6 ms·

If the state wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Lyft and Uber pulled out, or at least increased their fares by a substantial amount.

by jdhn 7y ago

navigatr 7y ago
They'd lose out on a huge market where there are already competitor apps to both Lyft and Uber.
Accujack 7y ago
Closing the loophole in the law that lets them treat workers as "contractors" rather than employees is going to torpedo their whole business model.
- microtherion 7y ago
  In my book, it's not a "business model" until it's consistently profitable.
  - citrablue 7y ago
    I agree with some of your underlying sentiment, but this is a textbook "no true scotsman" example.
  - pat87 7y ago
    There can be a bad “business model”
    - turc1656 7y ago
      Exactly. It's just a model of how to piss away money and look bad doing it. Haha.
- jdhn 7y ago
  I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work. As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full time job, and had just started driving again to pick up a little more cash on the side. No full time employer would tolerate a 6 month break to start up another job, and then allow you to come back.
  - 8note 7y ago
    My current full time employer would be fine with that -- specifically withing 6 months, I'd keep my RSU grants too
  - fungiblecog 7y ago
    Contractors can set their own rates. These drivers are employees.
    - gwright 7y ago
      Your conclusion presupposes that the employee/contractor dichotomy is a useful construct in its typical form. But the current dichotomy limits the freedom of individuals to contract out their labor on terms that work form them. It replaces the free choice of individuals with the "wisdom" of bureaucrats and politicians.
    - listenallyall 7y ago
      Taxi drivers don't set their own rates. What's the proper categorization?
      - turc1656 7y ago
        The taxi analogy isn't the same. The rates are being set by the local government, not some non-government third-party whom they work with like perhaps the people who actually own the medallions (most are loaned out) or the people who lease out usage of the vehicles, etc. If those places were setting rates on what could be charged then I'd say there's an argument to be made. Also, let's not forget why the government put in those rules on setting the rates in the first place - consumer protection. Cabbies were routinely ripping people off. Furthermore, it's not just one thing. It's a set of criteria/tests that for certain states like CA and NJ are defined in the law. Taken in aggregate and not just on one single characteristic of the employment a determination can be made.
        darkwizard42 7y ago
        This isn't wholesale true. Some areas are highly regulated (see Tokyo) and some are not regulated at all. Also, local government sets a MAXIMUM rate in some jurisdictions. The taxis then choose to set the rate the driver can get paid.
mikepurvis 7y ago
... is that bad?
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]
Koremat6666 7y ago
Personally I think they should pull out nevertheless and make an example out of NJ. That should give enough signals for other lawmakers not to come between consenting parties.
- navigatr 7y ago
  There are plenty of competitors in NJ chomping at the bit to eat Uber and Lyft's lunch.
  - jdhn 7y ago
    What are these competitors? I go to NJ frequently and haven't heard about any of them.
    - navigatr 7y ago
      They get bought out frequently. Juno is big in the NYC metro area that covers a lot of North Jersey. Curb, Via, and Gett also operate there.
- greenyoda 7y ago
  > make an example out of NJ If Uber left, it would look more like NJ made an example out of Uber. Other states would see NJ's success in beating down Uber, and might be inspired to tighten their own labor law enforcement. Also, Uber would be leaving behind a very lucrative market in NJ: it's the 11th most populous state, 3rd highest in income,[1] and a large part of its population is in the NYC metro area (high population density, lots of rides to commuter trains, etc.). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey
- deadmetheny 7y ago
  "We should just let corporations do whatever they want"
  - lend000 7y ago
    I wonder how many people have this opinion just to stick it to "the man" -- seems like most of the anti-Uber HN crowd does not actually drive for Uber, but nonetheless express a passionate hatred for their business model.
wnevets 7y ago
or they could just follow the law?
- username90 7y ago
  In 2015 Uber made 9 million rides in New Jersey, and the article said they were ordered to pay $50M in employment taxes in that year, so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes. I don't think the drivers would want this. In order to make the taxes not ridiculous Uber would be forced to start declining people who want to start riding, you'd have job interviews with an application process ensuring that the driver is going to be worth the significant employee tax, since a driver only driving a single time will cost them significant amounts. That is how normal businesses do this, and I think it would be a huge loss. The ability for anyone to just start driving for Uber with no questions asked is extremely progressive, not sure why anyone is trying to ruin that. I don't understand why people think that making money needs to be so controlled like it is today. Source on number of rides in New Jersey: https://eu.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/11/12/uber-nj-rides/75605804/ https://eu.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/11/12/u...
  - wnevets 7y ago
    > so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes. how is this different than anyone else who has to work in the state? You can replace drivers with almost any other job. Why should uber drivers get special treatment when its comes to paying taxes?
atonse 7y ago
That's ok. They're welcome to pull out. But they won't. Time and time again we see that business rather just raise their fares and make money than pull out of large markets. They are after all money-driven.
- kazen44 7y ago
  The brussels effect[1] is a good argument for this. People said the same thing with GDPR, labour laws and enviromental laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
  - atonse 7y ago
    Wow this (and the similar California effect) are a great name for exactly the "feeling" I was talking about. I'll use this from now on. Thanks. California's done this with emissions.
- mtnGoat 7y ago
  as long as there is a penny to be made, someone will make it. If Uber leaves another will fill the gap. I don't feel that regulation generally stifles business, only margins.
throwawayhhakdl 7y ago
I don’t know why this is downvoted so much. If the state wins, Uber will absolutely have to either pull out or raise fares. And I would think pulling out might make more sense because the difficulty of accounting for some drivers as employees and some as contractors would be extremely punishing.

