8 ms·

I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin

by lacker 7y ago

I think the law will be bad for the people it affects, so this is good news for Uber drivers. Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits. If Uber has to shrink their business in California or exit entirely, that won't be good for drivers either. It reminds me of before my software engineering career, when I was working at The Gap. The job wasn't great, but a lot of people really needed more hours. Unfortunately, there was a rule that nobody could work more than 29 hours a week. Everyone hated it. Employees hated it the most because if they needed extra money they couldn't take an extra shift. The managers hated it too because it was just more rules for them to deal with. Apparently, this rule existed because there was a law saying that past 30 hours a week, employees had to get some extra benefits. Gap corporate just changed the job to avoid that law. As a result, that job got worse, and nobody got more benefits. Just unintended consequences.

SnarkAsh 7y ago
They're getting off lightly. Uber demonstrates why we need a corporate death penalty. Serial lawbreaker Travis Kalanick should be in prison for the rest of his life, most of his criminal conspirators on the board should be there with him, and the company should be dissolved and forgotten. Recall that among their hundreds of other crimes, there are actual conspiracies to conceal criminal activities from law enforcement. This is not "breaking things and moving quick", this is a multibilliondollar international conspiracy that has escaped justice for far too long. Off with his head.
- crakenzak 7y ago
  what did kalanick do that's worthy of life in prison? genuinely curious
  - dlp211 7y ago
    Broke the law in nearly every major US City for one. Does he deserve prison for this, that is a complicated question, but I'd have had no problem with destroying Uber as an entity.
- ixtli 7y ago
  Interesting that this comment is getting poor reception when this has shown, historically, to be a very effective way of dealing with oligarchs. Especially ones that, as you've correctly stated, have a long history of breaking laws and abusing workers and customers. I challenge anyone reading this thread to really criticize why they believe their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in uber.
  - ryanwaggoner 7y ago
    I don’t need my personal interests to align with someone to think that they don’t deserve the death penalty. Also curious as to where you think it’s been “very effective” to deal with any kind of crime?
  - chillacy 7y ago
    > their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in CorpX Is that really the bar we should be using? My interests don't align with the corner store small business owner who sells bread in a small rural town, should I be okay with terminating her business too?
JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
I don't think we can be certain that displaced drivers won't find other opportunities. I imagine most of the appeal is the low friction to entering rideshare driving vs. traditional employment (fast food chains, etc). The talking point that people are somehow skilled enough for rideshare driving, yet not other low-skill work, seems to me like a talking point to have discouraged AB5 from happening. I question the factuality of the statement.
- stickfigure 7y ago
  This seems like a weird statement. The people driving for Uber presumably looked at their options and decided to drive instead of apply to fast food chains. If they wanted to work in fast food, they could have? Maybe I misunderstand, but what you're saying sounds vaguely like "I know what's better for you".
  - JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
    What I am saying is, misplaced workers (if Uber does indeed become subject to AB5 and they must be employees) is these folks will find other work. The related point is these people are fully capable of that work. Finding new work can be painful, but the damages are over-stated because there's low friction to entering work that doesn't demand specialized skills. Do you have two hands and can walk? Great, you can work the french fry fryer at McD's.
    - cactus2093 7y ago
      But how is it better for the world if all of these Uber drivers, who clearly prefer driving for Uber to McD's, are forced to work at McD's instead?
    - azylman 7y ago
      You're assuming there's unlimited demand for employees by McD's... which, in point of fact, is absolutely not the case.
      - 7y ago
slg 7y ago
This line of thinking can be used against almost any form of labor protections. People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate. That desperation allows their employer to take advantage of them. The government therefore needs to step in to protect the workers from being taken advantage of. In an ideal world that regulation would also come with some type of social safety net to protect the workers in event of any of these negative repercussions. That safety net is much more difficult to get support for politically (because it costs money) so it is usually an afterthought.
- bko 7y ago
  > People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives
  - TaylorAlexander 7y ago
    I know at least in some situations it goes like this: A group of people have been living off the land for centuries. At some point a government comes in and takes the land from them to sell to a factory owner so the government can profit. With no land to farm, working at that factory becomes their best option. But the workers get abused. Women get raped. Their pay is stolen. Still they don’t have a better option. They try to unionize. The government police come in and kill the union leaders. The people keep working there because they have no better option. That does not mean the situation isn’t horrible. It’s not enough to say they chose this job freely. A lot of coercion goes on. How prevalent is this stuff? I’m not sure. But don’t assume most sweatshop workers just decided this was best with no coercion. People like you and me aren’t paying much attention and a lot of bad stuff happens when we’re not looking. It doesn’t help that corporations benefit greatly from reduced labor prices and so the media and advertisers don’t want to talk about these issues. Here’s a great documentary on some of these issues: https://youtu.be/PxFwA-jw3X4 https://youtu.be/PxFwA-jw3X4
    - biggestdecision 7y ago
hn_throwaway_99 7y ago
While I agree with you that the unintended consequences of this bill will be a net negative, I take particular issue with this statement, "Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits." That's not how it works. Uber isn't operating at a profit because their current-investor-subsidized-rates are below the cost of their service. But there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there: there rates are low because they want to gain marketshare, which is only enabled by the flood of VC/IPO money. Eventually, all of the rideshare companies will need to raise their rates to cover the cost of service, and that cost should include reasonable remuneration for their workers. If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place.
- novok 7y ago
  I don't think it will be a binary black or white, but rather a reduction. Which means a reduction in pay and a reduction of hours. Subsidy via VC money is an independent modifier.
- lacker 7y ago
  If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place. I think we basically agree. The dangerous outcome is that Uber becomes more expensive for end users in California, Uber drivers become employees, but they make exactly minimum wage because that's the minimum Uber can pay them, and Uber's profits in California go to zero. (I doubt the Uber business will cease to exist because taxis are so bad in comparison.) Uber's market shrinks because they became more expensive, so they can hire fewer people. Is that better for anyone? It sounds worse for both Uber drivers and for Uber users than the status quo. Unless you think that a minimum wage job is superior to the current job of Uber driver, and we really need more minimum wage jobs.
  - fountainofage 7y ago
    I want to highlight very few Uber drivers make more than minimum wage once the total costs are taken into account.
addicted 7y ago
If Uber shuts down transportation won't disappear. People will have to switch to modes of transportation that may be a little more expensive but actually allow the workers to make a real living without taking on all the risk.
- avocado4 7y ago
  You mean taxis?
- s1artibartfast 7y ago
  Either that, or people will go back to driving and using public transportation more and the drivers will leave the labor market.
blaisio 7y ago
Isn't the law sort of protecting people from themselves? My understanding is the majority of Uber drivers don't even make money, they just convert equity from their car into cash. Making them employees might mean forcing it to be an actual viable job, and it might mean that job no longer exists. But these people are probably better off selling their cars (and buying economical ones) than working for Uber anyway.
shkkmo 7y ago
How will the law change anything for Uber or it's drivers? As I understand it, this law just codifies existing legal precents under which Uber has already successfully withstood legal challenges. It doesn't really change the nature of the ongoing legal challenges that Uber will continue to face. IMHO, the whole point of this law is just to weaken the existing precedent by giving exemptions to the Lawmakers' buddies and donors.

