12 ms·

Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model

Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs. The fact that people have turned to driving for Uber (and others) highlights problems with our government, economy, and priorities, not the companies. I really wish people would stop giving government a pass and wanting corporations to come save them. Go vote, educate yourself, and do something with your democracy. If people have to resort to driving for Uber to live, then that's something we need to fix at a state-wide or country-wide level. Many people depend on rideshare like Uber to get to work like a public utility. Maybe if California (and this is true of other areas) actually built and invested in bike able neighborhoods and public transport, then they wouldn't need Uber. California will lose this one eventually. You don't know what you have until it's gone.

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
ceejayoz 6y ago
> They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. I suspect they will if Lyft does, regardless of public statements intended to pressure the politicians.
Shivetya 6y ago
I am just waiting for the lawsuits for when they shut down from drivers but also politicians threatening to jail the executives for taking that course. This just isn't about Uber and Lyft but they were targets because some very big money was getting hurt by their existence.
- toomuchtodo 6y ago
  It’d be a very American thing to do to sue for the government enforcing labor rights through legislation and judicial action. Push that throttle forward further while racing to the bottom. Perhaps put that time into advocating for a living wage and universal healthcare instead of embracing Stockholm Syndrome with gig platforms. They might not be around much longer, but your government will be.
asa4akj 6y ago
comparing uber and etsy is dishonest at best. The only freedom an uber contractor has is "when to work". All the pricing and trips are decided by uber, and they can't even reject properly. They are in fact an employees in everything but legal status. In etsy, you choose your prices, what you sell, and even to whom you sell to, it's definitely a market place.
- itake 6y ago
  If this truly is an invalid business model (riders can't/refuse to pay driver's full salary + benefits), then a lot of people willing to work at these lower rates will be losing their jobs / extra income.
  - throw_awy_1 6y ago
    Just like minimum wage.
    - ceejayoz 6y ago
      And child labor!
- deminature 6y ago
  Drivers have been able to set their own prices in California for some time now https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
    What Uber did likely isn't sufficient. Uber restricts the maximum drivers can set, only allows increases in 10% increments, does not allow passengers to see the rates of more than one driver at a time, does not let a passenger set their own rates, does not allow drivers to go below auto-pricing, and still sets surge pricing themselves instead of letting passengers and drivers set pricing when demand is high. Starting Tuesday morning, drivers at the three test airports can either accept Uber’s original price for outgoing rides, or ask for up to five times more, in increments of 10%. After next week they will have the option to ask for less than Uber’s original price. Essentially those drivers now are bidding against one another for riders. Uber passengers will see only the lowest proposed fare range. If that driver rejects their ride request, they could see a new, higher fare range, as Uber would then show the request to the next-cheapest driver. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-tests-letting-California-drivers-set-own-14992943.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-tests-lett... Uber likely wouldn't be in this position if they stayed out of pricing/visibility and let passengers/drivers set whatever rates they wanted to. Just provide a platform for people to get rides and stay out of pricing entirely.
bpfrh 6y ago
Oh cmon, in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Just because you make a new app and don't follow the rules in the hope you get to big to fail doesn't mean it works. Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. They borrow money, set low prices and don't follow the law and then lobby to change them. Uber is a taxi service I don't know why anybody would think otherwise. You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay. One is comparable to a bazar, the other is a taxiservice with a nice app.
- amscanne 6y ago
  > You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay. Yes, but the driver is similarly offered the fare, and may choose to accept or not. This is actually one of the critical distinctions between employees and non-employees. If they were an actual employee, Uber would be able to just assign the fare to them. This is also unlike taxis, where, if your light is on, it is illegal to not accept the fare. (Although violations of these rules are common and blatant, which ironically stopped me from using taxis altogether.) It’s certainly true that Uber operates in a grey area. When cities have explicitly banned them, they stop operating (e.g. Vancouver). It seems like California has clarified some of the ambiguity around employment, and Uber may similarly stop operating.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    The important factor for employee vs contractor isn't whether the worker can accept/reject the job, since employees have that option under many union contracts, and in fact this is how many restaurants have operated for decades (where "job" = "shift"). What matters is whether the worker can independently decide what fare to charge (even if in practice the fare is limited by market forces to what a customer/client would pay). If they can, they are almost always a contractor. If they can't, they are almost always an employee. (Note: Hollywood unions and guilds set minimum rates for work, but members are free to charge higher rates if they can get away with it, and many do. The contractor/employee distinction is largely moot because the unions/guilds took on the healthcare and benefits provisioning functions that employers would normally handle.) EDIT: reply to ericmay since HN won't let me reply that deep. No, "accepting" a fare is not the same thing as deciding what fare to charge. Accepting a fare in the Uber/Lyft context means you take the fare Uber/Lyft offers you, or you go home; there is no potential for