37 ms·

Uber CEO says its service will probably shut down temporarily in California

• ocdtrekkie 6y ago
  Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.
  • TuringNYC 6y ago
    I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal.
    • akiselev 6y ago
      > Where is the line? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. 40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. > The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how the tax burden is split, and on and on.
      • gruez 6y ago
        >40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act. So uber can avoid this requirement by only allowing drivers to work for 40/30 hours per week?
        • ianlevesque 6y ago
          I see you’re familiar with retail jobs.
        • Shebanator 6y ago
          Well, yes and no. They can avoid healthcare requirements by not allowing people to work 30+ hours per week (as Walmart and MacDonalds often do), but that doesn't get rid of their other obligations to employees (disability, unemployment, social security, payroll tax, etc.). They already provide these services for their non-driver employees, so the issue here is purely cost.
    • gamblor956 6y ago
      The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it. Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.
      • TuringNYC 6y ago
        Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.
        • Shebanator 6y ago
          California has seriously discussed doing exactly that. But given the situation in DC, it is likely that they would be actively sabotaged by the federal government if they tried. So much for "states rights"....
        • gamblor956 6y ago
          They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system. However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all taxpayers (including employers), which would spread out the costs more.
          • chrisco255 6y ago
            Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-left-california-last-year-vs-arrived-a-38-jump/ https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?
    • mrlala 6y ago
      >The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. Because that's the way the stupid system currently works? So it's both- Uber should be forced to work in the current confines of the system, and there should be questions like national healthcare >If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal. As others has said, it's not just healthcare.. payroll taxes, other benefits etc.. Uber is basically trying to avoid all of this by pretending that 100% of their workforce are "contractors" even though many work 40+ hours a week like a normal employee.
    • dehrmann 6y ago
      > ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.
      • thewebcount 6y ago
        No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
        • jquery 6y ago
          If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities. Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn cash whenever we feel like it. EDIT: To a reply saying I don’t understand how fast food restaurants operate, I certainly do, I’ve worked fast food in my life. While they certainly try to be flexible, you can’t just decide to show up approximately “whenever you feel like it.” The closest approximation to that is to only have 4 hours a week regularly scheduled (otherwise they can’t call you an employee), and then you call in whenever you feel like working to see if they need help (often they will say “yes” but sometimes they will say “no”). However, this arrangement only works once you have enough experience that you can come in and basically work any position in the restaurant, and it’s not something that can be scaled to every worker at the restaurant.
          • cool_dude85 6y ago
            Luckily for Uber, if they don't want their new employees working for Lyft while they're on the clock, they can make it a condition of employment. Bingo bongo, problem solved.
    • tzs 6y ago
      > I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. > Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. I wonder if there is a reason it could't work like this: • If you work N hours in a week for employer X, where N meets the benefit threshold, T, for some type of benefit, the employer has to provide that benefit. • If N does not meet that threshold, the employer has to make a payment of N/T x C to the State, where C is the weekly cost for the person to pay for that benefit themselves. • The State keeps track of these payments on a per worker basis and works with the benefit providers to use them as a subsidy on the worker's cost to buy the benefit. For example, for health insurance, if Bob drove 40 hours a week for Uber, Uber would have to offer Bob the same health insurance they provide their full time employees. If Bob only drives 10 hours a week for Uber, delivers food for Grubhub 15 hours a week, and does 10 hours waiting tables at a cafe, none of those would have to provide health insurance, because the threshold is 30 hours. But Uber would have to contribue 1/3 C, Grubhub 1/2 C, and the cafe 1/3 C to the State for Bob's health insurance. That would be enough to cover Bob getting health insurance on his state's ACA market. It would actually be more than enough. If the excess carries over to be used in weeks when Bob works less than 30 hours total, then as long as Bob averages 30 hours of work a week, he has health insurance.
  • sjroot 6y ago
    Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
    • DiffEq 6y ago
      And also sounds great for those that now have to wait for an hour+ for a taxi or maybe not have a ride at all.
      • dclusin 6y ago
        This was the killer feature for those too young to remember a life before Uber. Back when I used to drink at bars it was so frustrating to call different cab companies and have them all say they're "5 minutes away." I felt and continue to feel no sorrow for those cab companies that Uber decimated.
        • thruhiker 6y ago
          I also remember the extremely poor customer service provided by taxi cabs. Dirty cars, rude drivers who acted as if they were doing you a favor instead of engaging in a business transaction. The taxi cartels are no better than Uber and Lyft corporations for sure.
          • maxk42 6y ago
            Let's not forget the outrageous prices.
            • ghaff 6y ago
              Right. Because taxis don't typically operate at a loss. Whether it's laws like the ones in California or it's just Uber and Lyft having to be profitable, I have little doubt that you'll see large price increases. I actually don't really understand why they haven't just bitten the bullet and done so before now.
        • JamesBarney 6y ago
  • trixie_ 6y ago
    Dangerously simplistic viewpoint assuming laws are good and the outcomes of those laws are fair. I'm sure if there was a law personally affecting you negatively you wouldn't feel the same way.
    • TrackerFF 6y ago
      Don't like the laws? Campaign to get them changed. Until that - follow the laws. It's pretty simple. The "startups should bend laws because the laws suck" mantra is equally simplistic and immature (not pointing at you, but it's been thrown around A LOT in this sector)
  • apta 6y ago
    Not unless the law is broken.
  • carierx1 6y ago
    They were operating with the law. The law was arbitrarily changed to screw Uber. Can't believe so many here don't see this.
  • tathougies 6y ago
    One can question whether the law should exist without claiming that uber should violate the current law. Indeed, the content of the law seems bad.
• xiaolingxiao 6y ago
  Could this be posturing to get the state to back down on the enforcement of its decision? And does anyone have a guess if Uber is making money in California right now? Given the state is still in lock down.
  • ivraatiems 6y ago
    I think that's exactly what it is. It's a signal to the state saying "we're gonna lay off a bunch of people and blame you for it if you do this." I'm confident Uber is capable of doing complex things quickly when it is in Uber's interests to do so.
    • chrisseaton 6y ago
      You can't 'lay off' people you don't employ in the first place.