If the state wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Lyft and Uber pulled out, or at least increased their fares by a substantial amount.

by jdhn 7y ago

If the state wins, I wouldn't be surprised if Lyft and Uber pulled out, or at least increased their fares by a substantial amount.

navigatr 7y ago

They'd lose out on a huge market where there are already competitor apps to both Lyft and Uber.

Accujack 7y ago

Closing the loophole in the law that lets them treat workers as "contractors" rather than employees is going to torpedo their whole business model.

microtherion 7y ago
In my book, it's not a "business model" until it's consistently profitable.
- citrablue 7y ago
  I agree with some of your underlying sentiment, but this is a textbook "no true scotsman" example.
- pat87 7y ago
  There can be a bad “business model”
  - turc1656 7y ago
    Exactly. It's just a model of how to piss away money and look bad doing it. Haha.
jdhn 7y ago
I'm not sure why people think that drivers for Uber & Lyft shouldn't be treated as "contractors". I know I'm in the minority on this, but to me it seems that you can jump in and out of employment with Uber & Lyft quite easily, to the point that it does seem more like contract work. As an anecdote, I took a Lyft to the airport with someone who had stopped driving for 6 months in order to get started with a new full time job, and had just started driving again to pick up a little more cash on the side. No full time employer would tolerate a 6 month break to start up another job, and then allow you to come back.
- 8note 7y ago
  My current full time employer would be fine with that -- specifically withing 6 months, I'd keep my RSU grants too
- fungiblecog 7y ago
  Contractors can set their own rates. These drivers are employees.
  - gwright 7y ago
    Your conclusion presupposes that the employee/contractor dichotomy is a useful construct in its typical form. But the current dichotomy limits the freedom of individuals to contract out their labor on terms that work form them. It replaces the free choice of individuals with the "wisdom" of bureaucrats and politicians.
  - listenallyall 7y ago
    Taxi drivers don't set their own rates. What's the proper categorization?
    - turc1656 7y ago
      The taxi analogy isn't the same. The rates are being set by the local government, not some non-government third-party whom they work with like perhaps the people who actually own the medallions (most are loaned out) or the people who lease out usage of the vehicles, etc. If those places were setting rates on what could be charged then I'd say there's an argument to be made. Also, let's not forget why the government put in those rules on setting the rates in the first place - consumer protection. Cabbies were routinely ripping people off. Furthermore, it's not just one thing. It's a set of criteria/tests that for certain states like CA and NJ are defined in the law. Taken in aggregate and not just on one single characteristic of the employment a determination can be made.
      - darkwizard42 7y ago
        This isn't wholesale true. Some areas are highly regulated (see Tokyo) and some are not regulated at all. Also, local government sets a MAXIMUM rate in some jurisdictions. The taxis then choose to set the rate the driver can get paid.