by lacker 7y ago

SnarkAsh 7y ago

They're getting off lightly. Uber demonstrates why we need a corporate death penalty. Serial lawbreaker Travis Kalanick should be in prison for the rest of his life, most of his criminal conspirators on the board should be there with him, and the company should be dissolved and forgotten. Recall that among their hundreds of other crimes, there are actual conspiracies to conceal criminal activities from law enforcement. This is not "breaking things and moving quick", this is a multibilliondollar international conspiracy that has escaped justice for far too long. Off with his head.

crakenzak 7y ago
what did kalanick do that's worthy of life in prison? genuinely curious
- dlp211 7y ago
  Broke the law in nearly every major US City for one. Does he deserve prison for this, that is a complicated question, but I'd have had no problem with destroying Uber as an entity.
ixtli 7y ago
Interesting that this comment is getting poor reception when this has shown, historically, to be a very effective way of dealing with oligarchs. Especially ones that, as you've correctly stated, have a long history of breaking laws and abusing workers and customers. I challenge anyone reading this thread to really criticize why they believe their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in uber.
- ryanwaggoner 7y ago
  I don’t need my personal interests to align with someone to think that they don’t deserve the death penalty. Also curious as to where you think it’s been “very effective” to deal with any kind of crime?
- chillacy 7y ago
  > their own personal interests are aligned in any way with the people who have a controlling share in CorpX Is that really the bar we should be using? My interests don't align with the corner store small business owner who sells bread in a small rural town, should I be okay with terminating her business too?

JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago

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

stickfigure 7y ago
This seems like a weird statement. The people driving for Uber presumably looked at their options and decided to drive instead of apply to fast food chains. If they wanted to work in fast food, they could have? Maybe I misunderstand, but what you're saying sounds vaguely like "I know what's better for you".
- JMTQp8lwXL 7y ago
  What I am saying is, misplaced workers (if Uber does indeed become subject to AB5 and they must be employees) is these folks will find other work. The related point is these people are fully capable of that work. Finding new work can be painful, but the damages are over-stated because there's low friction to entering work that doesn't demand specialized skills. Do you have two hands and can walk? Great, you can work the french fry fryer at McD's.
  - cactus2093 7y ago
    But how is it better for the world if all of these Uber drivers, who clearly prefer driving for Uber to McD's, are forced to work at McD's instead?
  - azylman 7y ago
    You're assuming there's unlimited demand for employees by McD's... which, in point of fact, is absolutely not the case.
    - 7y ago

slg 7y ago

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

bko 7y ago
> People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because they are desperate People don't work in sweatshops because they love the job, they do it because its better than any of their alternatives
- TaylorAlexander 7y ago
  I know at least in some situations it goes like this: A group of people have been living off the land for centuries. At some point a government comes in and takes the land from them to sell to a factory owner so the government can profit. With no land to farm, working at that factory becomes their best option. But the workers get abused. Women get raped. Their pay is stolen. Still they don’t have a better option. They try to unionize. The government police come in and kill the union leaders. The people keep working there because they have no better option. That does not mean the situation isn’t horrible. It’s not enough to say they chose this job freely. A lot of coercion goes on. How prevalent is this stuff? I’m not sure. But don’t assume most sweatshop workers just decided this was best with no coercion. People like you and me aren’t paying much attention and a lot of bad stuff happens when we’re not looking. It doesn’t help that corporations benefit greatly from reduced labor prices and so the media and advertisers don’t want to talk about these issues. Here’s a great documentary on some of these issues: https://youtu.be/PxFwA-jw3X4 https://youtu.be/PxFwA-jw3X4
  - biggestdecision 7y ago

hn_throwaway_99 7y ago

While I agree with you that the unintended consequences of this bill will be a net negative, I take particular issue with this statement, "Uber isn't operating at a profit, so they don't have extra margin to pass on in the form of extra driver pay or employee benefits." That's not how it works. Uber isn't operating at a profit because their current-investor-subsidized-rates are below the cost of their service. But there is a bit of a chicken-and-egg problem there: there rates are low because they want to gain marketshare, which is only enabled by the flood of VC/IPO money. Eventually, all of the rideshare companies will need to raise their rates to cover the cost of service, and that cost should include reasonable remuneration for their workers. If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place.

novok 7y ago
I don't think it will be a binary black or white, but rather a reduction. Which means a reduction in pay and a reduction of hours. Subsidy via VC money is an independent modifier.
lacker 7y ago
If it turns out the market isn't viable at those costs (i.e. if people just stop taking rideshares altogether because it's too expensive), then it never should have existed in the first place. I think we basically agree. The dangerous outcome is that Uber becomes more expensive for end users in California, Uber drivers become employees, but they make exactly minimum wage because that's the minimum Uber can pay them, and Uber's profits in California go to zero. (I doubt the Uber business will cease to exist because taxis are so bad in comparison.) Uber's market shrinks because they became more expensive, so they can hire fewer people. Is that better for anyone? It sounds worse for both Uber drivers and for Uber users than the status quo. Unless you think that a minimum wage job is superior to the current job of Uber driver, and we really need more minimum wage jobs.
- fountainofage 7y ago
  I want to highlight very few Uber drivers make more than minimum wage once the total costs are taken into account.

addicted 7y ago

If Uber shuts down transportation won't disappear. People will have to switch to modes of transportation that may be a little more expensive but actually allow the workers to make a real living without taking on all the risk.

avocado4 7y ago
You mean taxis?
s1artibartfast 7y ago
Either that, or people will go back to driving and using public transportation more and the drivers will leave the labor market.

blaisio 7y ago

Isn't the law sort of protecting people from themselves? My understanding is the majority of Uber drivers don't even make money, they just convert equity from their car into cash. Making them employees might mean forcing it to be an actual viable job, and it might mean that job no longer exists. But these people are probably better off selling their cars (and buying economical ones) than working for Uber anyway.

shkkmo 7y ago

How will the law change anything for Uber or it's drivers? As I understand it, this law just codifies existing legal precents under which Uber has already successfully withstood legal challenges. It doesn't really change the nature of the ongoing legal challenges that Uber will continue to face. IMHO, the whole point of this law is just to weaken the existing precedent by giving exemptions to the Lawmakers' buddies and donors.