      • ivraatiems 6y ago
        Like the State of California, I reject your premise that Uber drivers are not employees. But what would you call it, and how does that change the argument about why they're doing this?
        • ApolloFortyNine 6y ago
          Honestly, how do you expect Uber to, overnight, suddenly change their entire business model, and interview and choose who to hire on full time? And this is in addition to determining benefits, over time, managing those new employees, etc etc. There is so much that needs to be changed for this to happen, it would be more shocking if Uber didn't shut down.
          • ivraatiems 6y ago
            I think they could do it if they wanted to. Uber has over 22,000 employees [1]. They have HR professionals whose whole job is managing those employees. And they have billions of dollars available to do whatever they need to. If they wanted to make every driver in California a W-2 employee, I am confident they could do it as quickly as they wanted. And the court wouldn't make them immediately stop. They wouldn't need to shut down. They just need to begin transitioning. Courts are generally reasonable. They'll understand changes take time. Shutting down is entirely their way of giving the finger to California for making them do something they didn't want to do. [1] https://www.uber.com/newsroom/company-info/ https://www.uber.com/newsroom/company-info/
• merpnderp 6y ago
  Want to be free to have a random part-time gig you can pick up whenever you want? Nope, do-gooders are going to do-good you into a wage slave job like everyone else.
  • XMPPwocky 6y ago
    Tragically, the state has also taken away my right to sell my kidneys for money, just trying to "protect" me. I'm an adult, if I want the money isn't it strictly better than I have the freedom to cash in on my human resources?
    • lghh 6y ago
      > I'm an adult, if I want the money isn't it strictly better than I have the freedom to cash in on my human resources? Yes.
      • typest 6y ago
        To add onto this —- living with only one kidney rather than two only barely increases your risk of dying, and many people each year die due to lack of kidneys. So, creating a market here (regulated of course) would save a lot of lives.
        • huntertwo 6y ago
          To further add on, I doubt rich people die because of lack of kidneys and I think they'd be the only ones to benefit from that.
          • creddit 6y ago
            You can tell that to my Aunt whose husband died because he couldn’t get a kidney. They would’ve gladly paid $100K and worked a couple more years before retiring if he could’ve lived.
        • missedthecue 6y ago
• topicseed 6y ago
  Isn't this a strategy from Uber to get the people of California to vote for the most Uber-supporting candidate in the next election?
• stephencoyner 6y ago
  “If the appeal doesn’t work out for Uber, it will be banking on voters to determine its fate. Khosrowshahi said if that’s the case, the service would likely shut down in California until November, when voters in the state decide on Proposition 22, which would exempt drivers for app-based transportation and delivery companies from being considered employees.” It’ll be REALLY interesting to watch this all unfold.
• drtillberg 6y ago
  Golden opportunity for the taxicab industry to get its act together and compete on a semi-level playing field.
  • temp667 6y ago
    The corruption here is incredible - the taxi cab industry had insurance of like $20K per accident (talk to the women who got brain damage), would never pickup in bad areas AND paid their workers as.... independent contractors!! You think your taxi driver is a W2 employee - please think again. The number of carve outs in this new "principled" rule is incredible, and more industries keep asking for them (freelance writers, gig musicians etc). Laws should ideally be broadly and equally applied, not this here is the rule except for a, then b, then c,d,e depending on who can lobby in their exceptions. Pathetic.
    • spamizbad 6y ago
      Sadly I've noticed Uber drivers have a system to avoid nasty area pickups (but they can't do that with drop-offs). It seems like given enough time the ridesharing industry is adopting all the bad habits of the Taxi industry.
      • temp667 6y ago
        Not as good a system as cabs did. Especially with uber black I got picked up in very very tough areas in a prior job/career. Cabs didn't come period.
    • troydavis 6y ago
      > You think your taxi driver is a W2 employee - please think again. Indeed, the "We should return to taxicabs" argument reminds me of a Mozilla employee's comment where they called out how much different people's expectations are of Chrome & Google, than of Firefox & Mozilla: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24122017 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24122017. Yes, many things are wrong with gig driving.. but driving a taxi meant either making very little (renting the cab & medallion) or incurring an incredible debt load to buy a medallion. Medallions/arbitrary exclusivity isn't going to solve the pay problem (let alone deliver the service that riders now expect), and the taxi industry still won't let medallions die.
• djohnston 6y ago
  if ridesharing leaves cali politicians will be skewered
  • dvfjsdhgfv 6y ago
    This is what Uber wants them to think so that they get scared and drop it.
    • djohnston 6y ago
      i agree, it is a tactic from uber's perspective, but it's also a reality regardless of uber's strategy
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
• jacobn 6y ago
  We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.
  • throw_m239339 6y ago
    > We’re legally unequipped to deal well with gig workers. Yes we are equipped to deal well with gig workers, it's just that Uber doesn't want to play by the rules and want to have it both ways. Let drivers set their own fare, for starter. "Gig workers" aren't a new category of workers just because you use some corporate newspeak to describe these workers.
    • JumpCrisscross 6y ago
      > Let drivers set their own fare, for starter Uber has allowed this since June [1]. [1] https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
      • frenchman99 6y ago
        Looking at this page, it seems like they can't set their fares, but only a "fare multiplier", so effectively, Uber still decides.
        • thinkharderdev 6y ago
          Are there any restrictions on what the multiplier can be? If not then they can effectively set the fare. The "standard" fare is $X per mile and I want $Y per mile. I just set the multiplier to Y/X
          • icebraining 6y ago
            They say the "fare multiplier can range from 0.5x to 5.0x in increments of 0.1". Not fully free, but being able to set over 5x the regular price seems mostly academic.
• deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
• komali2 6y ago
  Why would they bank on voters? Do they really think people are going to vote against driver protections in california?
  • chourobin 6y ago
    yes
  • justinzollars 6y ago
    How about consumer protections? "Driver protections" are the reason we have Uber and Lyft to begin with. Cab companies were very well regulated and paid. But the service sucked. I was hung out to dry in areas of San Francisco in 2009 - where cabs would simply not come because it was inconvenient for them.