mikepurvis 7y ago

... is that bad?

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]

Koremat6666 7y ago

Personally I think they should pull out nevertheless and make an example out of NJ. That should give enough signals for other lawmakers not to come between consenting parties.

navigatr 7y ago
There are plenty of competitors in NJ chomping at the bit to eat Uber and Lyft's lunch.
- jdhn 7y ago
  What are these competitors? I go to NJ frequently and haven't heard about any of them.
  - navigatr 7y ago
    They get bought out frequently. Juno is big in the NYC metro area that covers a lot of North Jersey. Curb, Via, and Gett also operate there.
greenyoda 7y ago
> make an example out of NJ If Uber left, it would look more like NJ made an example out of Uber. Other states would see NJ's success in beating down Uber, and might be inspired to tighten their own labor law enforcement. Also, Uber would be leaving behind a very lucrative market in NJ: it's the 11th most populous state, 3rd highest in income,[1] and a large part of its population is in the NYC metro area (high population density, lots of rides to commuter trains, etc.). [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/New_Jersey
deadmetheny 7y ago
"We should just let corporations do whatever they want"
- lend000 7y ago
  I wonder how many people have this opinion just to stick it to "the man" -- seems like most of the anti-Uber HN crowd does not actually drive for Uber, but nonetheless express a passionate hatred for their business model.

wnevets 7y ago

or they could just follow the law?

username90 7y ago
In 2015 Uber made 9 million rides in New Jersey, and the article said they were ordered to pay $50M in employment taxes in that year, so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes. I don't think the drivers would want this. In order to make the taxes not ridiculous Uber would be forced to start declining people who want to start riding, you'd have job interviews with an application process ensuring that the driver is going to be worth the significant employee tax, since a driver only driving a single time will cost them significant amounts. That is how normal businesses do this, and I think it would be a huge loss. The ability for anyone to just start driving for Uber with no questions asked is extremely progressive, not sure why anyone is trying to ruin that. I don't understand why people think that making money needs to be so controlled like it is today. Source on number of rides in New Jersey: https://eu.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/11/12/uber-nj-rides/75605804/ https://eu.app.com/story/news/traffic/commuting/2015/11/12/u...
- wnevets 7y ago
  > so drivers would be forced to give up $6 per ride extra in taxes. how is this different than anyone else who has to work in the state? You can replace drivers with almost any other job. Why should uber drivers get special treatment when its comes to paying taxes?

atonse 7y ago

That's ok. They're welcome to pull out. But they won't. Time and time again we see that business rather just raise their fares and make money than pull out of large markets. They are after all money-driven.

kazen44 7y ago
The brussels effect[1] is a good argument for this. People said the same thing with GDPR, labour laws and enviromental laws. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Brussels_effect
- atonse 7y ago
  Wow this (and the similar California effect) are a great name for exactly the "feeling" I was talking about. I'll use this from now on. Thanks. California's done this with emissions.
mtnGoat 7y ago
as long as there is a penny to be made, someone will make it. If Uber leaves another will fill the gap. I don't feel that regulation generally stifles business, only margins.

throwawayhhakdl 7y ago

I don’t know why this is downvoted so much. If the state wins, Uber will absolutely have to either pull out or raise fares. And I would think pulling out might make more sense because the difficulty of accounting for some drivers as employees and some as contractors would be extremely punishing.