negotiation or other work. Deciding what fare to charge means you get to post your fare to Uber/Lyft, and customers decide whether they are willing to pay it, or conversely that a customer posts a desired fare, and the driver gets to decide whether they take it. If Uber/Lyft were truly just platforms and their drivers were independent contractors, either of those would be how fares are determined (and in fact, Uber is moving toward the former in CA as a result of this law). If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price Paying someone $10 to mow a lawn occasionally would not turn them into an employee. Terms of payment are just one of the factors in part A of the ABC test (which analyzes the worker's level of independence), so stop focusing on that single non-determinative data point. Moreover, benefits requirements don't kick in until an employee exceeds a certain threshold of work performed (generally 30+ hours/week) for a single employer, and 401K contributions are not mandatory benefits anywhere. If a worker satisfies the ABC test for independence, they aren't an employee and benefits would not be required unless negotiated for as part of the work contract.
awinder 6y ago
“Nobody will” is a bet, mostly on history of the last 30 years of winning these bets. If/when someone does do it, being a business that drew a line in the sand is going to make it difficult to adapt. Playing regulatory games is hard. People are voting & doing something with their democracy; that’s how this passed. And they’ll have another choice when they vote on the prop. You’re tired of people leaning a certain way, I’m tired of people coming up with really cheap shots just because they don’t like outcomes. Get a cup of coffee.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Let's say we leave aside low voting turnout, lack of education about issues, etc. I don't have a problem if people decide to vote Uber and eventually others out of California. Your state, your rules. I don't really use Uber (or Lyft) unless I am traveling so I really don't care what happens to them, and I definitely don't care about what happens to them in California. I just happen to disagree with California, and I think if this goes through it's going to be a losing proposition and once the reality of this sets in (i.e. people won't have access to ride share) it'll cause an actual public opinion upheaval. It's easy to complain about it and be edgy and "support workers rights" - just wait until you reap what you sow. I'm not sure how my comment on this thread is any more of a cheap shot than any other comment, or how it's more of a cheap shot than telling someone you disagree with to "get a cup of coffee". I thought what I wrote was at least a coherent opinion on the matter. I'm sorry that it made you angry and that you took a negative interpretation of what I wrote. Not my intention.
Angostura 6y ago
I think the key part of your post is: > the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money Doesn't sound viable, does it?
gedy 6y ago
I suspect this pleases the gov't transit authorities and unions, now they have less competition by decree. (Yes I realize Uber "could" stay, but practically speaking for a business, not really). It just annoys me it's couched as "we are doing this for the worker!", and then those workers have no work.
michaelt 6y ago
> Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. Do you mean to say that, after expenses and benefits are taken into account, an Uber driver working 40 hours a week makes less than minimum wage?
gamblor956 6y ago
If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs. Etsy is not even remotely the same thing as Uber. For starters, shops choose what they want to sell, and for how much, and customers choose which shops on Etsy they wish to buy from. Other than handling payment processing, Etsy operates just like a mall. In contrast, riders don't get to choose which driver they get; Uber chooses for them. Uber chooses how much riders pay and how much of that drivers get. Uber is not a platform, it's just a techified transportation service. Many people depend on rideshare like Uber to get to work like a public utility. This is an extremely warped and privileged view to have. Only people with lots of discretionary income used Uber to commute to work before COVID. They did not depend on it. And this is a very small subset of the US or CA populations; most people can't afford to take an Uber to work everyday. I really wish people would stop giving government a pass and wanting corporations to come save them. The problem is corporations like Uber that are exploiting their employees, not government. Corporations started paying their executives tens of millions for minimal work instead of the labor force doing the work and actually creating the value. Maybe if California (and this is true of other areas) actually built and invested in bike able neighborhoods and public transport, then they wouldn't need Uber. California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation, and thousands of miles of bike lanes. It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation.
- xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
  > California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation You really had me for a moment until I realized you're joking :) In all seriousness, public transportation in California is the real joke. > It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation. Sure, and it's possible for me to canoe to Antarctica but it's not a reasonable way for anyone to travel.
  - thewebcount 6y ago
    With LA you might have a point. We have it but it's young and still growing and not as convenient as it should be. But SF? Are you kidding me? I can take busses, trains, etc. to get anywhere in that city and out to the valley. It's awesome!
sobellian 6y ago
People depend on Uber for transport because Uber has made their service available, but I strongly doubt that anyone would be stranded at home were they to shutter - and remember, former commuters are flocking to remote work anyway. Uber would be fools to position themselves as too big to fail. They're clearly a marginal business, but even if they were indispensable I think that would just stir CA legislators to further action against them.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

ceejayoz 6y ago

> They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. I suspect they will if Lyft does, regardless of public statements intended to pressure the politicians.