  • kart23 6y ago
    Uber has a lot of power here. They have the ability to speak directly to millions of young people, and explain the issue to their advantage and ensure the vote goes their way and the only issue the people will see is that they are no longer allowed to take uber, and will vote to get that back.
  • paxys 6y ago
    After 3 months without Uber/Lyft - yes, they definitely will.
  • s1artibartfast 6y ago
    Sure, I will vote against it. Hopefully it will be the first step in scrapping AB5 entirely.
• ghaff 6y ago
  Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement
  • XMPPwocky 6y ago
    Which is, of course, something Uber's done several times before. It's hardly cynical.
    • ianleeclark 6y ago
      I lived through this in Austin. It's happening again.
      • function_seven 6y ago
        Doesn't Austin have a local rideshare service that's popular? I thought I remembered them filling the void created when Uber left.
        • miscaccount 6y ago
          its closed now https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/2020/06/12/rideaustin-shuts-down-operations/ https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/20...
        • chrisco255 6y ago
          There were 2 or 3, but they weren't even half as good as either Lyft or Uber. The rides were more expensive and took longer to route for pick up.
          • learc83 6y ago
            Were the rides more expensive because they weren’t using unsustainable VC money to subsidize fares?
• bryanlarsen 6y ago
  If a ridesharing platform can't classify drivers as contractors for legal reason, and if they can't classify drivers as employees for business reasons[1], can they classify drivers as owners? It's certainly legal for small businesses not to pay reasonable wages or benefits to their owners. This ruling may give a substantial advantage to a ride-sharing service structured as a worker's co-operative. That'd be awesome, IMO. 1: this is a very big if
  • psoots 6y ago
    I don't know if there is a platform co-op specifically for ride-sharing yet, but it's not out of the question. https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2018/01/04/the-platform-co-op-is-coming-for-uber/ https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2018/01/04/the-platform-... The problem is that the co-operative model is not successfully funded in the initial phases. There is little infrastructure for worker-owned businesses in this country. There is little guidance for getting investment and start-up capital when the overall aim is to primarily put profits into owners' hands and not investors'. We need a government that supports these efforts first. A good first step would be to pass first-right-of-refusal laws.
• dreamcompiler 6y ago
  There is zero barrier to entry for a rideshare service. (Just ask the city of Austin.) Absent COVID, competitors would be coming out of the woodwork to supply this market with fairly-paid drivers. That means the cost of a ride will double, but that simply means we'll be paying taxicab rates for much better service than taxis provided in the past. We've known all along that Uber's prices were too low to be sustainable anyway.
  • carljv 6y ago
    This. During the period where Uber and Lyft weren't operating in Austin, there were several local alternatives that popped up right away, worked just fine, operated within local regs, and that I honestly preferred service-wise. If Austin can do it, I bet California can.
    • nrmitchi 6y ago
      Yes, but after that Uber and Lyft aggressively drove those local alternatives out of business by giving effectively-free rides for the next couple of months. The majority of my rides around the downtown area during that time cost me _maybe_ a few dollars out of pocket. That is if I even paid at all, vs using "credit" which seemed to be arbitrarily added to my account. It is illogical to start up a new business when it is more than likely that the previous incumbent will just come back in X number of months and operate at a loss until you're gone.
      • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
        Should be illegal
  • secretasiandan 6y ago
    Have unicorns created an implicit threat of gambler's ruin with Uber taking the role of the house in this instance? Let's call it "startup's ruin".
  • ars 6y ago
    > Just ask the city of Austin. https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/2020/06/12/rideaustin-shuts-down-operations/ https://communityimpact.com/austin/central-austin/impacts/20... "RideAustin shuts down operations" "Other ride-hailing companies that entered the market in 2016 have also since suspended their operations in Austin. Fasten ceased its U.S. operations in 2018, and Fare closed in June 2017."
• catsarebetter 6y ago
  So basically, Lyft wins in CA? Ubers out and Lyft will comply and can finally raise the prices on rides however they want. Am I missing something?
  • nwallin 6y ago
    Lyft is also a target of this injunction. It isn't clear yet that Lyft will begin complying with AB5.
    • justinzollars 6y ago
      Margins are already negative. How can they possibly afford to?
      • nwallin 6y ago
        I don't know. Financials aside, I don't even know what this is supposed to look like from an organizational perspective. IMHO the biggest problem Lyft and Uber are facing is not an increase in cost, it's a reduction in flexibility. You can't afford to pay extra people to sit there on the clock if there's no demand. (plenty of drivers turn the app on in their house and go about their regular day, maybe only getting 1-2 rides in between eight hours of playing video games) Do you forcibly clock people out? You now have to be really careful about the 40 hours. You definitely can't afford to pay people overtime, and for all intents and purposes you can't allow people to work enough hours to constitute "full time" either. So if someone hits 35 hours or whatever, you have to clock them out. How do you handle drivers who turn down lots of rides? You have to fire them I suppose? This is not a problem you can just throw money at. I'm glad I'm not a product manager at Lyft/Uber right now. I'm not convinced it's possible to operate in California anymore.
        • catsarebetter 6y ago
          I guess another thing is that a lot of uber drivers could get fired b/c of just cost and the ones that stay on full-time are going to get thrashed around with little choice in what rides they want to pick. Yeah, this is a huge mess, it kind of makes sense why they choose to fight in legal battles in the past, it's just easier than figuring this out from a product perspective.
• paulcnichols 6y ago
  Decoupling “benefits” like healthcare and retirement from employment is the real issue. Should be a government responsibility, given out equally, paid for by taxes.
  • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    The people who are against this are also against universal healthcare and generally against things like social security. They just want to take, and take, and take, and take. They never want to give.
  • asdff 6y ago
    We already have social security and medicare. The problem is that we refuse to expand these excellent social programs, opt to hobble them, and then point out how bad they are after we've bled them out. The American way.
  • cwkoss 6y ago
    88% of democratic voters (and 68% of independents) support Medicare for All, yet inexplicably DNC leadership voted against including in the 2020 party platform. https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-poll-69-percent-of-voters-support-medicare-for-all https://thehill.com/hilltv/what-americas-thinking/494602-pol...
