits like insurance and what not. This isn't rocket science. If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money?
- dahdum 7y ago
  Every single business uses the roads or benefits from them, and we pay for them mostly through gas/diesel tax, tolls, property taxes, and vehicle registration fees. You aren’t subsidizing Uber/Lyft just by letting them use the roads like everyone else.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]
- EpicEng 7y ago
  >If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money? Can you quantify (ballpark) the amount of money we're losing out on currently as far as roads and associated infrastructure goes? I imagine it's near zero as payroll taxes don't fund those, and the contractors are still paying taxes.
  - jonfw 7y ago
    > payroll taxes don't fund those It's kind of silly to make the distinction between which taxes fund which programs. It's completely arbitrary. Dollar bills are dollar bills
titanomachy 7y ago
If they're doing it because it makes them more efficient or profitable, it makes sense. If they're just doing it to punish the state for changing the rules... well, that's their prerogative, but if it makes them less efficient they will lose ground to competitors.
- jonfw 7y ago
  They're doing it because their current business model will no longer be legal and they now have to optimize to a new set of laws. They aren't doing this to be more efficient, this will be less efficient than their existing system. But it very well may be the most efficient way to handle it under the new regulations.
stefan_ 7y ago
Because Uber has been arguing that people work for them because of the flexibility? So when they don't offer it, people won't work for them, employed or not? This is such a weird response. Like Uber would institute some schedule out of spite, and why even.
- EpicEng 7y ago
  It's not 'weird' at all; if Uber is employing you you will need to maintain a certain number of hours / week. They will likely reduce the number of drivers that they have, but now they also need to ensure that the schedule is covered. Seems like common sense really, has nothing to do with spite, not sure where you came up with that.
- will4274 7y ago
  It's not out of spite. Healthcare is a fixed cost for employees. Overtime costs more per hour in pay. Undertime costs more per hour because the same fixed costs are divided over fewer hours. If Uber has to pay fixed costs, they have a greater incentive to minimize undertime.
maxerickson 7y ago
Increased pay and more time off! I think, really, progress often comes when a side of a contested issue gets it two ways. Which of course, I don't mean that one side getting it both ways is always progress, just that it's not a real argument.

wjmao88 7y ago

because then those drivers would go work for lyft or some other company that doesn't do it? I mean this is why we want competition.

chrischen 7y ago
Lyft would likely do the same thing, since they’re already employees...
username90 7y ago
It wont be possible for any taxi company to provide minimum hourly wages without enforcing peoples schedules. I mean, a group of drivers could choose to drive only between 22-06 during weekdays and thus get paid minimum wage for basically sleeping in their car.
- dragonwriter 7y ago
  > It wont be possible for any taxi company to provide minimum hourly wages without enforcing peoples schedules. Sure, they have to control how many people are on-pay at any given time. That doesn't require preset schedule; you can have a combination of: (1) Minimum hourly wage, (2) Dynamic, demand-based minimum targets and maximum on-payroll quota, where additional drivers aren't permitted to come on-shift of the current quota is reached. (3) Dynamic, automatic, first-come first-served offers of above-minimum pay if current local staffing is below the minimum target. No set shifts are required.

farisjarrah 7y ago

There are plenty of companies who have successfully figured out the whole part-time flexible employee thing. I quit my last company, but they didn't want to lose me, so they wanted to keep me on as a flexible-part-timer and I didn't even have a set amount of hours I needed to work every week. As long as I was working less then something like 30 hours a week then they didn't need to provide me additional benefits like insurance and what not. This isn't rocket science. If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money?

dahdum 7y ago
Every single business uses the roads or benefits from them, and we pay for them mostly through gas/diesel tax, tolls, property taxes, and vehicle registration fees. You aren’t subsidizing Uber/Lyft just by letting them use the roads like everyone else.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
EpicEng 7y ago
>If Uber and Lyft are using public utilities/infrastructure for profit(like roads), then they should be obligated to pay the government to use that infrastructure to get their jobs done. If you don't work for Uber or are a shareholder, do you want to subsidize their business with tax payer money? Can you quantify (ballpark) the amount of money we're losing out on currently as far as roads and associated infrastructure goes? I imagine it's near zero as payroll taxes don't fund those, and the contractors are still paying taxes.
- jonfw 7y ago
  > payroll taxes don't fund those It's kind of silly to make the distinction between which taxes fund which programs. It's completely arbitrary. Dollar bills are dollar bills

titanomachy 7y ago

If they're doing it because it makes them more efficient or profitable, it makes sense. If they're just doing it to punish the state for changing the rules... well, that's their prerogative, but if it makes them less efficient they will lose ground to competitors.

jonfw 7y ago
They're doing it because their current business model will no longer be legal and they now have to optimize to a new set of laws. They aren't doing this to be more efficient, this will be less efficient than their existing system. But it very well may be the most efficient way to handle it under the new regulations.

stefan_ 7y ago

Because Uber has been arguing that people work for them because of the flexibility? So when they don't offer it, people won't work for them, employed or not? This is such a weird response. Like Uber would institute some schedule out of spite, and why even.

EpicEng 7y ago
It's not 'weird' at all; if Uber is employing you you will need to maintain a certain number of hours / week. They will likely reduce the number of drivers that they have, but now they also need to ensure that the schedule is covered. Seems like common sense really, has nothing to do with spite, not sure where you came up with that.
will4274 7y ago
It's not out of spite. Healthcare is a fixed cost for employees. Overtime costs more per hour in pay. Undertime costs more per hour because the same fixed costs are divided over fewer hours. If Uber has to pay fixed costs, they have a greater incentive to minimize undertime.

maxerickson 7y ago

Increased pay and more time off! I think, really, progress often comes when a side of a contested issue gets it two ways. Which of course, I don't mean that one side getting it both ways is always progress, just that it's not a real argument.