Shivetya 6y ago

I am just waiting for the lawsuits for when they shut down from drivers but also politicians threatening to jail the executives for taking that course. This just isn't about Uber and Lyft but they were targets because some very big money was getting hurt by their existence.

toomuchtodo 6y ago
It’d be a very American thing to do to sue for the government enforcing labor rights through legislation and judicial action. Push that throttle forward further while racing to the bottom. Perhaps put that time into advocating for a living wage and universal healthcare instead of embracing Stockholm Syndrome with gig platforms. They might not be around much longer, but your government will be.

asa4akj 6y ago

comparing uber and etsy is dishonest at best. The only freedom an uber contractor has is "when to work". All the pricing and trips are decided by uber, and they can't even reject properly. They are in fact an employees in everything but legal status. In etsy, you choose your prices, what you sell, and even to whom you sell to, it's definitely a market place.

itake 6y ago
If this truly is an invalid business model (riders can't/refuse to pay driver's full salary + benefits), then a lot of people willing to work at these lower rates will be losing their jobs / extra income.
- throw_awy_1 6y ago
  Just like minimum wage.
  - ceejayoz 6y ago
    And child labor!
deminature 6y ago
Drivers have been able to set their own prices in California for some time now https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- omgwtfbyobbq 6y ago
  What Uber did likely isn't sufficient. Uber restricts the maximum drivers can set, only allows increases in 10% increments, does not allow passengers to see the rates of more than one driver at a time, does not let a passenger set their own rates, does not allow drivers to go below auto-pricing, and still sets surge pricing themselves instead of letting passengers and drivers set pricing when demand is high. Starting Tuesday morning, drivers at the three test airports can either accept Uber’s original price for outgoing rides, or ask for up to five times more, in increments of 10%. After next week they will have the option to ask for less than Uber’s original price. Essentially those drivers now are bidding against one another for riders. Uber passengers will see only the lowest proposed fare range. If that driver rejects their ride request, they could see a new, higher fare range, as Uber would then show the request to the next-cheapest driver. https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-tests-letting-California-drivers-set-own-14992943.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-tests-lett... Uber likely wouldn't be in this position if they stayed out of pricing/visibility and let passengers/drivers set whatever rates they wanted to. Just provide a platform for people to get rides and stay out of pricing entirely.

bpfrh 6y ago

Oh cmon, in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Just because you make a new app and don't follow the rules in the hope you get to big to fail doesn't mean it works. Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. They borrow money, set low prices and don't follow the law and then lobby to change them. Uber is a taxi service I don't know why anybody would think otherwise. You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay. One is comparable to a bazar, the other is a taxiservice with a nice app.

amscanne 6y ago
> You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay. Yes, but the driver is similarly offered the fare, and may choose to accept or not. This is actually one of the critical distinctions between employees and non-employees. If they were an actual employee, Uber would be able to just assign the fare to them. This is also unlike taxis, where, if your light is on, it is illegal to not accept the fare. (Although violations of these rules are common and blatant, which ironically stopped me from using taxis altogether.) It’s certainly true that Uber operates in a grey area. When cities have explicitly banned them, they stop operating (e.g. Vancouver). It seems like California has clarified some of the ambiguity around employment, and Uber may similarly stop operating.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  The important factor for employee vs contractor isn't whether the worker can accept/reject the job, since employees have that option under many union contracts, and in fact this is how many restaurants have operated for decades (where "job" = "shift"). What matters is whether the worker can independently decide what fare to charge (even if in practice the fare is limited by market forces to what a customer/client would pay). If they can, they are almost always a contractor. If they can't, they are almost always an employee. (Note: Hollywood unions and guilds set minimum rates for work, but members are free to charge higher rates if they can get away with it, and many do. The contractor/employee distinction is largely moot because the unions/guilds took on the healthcare and benefits provisioning functions that employers would normally handle.) EDIT: reply to ericmay since HN won't let me reply that deep. No, "accepting" a fare is not the same thing as deciding what fare to charge. Accepting a fare in the Uber/Lyft context means you take the fare Uber/Lyft offers you, or you go home; there is no potential for negotiation or other work. Deciding what fare to charge means you get to post your fare to Uber/Lyft, and customers decide whether they are willing to pay it, or conversely that a customer posts a desired fare, and the driver gets to decide whether they take it. If Uber/Lyft were truly just platforms and their drivers were independent contractors, either of those would be how fares are determined (and in fact, Uber is moving toward the former in CA as a result of this law). If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price Paying someone $10 to mow a lawn occasionally would not turn them into an employee. Terms of payment are just one of the factors in part A of the ABC test (which analyzes the worker's level of independence), so stop focusing on that single non-determinative data point. Moreover, benefits requirements don't kick in until an employee exceeds a certain threshold of work performed (generally 30+ hours/week) for a single employer, and 401K contributions are not mandatory benefits anywhere. If a worker satisfies the ABC test for independence, they aren't an employee and benefits would not be required unless negotiated for as part of the work contract.