• ekianjo 6y ago
  > Uber has argued its drivers prefer working as independent contractors, though California AG Xavier Becerra rejected that claim as a "bogus argument." The link on the "California AG Xavier Becerra" is a google search link instead of CNBC's actual article. A mistake?
• ekianjo 6y ago
  > "What worker doesn't want to have access to paid sick leave?" Becerra said. "What worker doesn't want to have unemployment insurance at a time of Covid-19 crisis? What worker doesn't want to know that they'll get paid for overtime if they work 60 hours in a week or 12 hours in a day?" Since when are we reasoning about workers starting from what they want? If we go by that reasoning, "What worker does not want to be paid 3 trillion dollars per year?". Work only exists in a narrow space between a consumer and a service. Increase the costs of running the service, and you don't have work anymore. That's not very hard to understand.
  • criddell 6y ago
    Change want to deserve and I think you'll get the idea. A service that can only exist if workers are denied basics probably shouldn't exist.
    • jquery 6y ago
      Uber doesn’t “deny basics” any more than I deny basics when I hire a plumber and pay the plumber in cash instead of hiring them on as an employee. EDIT: Uber isn’t the “plumbing company”. It’s a marketplace for transportation solutions, and accepts job offers and then sends the jobs out to contractors who have indicated they are interested in accepting such jobs. This isn’t just a “polite fiction”, this is fundamentally how Uber operates, and why they are shutting down in California. AB5 is a terrible law and I hope it is reversed or carved out to uselessness. I see it as a net negative for the economy, and especially for the workers who will now be receiving zero supplemental income during these tough times. Uber drivers are not employees of Uber.
      • rfw300 6y ago
        You’ve got the wrong side of the analogy. You hiring the plumber makes you the rider in this analogy. The plumbing company is Uber. AB5 says that the plumbing company can’t just hire the plumber as an independent contractor every time your toilet breaks and send them to you to avoid giving them employee benefits.
• schalab 6y ago
  Just make the whole service distributed. Cut out Uber. Connect me directly to a driver through open source software. Person A exists who is willing to drive from point a to point b for x price. I am willing to pay x price. An open source software exists to connect us both in real time. Who will the government regulate in this scenario?
  • deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  • staticautomatic 6y ago
    Then you’ll be limos.com in real time.
  • 8jy89hui 6y ago
    I think that you’re underestimating just how much infrastructure goes into running something like Uber. A friend of mine does ML work at Grab (South East asia ride hailing company) and the amount of data processing that goes into getting a good fast and cheap ride is incredible. It might be possible to somehow distribute it and pay people at home for spare compute time, but it would still run into latency and spike problems.
  • ryanbrunner 6y ago
    If this existed, there would be a much stronger case for the drivers being independent contractors. Uber employees are employees specifically because Uber dictates most aspects surrounding their work outside of their hours.
  • apta 6y ago
    And this magical "open source software" will come into existence on its own, and not cost anything to maintain or run I presume eh?
  • paxys 6y ago
    Putting aside open vs closed source, what is the difference between Uber and the new service you are describing?
• KKKKkkkk1 6y ago
  The Uber situation seems to be echoing the deregulation of the CA energy market [0]. First, hopes of new efficiencies through unleashed market forces, then bad-faith actors (Enron), then clusterfuck, then taxpayers left worse off. [0] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_electricity_crisis
• skapadia 6y ago
  I don't know what kind of background checks and interviewing (if any) Uber drivers have to currently go through (beyond having a valid driver's license and good driving history?), but if I'm hiring someone as a full time employee, you better believe I'm going to be more rigorous and it will cost me more, and that will limit the number of available Uber drivers IMO, or the number Uber will allow to work for 40+ hours. In turn that lowers supply, driving up Uber prices even further. I don't know how this makes sense overall. If a driver chooses to Uber as their primary (or sole) source of income, that's their choice. Do drivers that hustle more for Uber get a larger cut? (I think that's fair). This is not about Uber, but about how a government can force something on a business model. Something seems off about forcing a company that created massive opportunity for people in the first place. (I am in no way supporting Uber because I think their leadership and culture have very questionable ethics). How much more are local, state, and federal governments going to reap from taxes once drivers are classified as full time employees?
  • Aeolun 6y ago
    > If a driver chooses to Uber as their primary (or sole) source of income, that's their choice. Government partially exists to protect people against themselves.
    • x3n0ph3n3 6y ago
      That's a rather contentious statement. Many would say it is solely to protect people from each other and outside forces.
  • darkwizard42 6y ago
    Uber (& Lyft) run extensive background checks at the state and federal level and are regulated to do so at the city, county, state level depending on the city. It's actually already a pretty expensive process and overall the company eats the cost for all of it (as one should expect). For the number of drivers who are 40+ hours, thats <15% of the driving population and so if this kind of law sticks it definitely greatly impacts who will be able to work for Uber and for Uber to still make money off that. Overall it's a mess, AB5 is a poorly written law :/
• brooklyndude 6y ago
  Just an update from an old guy. From my favorite capitalist, an oil futures trader on WS: Between 9:30-4:00 I’d kill my own mother to make a dime a trade. Kill my own fucking mother. Do we seriously think Uber would not slash wages to shit, deny healthcare, work drivers till they dropped, and then killed someone’s mother if they could make a dime and get away with it? People seriously believe they would not do that unless someone (AKA The State) does not stop them? I’ve worked in corporate America, they would kill you for a nickel if it could lift their stock price. Welcome to the “system.” Now back to work! Your boss has their eye on a new house. And YOU are going make sure they have that downpayment. :-)
  • r29vzg2 6y ago
    That’s a very cynical view. What about You and I who also have a down payment and a mortgage? You can argue that Uber was exploiting workers, but at the same time, none of them were forced to work. All made a free choice. And now “The State” has essentially legislated them out of their jobs. The State has literally said, “you’re too stupid to realize you’re being taken advantage of, so you can’t work this job”. I’d say that “The State” is far more of a problem here than Uber.
