6 ms·

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 rig

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/
    - xeromal 6y ago
      Do you not think that uber has some employees and some contractors? What about the people that just work for a little side hustle. Like 5-10 hours a week?
      - ivraatiems 6y ago
        Sure, I'm sure they have some actual contractors who are truly contractors under the law. Maybe some consultants, builders, painters, whatever. But not their drivers. The correct term for a "side hustle" person is "part-time employee."
throw_m239339 6y ago
it is. Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City. All Uber has to do is follow the law. Of course they can't since their business model is based on violating labour laws. If your business model relies on doing something illegal to make money then you are no better than the mafia, it's just organized crime. As for people here who invoke "freedom of work". Most people doing these jobs don't have much choice at first place, in order to survive. But eventually Uber will backstab them, one way or another.
- paulgb 6y ago
  > Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City I think this is a good comparison, with the caveat that there is a major difference in the political calculus: the people who get the most benefit from AirBnB in NYC are people visiting NYC (i.e. people who can't vote in NYC). AirBnB is generally not popular among the people who live here because people don't like transients in their buildings and perceive it (probably rightfully) as driving up rents. Uber/Lyft on the other hand are used by locals (i.e. voters) as well as tourists. They are perceived as bringing prices down by breaking the supply constraints of the medalian system. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
- jokethrowaway 6y ago
  Legality can't be used to derive ethics. Slavery and prohibition were all legal in the past, but I don't think they're ethical. In the same way, I consider unethical removing people's freedom to work in the way they voluntarily choose. Sure, this is what we have now and not following the law, hoping to change things (aka disrupting the taxi lobbies) is a business risk , but I still hope for a society in which people are free to decide how they work. I wouldn't compare them to mobsters that use violence. Uber may not have a stellar reputation, but it's not forcing anyone to work. It's the government which actually resembles a giant mafia gang, imposing rules and asking 99% of the population for money (taxes, or just call it pizzo) on threat of imprisonment - while letting their rich friends avoid them.
grumple 6y ago
Uber probably isn't making much money right now, so shutting down is not a big deal.

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/
  - xeromal 6y ago
    Do you not think that uber has some employees and some contractors? What about the people that just work for a little side hustle. Like 5-10 hours a week?
    - ivraatiems 6y ago
      Sure, I'm sure they have some actual contractors who are truly contractors under the law. Maybe some consultants, builders, painters, whatever. But not their drivers. The correct term for a "side hustle" person is "part-time employee."

throw_m239339 6y ago

it is. Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City. All Uber has to do is follow the law. Of course they can't since their business model is based on violating labour laws. If your business model relies on doing something illegal to make money then you are no better than the mafia, it's just organized crime. As for people here who invoke "freedom of work". Most people doing these jobs don't have much choice at first place, in order to survive. But eventually Uber will backstab them, one way or another.

paulgb 6y ago
> Airbnb tried to pull the same trick in New York City I think this is a good comparison, with the caveat that there is a major difference in the political calculus: the people who get the most benefit from AirBnB in NYC are people visiting NYC (i.e. people who can't vote in NYC). AirBnB is generally not popular among the people who live here because people don't like transients in their buildings and perceive it (probably rightfully) as driving up rents. Uber/Lyft on the other hand are used by locals (i.e. voters) as well as tourists. They are perceived as bringing prices down by breaking the supply constraints of the medalian system. It will be interesting to see how this plays out.
jokethrowaway 6y ago
Legality can't be used to derive ethics. Slavery and prohibition were all legal in the past, but I don't think they're ethical. In the same way, I consider unethical removing people's freedom to work in the way they voluntarily choose. Sure, this is what we have now and not following the law, hoping to change things (aka disrupting the taxi lobbies) is a business risk , but I still hope for a society in which people are free to decide how they work. I wouldn't compare them to mobsters that use violence. Uber may not have a stellar reputation, but it's not forcing anyone to work. It's the government which actually resembles a giant mafia gang, imposing rules and asking 99% of the population for money (taxes, or just call it pizzo) on threat of imprisonment - while letting their rich friends avoid them.

grumple 6y ago

Uber probably isn't making much money right now, so shutting down is not a big deal.