awinder 6y ago

“Nobody will” is a bet, mostly on history of the last 30 years of winning these bets. If/when someone does do it, being a business that drew a line in the sand is going to make it difficult to adapt. Playing regulatory games is hard. People are voting & doing something with their democracy; that’s how this passed. And they’ll have another choice when they vote on the prop. You’re tired of people leaning a certain way, I’m tired of people coming up with really cheap shots just because they don’t like outcomes. Get a cup of coffee.

ericmay 6y ago
Let's say we leave aside low voting turnout, lack of education about issues, etc. I don't have a problem if people decide to vote Uber and eventually others out of California. Your state, your rules. I don't really use Uber (or Lyft) unless I am traveling so I really don't care what happens to them, and I definitely don't care about what happens to them in California. I just happen to disagree with California, and I think if this goes through it's going to be a losing proposition and once the reality of this sets in (i.e. people won't have access to ride share) it'll cause an actual public opinion upheaval. It's easy to complain about it and be edgy and "support workers rights" - just wait until you reap what you sow. I'm not sure how my comment on this thread is any more of a cheap shot than any other comment, or how it's more of a cheap shot than telling someone you disagree with to "get a cup of coffee". I thought what I wrote was at least a coherent opinion on the matter. I'm sorry that it made you angry and that you took a negative interpretation of what I wrote. Not my intention.

Angostura 6y ago

I think the key part of your post is: > the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money Doesn't sound viable, does it?

gedy 6y ago

I suspect this pleases the gov't transit authorities and unions, now they have less competition by decree. (Yes I realize Uber "could" stay, but practically speaking for a business, not really). It just annoys me it's couched as "we are doing this for the worker!", and then those workers have no work.

michaelt 6y ago

> Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. Do you mean to say that, after expenses and benefits are taken into account, an Uber driver working 40 hours a week makes less than minimum wage?

gamblor956 6y ago

If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs. Etsy is not even remotely the same thing as Uber. For starters, shops choose what they want to sell, and for how much, and customers choose which shops on Etsy they wish to buy from. Other than handling payment processing, Etsy operates just like a mall. In contrast, riders don't get to choose which driver they get; Uber chooses for them. Uber chooses how much riders pay and how much of that drivers get. Uber is not a platform, it's just a techified transportation service. Many people depend on rideshare like Uber to get to work like a public utility. This is an extremely warped and privileged view to have. Only people with lots of discretionary income used Uber to commute to work before COVID. They did not depend on it. And this is a very small subset of the US or CA populations; most people can't afford to take an Uber to work everyday. I really wish people would stop giving government a pass and wanting corporations to come save them. The problem is corporations like Uber that are exploiting their employees, not government. Corporations started paying their executives tens of millions for minimal work instead of the labor force doing the work and actually creating the value. Maybe if California (and this is true of other areas) actually built and invested in bike able neighborhoods and public transport, then they wouldn't need Uber. California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation, and thousands of miles of bike lanes. It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation.

xyzzy_plugh 6y ago
> California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation You really had me for a moment until I realized you're joking :) In all seriousness, public transportation in California is the real joke. > It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation. Sure, and it's possible for me to canoe to Antarctica but it's not a reasonable way for anyone to travel.
- thewebcount 6y ago
  With LA you might have a point. We have it but it's young and still growing and not as convenient as it should be. But SF? Are you kidding me? I can take busses, trains, etc. to get anywhere in that city and out to the valley. It's awesome!

sobellian 6y ago

People depend on Uber for transport because Uber has made their service available, but I strongly doubt that anyone would be stranded at home were they to shutter - and remember, former commuters are flocking to remote work anyway. Uber would be fools to position themselves as too big to fail. They're clearly a marginal business, but even if they were indispensable I think that would just stir CA legislators to further action against them.