    • chillacy 6y ago
      I definitely agree with you on this issue, but want to point out that "free choice" can lead to suboptimal outcomes. Here's an excerpt by Singer: > Suppose I live in the suburbs and work in the city. I could drive my car to work, or take the bus. I prefer not to wait around for the bus, and so I take my car. Fifty thousand other people living in my suburb face the same choice and make the same decision. The road to town is choked with cars. It takes each of us an hour to travel ten miles. In this situation, according to the liberal conception of freedom, we have all chosen freely. Yet the outcome is something none of us want. If we all went by bus, the roads would be empty and we could cover the distance in twenty minutes. Even with the inconvenience of waiting at the bus stop, we would all prefer that. We are, of course, free to alter our choice of transportation, but what can we do? While so many cars slow the bus down, why should any individual choose differently? The liberal conception of freedom has led to a paradox: we have each chosen in our own interests, but the result is in no one’s interest. Individual rationality, collective irrationality… Taken from https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-marx/ https://slatestarcodex.com/2014/09/13/book-review-singer-on-...
• justinzollars 6y ago
  I recommend reading the book Atlas Shrugged by Ayn Rand. California will attack and attack and attack because those in government believes they are morally superior. The only way they will learn is when Capitalists fight back by "turning off the engine of the world". Who is John Galt?
  • chillacy 6y ago
    In case someone actually wants to read Atlas Shrugged, I did actually read it. It's a fictional world where the strawmen business people are happen to always be good and moral, and are oppressed by the strawman government people who are bad and greedy. Also the author occasionally has her characters go on multi-page speeches, for instance about how we ought to be using gold for currency. In case it's not clear, Atlas Shrugged is a piece of fiction and using it to draw parallels to reality is like saying "I recommend watching Disney's The Lion King. Zoos keep hogs apart from lions because they think they can't get along". As a sidenote to balance my scathing review, I rather liked one of her earlier novels, Fountainhead. If you want to read an Ayn Rand novel I'd go for that one, as it's more about a type of "rugged individualism" than an economic system. It directly grapples at the question of the nature of invention/innovation: whether as a product of individual genius or standing on the shoulder of giants. Obviously the novel has an answer but it's not exactly a solved question in real life, and at least some of Ellsworth Toohey's quotes aren't half bad.
    • justinzollars 6y ago
      Francisco D'Anconia's Money Speech - Atlas Shrugged (poor quality): https://youtu.be/u-T0ey0IKDA https://youtu.be/u-T0ey0IKDA
      • chillacy 6y ago
        I recall reading that. It's all very true, but it also glosses over the fact that some people acquire money through regulatory capture, violent crime, inheritance, etc, etc. I think capitalism is the best system we have, but Atlas Shrugged espouses a rosy picture of anarcho-capitalism like Marx espouses a rosy picture of anarcho-communism that doesn't work when real humans come into play. I've come to believe that having market forces bring out the best in society is a state of constant work to cultivate those forces in a human direction.
• jamesliudotcc 6y ago
  I mean, consider the alternative, which is how taxis used to work. Investors like Gene Friedman would own fleets of medallions, and drivers would rent the medallioned cars. Or drivers would own their own medallion. Definitely, for sure, the drivers were not employees. One big difference was that there were no big public companies to sue. In Chicago, clever class action lawyers tried suing the city, since they set all of the standards that are the basis of the employee/contractor distinction. It got up to the 7th Circuit, where Posner wrote an an opinion that went basically "uh, no."
• namesbc 6y ago
  I'm sure both Uber and Lyft have contingency plans to quickly hire drivers as employees. It is more they don't want to switch to the employee model and then back again if the Prop passes
• hbarka 6y ago
  Can we talk about the upside of being a contractor? It takes more effort to keep tabs of what you do but there are many benefits to being a single person entity. I believe lack of education about being an LLC or incorporated entrepreneur or maybe the high bar of understanding its benefits contributed to the opinion that being W2 for Uber is much better.
• pininja 6y ago
  I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and backend balance rules) Now every dollar coming in seems to very clearly go from rider to driver. - removed upfront pricing in California and once again charging riders the precise trip amount based on time and distance. [0] [2] - A new driver incentive was released too tied to purchasing the service fee at a lower rate [3] (since every dollar is supposed to flow clearly from the price breakdown) - “Favorite Driver Feature”, so even if they set higher fares, riders will be able to request one of their favorite drivers if they’re nearby [2] These seemed primarily to try to address the flexibility evaluated by “Prong A” of AB5, however some public experts were concerned it wouldn’t address “Prong B”, which requires the “drivers’ work is outside ‘the usual course of the company’s business,’” [0]. This might have been where the judge focused their ruling. Other companies didn’t make changes for drivers, “Lyft [also afaik Postmates, and DoorDash] continues to operate as if it’s business as usual.” [0] [0] https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-03/uber-ab5-driver-app https://www.latimes.com/business/technology/story/2020-02-03... [1] https://therideshareguy.com/set-your-own-rates-uber-feature/ https://therideshareguy.com/set-your-own-rates-uber-feature/ [2] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-rolling-out-new-driver-features/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-rolling-out-new-driver-feat... [3] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-drive-pass/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-drive-pass/
  • mtnGoat 6y ago
    i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.
    • chucknthem 6y ago
      Former Uber employee here...unfortunately many of those changes either made rider experience worse or made the marketplace less efficient. Lyft gained share as a result of these changes. At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a better legal framework for gig workers until self driving technology catches up. Its best hope to make it work (and what Uber is lobbying for) is a third 'worker' classification between contractor and employee like what the UK has.
• jonathanlydall 6y ago
  Regardless on where one stands in regards to the issue of whether or not gig workers should be employees, I don’t see how anyone could see Uber’s choice of action here as anything other than malicious obedience. The court proceedings have been going on for a very long time, and now, only on practically the eve of the ruling becoming effective, do they start making plans for it?
• dominotw 6y ago
  i had this question on the other thread, If uber drivers are employees can they still 'decline' a ride? Employees aren't free to decline work that their boss assigns them.
• ashtonkem 6y ago
  Couldn't pick a less impactful time to shut down if they tried. I'm personally not using Uber right now because I have nowhere to go; I literally won't miss them.
• maerF0x0 6y ago
  I used to use a service called car2go in previous cities I lived in. It was extremely convenient and approximately as expensive as Uber. Car2go dealt with all of vehicle asset, maintenance, gas, insurance, parking. IMO paying someone to drive you around is just inefficient when you can easily do it yourself (though lack the vehicle). This is the wall that uber is running up against and is now trying to skirt regulation in order to cut costs.
  • maerF0x0 6y ago
    Edit: looks like it's been shutdown and is now https://www.share-now.com/ https://www.share-now.com/
• horizontech-dev 6y ago
  wondering does the same law applicable to Instacart, Postmates etc..?
• goldenManatee 6y ago
  They’re protesting. Shocker. Not surprising, given their business model is built on taking advantage of their drivers working themselves and their vehicles into the bone. They did not design their company to equitably distribute the share of profit and productivity gains, they are an extractive company.
• hartator 6y ago
  Why the burden of drivers being an employee fall on Uber and not the driver? One can argue that there is just a marketplace and a payment processor, the actual "management, directions, and compensation" are determined by the rider.
• sjg007 6y ago
  Seems like a good opportunity for a pure market exchange solution. Just have a service that lets drivers charge a flat fee or maybe use taxi rates... then take a cut.
• thedogeye 6y ago
  If drivers are employees they can only work for one service, which for most of them will be Uber since they'll have the most demand. This law should be really good for Uber, terrible for its smaller competitors.
  • thinkharderdev 6y ago
    I was wondering about this too. Most Uber/Lyft drivers in my area drive for both services but it seems like they could prevent people from doing that as part of a formal employment contract (I'm guessing IANAL).
• 12xo 6y ago
  Taxi drivers are almost always 1099 as well... So have they basically killed on call transportation for CA?
• nouveau0 6y ago
  Translation: We're pouting until we get what we want
• throwmamatrain 6y ago
  A couple points here: Uber/Lyft are 100% better than taxi services in every way. You might get a bad driver, but I've never had a bottle of piss hit me in the feet in a ride share. Also, try not paying cash in a Philadelphia taxi. I've had a wheel fall off a cab while I was in it, zero recourse. Rear ended accident, same. Told to pound sand with the PPA. Anecdata, sure, but about ten years of it. Taxis still exist, with no benefits, still pulling 60+ hours, as an entrenched monopoly via medallion systems. This is sort of a from of driver share cropping, and is equally if not more exploitative. If CA wanted to regulate it, they could use the data from ride shares and create limits etc. Instead, they're going to put them to pasture. As for them operating illegally, it is a better system and more efficient than cab services. Sharing rides alone is a multiplier for gas, and app routing is a better system that taxis refused to implement for the longest time, "getting lost" to pump up fares. If taxis disappeared tomorrow, I would shed zero tears. Is uber a good company? No, they are a giant capital fueled destroyer. They went toe to toe with entrenched cabs and made some changes. Maybe that's what it takes in a hypercapitalist society, I don't know. I used cabs for a decade coming home from an interstate train commute and would never use one again. I'd rather take the bus, and in Philly that's saying something. Hope we see more innovation in this space, if not Uber or Lyft, something.
• rainyMammoth 6y ago
  And once again, Uber is trying to socialize the losses and privatize the profits. We should all be shocked by this company losing billions a quarter but still paying its execs and (initial) shareholders way above what they produce. The difference here is that by having drivers as contractor, Uber is making us ALL pay social security, medicare etc for the drivers [1] . Uber should fail as it has proven numerous time that its business model simply doesn't work at scale. I will say it once more but there was a good reason why taxis were expensive... I find it embarrassing that so many urbanites, socialites, and other coastal elites got tricked into rooting for Uber's success by getting artificially cheap rides. Also, Uber is losing billions each quarter with no clear view on ever being profitable. Why is that stock still so high? [1]: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/12/16/is-uber-cheating-on-social-securityfica-taxes/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ebauer/2019/12/16/is-uber-cheat...
• Grimm1 6y ago
  Uber has generally seemed like a net benefit and I've taken a lot of rides (hundreds to low thousand) and have generally conversed with most of the drivers I've had and the gig work has been beneficial to them, they make a decent standard of living for a HCOL area enough for a family and get to set their own hours. Hard pass on regulation like this and good to see Uber push back with the levers they have. I will add that some regulation would probably be beneficial but not this one in particular.
  • dangus 6y ago
    You can set your own hours with W2 employment. There’s nothing that says that Uber can’t give their W2 employees that flexibility. They could hire W2 employees right through the app, there is no technical barrier. Uber just wants to avoid their fair share of payroll taxes and employee health regulations that their upper caste office employees enjoy. They want to provide benefits to some employees but not all, purely based on their job description. I bet your ridesharing gig worker friends you know would love no longer covering the full payroll tax bill, and they’d love to be covered with workers compensation if they got into a car accident while driving for Uber. If companies don’t want to pay for healthcare and benefits anymore, maybe they should start putting their lobbying efforts toward making healthcare paid through tax revenue rather than through the inequality and inefficiency of employer subsidy and for-profit private insurance companies.
    • Grimm1 6y ago
      You're only partially correct I as a salaried employee could technically set my own hours but If my employer pinged me at 2am and asked me to do something and I said no I wouldn't have recourse if they fired me. If I'm a contractor I can set those hours in the agreement with the company with legal backing if I then refuse to work during hours I've said I do not wish to work. But you're debating regulation in general and I'm specifically arguing AB5 is overly restrictive. Edit: I can clarify as well, it may very well be the case they are employees but this isn't the regulation to do it because it is actively harming workers in multiple industries besides ride sharing.
• cityzen 6y ago
  "I Am the C.E.O. of Uber. Gig Workers Deserve Better." what an absolute coward.
• slicebo123 6y ago
  Civic safety nets should be the responsibility of duly elected governments. Pushing health care, sick leave, etc., onto businesses is so backwards. Our body politic wants all these protections but can't muster the will to do it "properly". I see this as "pass a law, and make it someone else's problem".
  • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    > Our body politic wants all these protections but can't muster the will to do it "properly". This simply isn't true - one party runs on being against all of these policies.
• jeffrallen 6y ago
  Good riddance.
• arrty88 6y ago
  Big question for the room - are current taxi drivers W2 or 1099?
  • s1artibartfast 6y ago
    They are generally 1099 contractors, which have been reclassified as employees under AB5. In addition, they often have to rent their cars from the shop and pay the city for medallions to operate.
• tathougies 6y ago
  Uber, lyft, and related services have single handedly saved lives by reducing the drunk driving rate in California. Moreover, they have kept many cars off the road. Previously, it was impossible to have a night out responsibly, or for people without cars to get around. Now, with uber and lyft, California finally became somewhat more liveable. Good to see the state deciding to make things worse.
• rrrazdan 6y ago
  Well this just sucks. As a frequent SF visitor, Uber/Lyft used to be my primary way of moving around. I don't drive. I also don't see who benefits from this. You had a well functioning service for the users that will be disrupted. You had a flexible way to earn for drivers that will be disrupted. I chat with drivers a lot (to practise my English) and lots of drivers really like chatting too ( A lot of them were recent immigrants as well and perhaps like to practise their English with a non native). Many drivers were doing this as a part time thing. Or doing this before they went on to better things. One for example was studying Architecture. I have even had a Porsche pick me up and the driver just wanted to get out of his house. A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense.
  • Daishiman 6y ago
    Society didn't fail if it turns out that the externalities caused by cheap rides go above the tally of what you're paying for said ride.
  • Barrin92 6y ago
    > also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.
    • coffeemug 6y ago
      It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.
      • 6y ago
• Aaronstotle 6y ago
  Good riddance
• nullc 6y ago
  And here I was thinking that they were shutting down due to covid19 to protect people's health. Silly me.
• oneng 6y ago
  This law sounds like it's putting the cart before the horse. The real problem is the cost of healthcare and how everyone should be (but aren't) aligned with lowering the overall costs without compromising on individual care or the treatment of caregivers.
• ehosca 6y ago
  shutting down your business is a great way to drive operating costs down to zero...
• Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
  COVID-19 situation has clearly showcased the vulnerability of the drivers regardless of the platforms, there's no merit for the drivers to be treated as contractors as they are algorithmically made to work beyond office hours to be eligible for the incentives. I hope other states and countries follow the suit if California forces Uber to treat the drivers as employees.
  • thunkshift1 6y ago
    What do you mean by “algorithmically made to work beyond office hours”? You know the drivers set their own hours right? There are some who prefer to drive exclusively at night.
    • Abishek_Muthian 6y ago
      Yes, that's why I said- >made to work beyond office hours to be eligible for the incentives I said that based on complaints I received from Indian drivers, • Need to work X hours to be eligible for incentives, incentives are used to meet fuel costs. • Algo punishes when rides are not taken during peak hours. • Majority don't own the vehicles, they are working office anyways for someone who owns it. Anyways, main issue is many of the drivers are out of their work due to COVID-19 and if they were employees; at least some protections would ensue.
• vadym909 6y ago
  Great- I think this will bring forth the root cause of the problem which is employer tied benefits and employer tied taxes. Right now there are entire business models based on avoiding taxes and benefits. You can have protections like min wage, sick leave, etc and still make it really simple os that evvery individual pays the entire tax (employer and employee payroll taxes) for every dollar they earn. It can be scaled based on annual amounts just like they are now. It'll be transparent and everyone will pay it.
  • ThrustVectoring 6y ago
    The nominal burden of who "pays" employment-related taxes or benefits is completely separate from who the actual tax incidence falls on. Would you rather get paid $10k that you owe $1000 of taxes on, or get paid $9k with the $1k of taxes already withheld for you? Either way, the total cost of employing you remains the same for the company, and the take home pay after taxes remains the same.
    • lawnchair_larry 6y ago
      Not quite, taxes are actually higher if you are self-employed. You have to pay SECA, which effectively includes the portion that your company would have paid otherwise (on top of the amount that they withhold and pay on your behalf).
      • ThrustVectoring 6y ago
        That's not taxes being "actually higher", that's taxes being paid in a way that increases the total cost of hiring someone without showing up anywhere on the pay stub of full-time W2 employees. Like, it changes the numbers to something like "$9k with $1k withheld and $1k of employer taxes" vs "$11k with $1k of income taxes and $1k of 'employer' taxes that you now have to pay"
  • ntsplnkv2 6y ago
    They'll just move the goalposts. They'll say "no this is unfair to uber and workers." Then when you suggest the safety net they'll say " taxes are too high " or "they need to work harder for more money to provide for themselves."
• klickitat 6y ago
  the same thing has happened in Turkey.
• caycep 6y ago
  I may be a bit behind the loop as to what efforts has been done before, but has there been efforts at doing a "taxi platform" vs. a full ride hail-service app, i.e. just providing an app as a common platform for different taxi medallion holders to ride hail and maybe handle payments but without handling full fledged ride recruitment and rates?
• bogomipz 6y ago
  >"If the appeal doesn’t work out for Uber, it will be banking on voters to determine its fate. Khosrowshahi said if that’s the case, the service would likely shut down in California until November, when voters in the state decide on Proposition 22, ..." I'm curious has the current situation with Covid-19 affected the likelihood of this passing? Would't the fact that CAREs Act allowed gig worker to collect unemployment assistance have swayed public opinion on upside of being designated a full time employee and the ability to collect unemployment when things go south? For all the talk by the companies behind Prop 22 about a "third way", why wasn't the this third classification made a ballot initiative instead of simply saying they should be classified as a an independent contractor? Does it not seem odd to believe in a "third way" but have your legislation call for classification using one of the existing two?[1] [1] https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based_Drivers_as_Contractors_and_Labor_Policies_Initiative_(2020) https://ballotpedia.org/California_Proposition_22,_App-Based...
• slipheen 6y ago
  Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.
  • elicash 6y ago
    Reminds me of folks "boycotting" certain stores for requiring masks. Great, thank you for following the policy.
  • valuearb 6y ago
    Yes, a terrible solution for drivers and riders both. Back to the taxi monopolies.
    • JKCalhoun 6y ago
      Or an opportunity for a new ride-share company that doesn't claim their employees are contractors.
      • remote_phone 6y ago
        Even taxis claim their drivers as contractors.
        • Slartie 6y ago
          An individual taxi driver owning a cab, a license if necessary, paying for his insurance and getting the money from his passengers is an individual contractor, yes. It's just that he contracts with the individual riders, not any higher-up monopolistic business entity that sets arbitrary business-driven rules that all taxi drivers have to follow.
          • valuearb 6y ago
• habosa 6y ago
  Bullsh*t. You know they have a team somewhere that was preparing for the situation where they lost this case. They have a Plan B. They're just playing chicken with us right now. This statement is part of Dara's week-long media blitz to scare everyone into letting Uber be its own regulator. Check out the NYTimes op-ed he wrote. They will not shut down. They will blink.
• beaunative 6y ago
  Uber's model would work fine in a country where the government provides medical insurance, disability insurance and the protective net you need. In the US, unfortunately, those protective nets are liabilities of the companies to their staff, not a service provided by the government. One could argue a third solution where the driver would unionize and the protective net should be offered by the union.
  • arez 6y ago
    we have all that in germany but we also have minimum wage, which uber can't pay, that's why they're basically a "normal" taxi company here.
• djinnandtonic 6y ago
  This is fantastic news! Now there's a huge market available for a rideshare app that wants to prosper by actual good service rather than wage theft and outright hostility to the regulations of the market they operate in. I hope some hungry founders-to-be are working on this now.
• bhupy 6y ago
  Lyft announced that it would do the same: https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/12/lyft-president-says-it-may-have-to-suspend-service-in-california.html https://www.cnbc.com/2020/08/12/lyft-president-says-it-may-h...
• lhh 6y ago
  > Becerra said in an interview on CNBC on Tuesday that he was unconcerned about the potential for Uber to leave the state as a result of the order. “Any business model that relies on shortchanging workers in order to make it probably shouldn’t be anywhere, whether California or otherwise,” he said. This type of attitude drives me crazy. These companies have paid billions of dollars to drivers, who voluntarily decided to work and earn this money. If drivers felt the arrangement was unfair, wouldn't they do something else? How is anyone better off by these companies being legislated out of existence? They're already hemorrhaging cash as is. It's astonishing to me that government leaders believe workers are better off with fewer options, regardless of the perceived quality of them. Or maybe they don't actually believe it but are willing to inflict the damage anyway for the sake of virtue signaling.
  • slipheen 6y ago
    That's a really harmful outlook. If company A decides that they are going to pay their workers (say) $3/hr, and illegally bypass the minimum wage, it _DOESN'T MATTER AT ALL_ if they can find workers willing to work for that amount. As a society, we've decided that certain offers aren't acceptable, even if you can find someone desperate enough to take the offer. You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're big enough. (And Yes, in practice big companies do ignore laws more than they should. That's a bad thing, and a reason to do better, not a reason to give up).
    • deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    • lhh 6y ago
      > That's a really harmful outlook. Harmful how, exactly? I don't agree that the government should be deeming any type of agreement that adults voluntarily enter into as illegal. The notion that the government should be doing that strikes me as very condescending to the governed. Shouldn't people be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives? If someone is in a position where a $3/hr job is their best option, I think it's a pretty bad idea to then remove that option from them too. > You shouldn't get to just ignore the law because you're big enough. Seems to me that the opposite dynamic is at play here - these companies have become large enough to be the target of legislation.
• asdff 6y ago
  I've been bearish on Uber recently when they fleeced me with their credit card rewards recently. That barclaycard used to offer straight cash back, 4% at bars being the big one, which made it one of the best credit cards out there. Then one day I checked my rewards balance and lo and behold, it was converted into useless uber bux that I can only spend on uber eats, which I avoid given the premium, or rides, which I am not going to ever do unless I've been inoculated for covid 19. Very slimy anti consumer and anti driver practices, and I hope this statewide pull out means the writing is finally on the wall for Uber. I lust for the day ever since they ruined my favorite credit card.
• mountainboy 6y ago
  there are a lot of drivers in California with extra space and free time. there are a lot of people that need rides. There was a company that facilitated these two meeting and took a cut of payments. It does not need to be a company. It can be an autonomous entity, eg a smart contract. Think ethereum + ipfs. just by way of example. in other words, cut out the middle-man. Remove the target for governments to pressure and tax. At that point, the free market decides.
  • cwkoss 6y ago
    Not sure ridesharing is the best fit for decentralized solutions. A big role of these companies is performing background checks and dispute resolution, and those seem hard to do in a trustless decentralized system without exposing loopholes that can be exploited.
• _alex_ 6y ago
  Dara: we need to take better care of gig workers Also Dara: if you force us to pay our gig workers more we’ll pull out of your market.
• manigandham 6y ago
  AB5 is a colossal failure and it was done for taxes, not worker protection. Full-time driving jobs already exist. Shuttles, buses, taxis, limos, etc. Uber Black is mostly private transport employees. It was a choice for drivers to willingly work for Uber instead. The lawsuit was backed by a handful of people who went against the 99.9% of drivers who wanted freedom and flexibility to work above all. It's a tyranny of using a tiny minority to unlock massive tax potential. If protecting workers was really the goal then they should've created a 3rd option instead of shoving everyone into the W2 extreme, and it's affecting all kinds of freelance workers.
• nitinsn 6y ago
  fddasf
  • nitinsn 6y ago
    sdsda
    • nitinsn 6y ago
      sadsda
      • nitinsn 6y ago
        sdasdas
• SrslyJosh 6y ago
  You know what'd make this whole employee/contractor thing moot? A robust driver's union that was willing to shut down Uber on their own.
• DeonPenny 6y ago
  California is bullying freelance. And honestly I don't see the realistic end goal. They can bring on all their drivers full time it would be a nightmare to pay and manage for a company that makes no money. Or uber treats driver worst and the quality of rides gets worse by lowering standard.