5 ms·

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

by 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.
  - ericmay 6y ago
    Aren't they deciding what fare to charge by accepting the job? If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm willing to 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? I guess I'm not following here.
    - treis 6y ago
      It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform. More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Dynamics change when it's only a handful of companies hiring many people.
      - ericmay 6y ago
        If you want to take this analogy further, if that kid has the opportunity to do something else for more money and keeps declining to cut my grass for $10 I'll ban her from cutting it and find someone else. There's also no negotiating with me. It's $10, take it or leave it! (If they leave it, like they don't accept the fare, then so be it my grass doesn't get cut and Uber doesn't make money). > More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Why? The foundational principles seem to be the same to me here. I think too many people want Uber to be this company that meets these certain expectations and they want that because the government has failed them and so they've turned to corporations to save people via jobs and paid benefits because they want the illusion that someone is paying their fair share. Instead you need to change the laws in your state/country/area to represent your values. If people don't have healthcare, pay money and give them healthcare. Making Uber do it simply isn't going to work here. Especially for them in particular. To me there is no fundamental difference between me picking up an app and then getting $10 to go pick someone up and someone coming to mow my grass for $10, or someone paying me $20 to move a couch for them. I'm doing some work for some money. That's it. There's nothing more to it.
dehrmann 6y ago
The genius of early (Uber X) Uber was that it launched a service that was illegal, but got away with it and paved a road to legality because it was significantly better than its competitors, liked by customer (read: voters), and displaced competitors no one had much sympathy for.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Sounds like democracy to me. There's more than one way of voting, and often times laws are made without really much public consent or awareness.
jamiequint 6y ago
> in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Wrong > Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. Wrong (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city... and even more since then with Uber X expansion)
- AnimalMuppet 6y ago
  On the first point, could you supply a bit more than just "wrong"? That's not a very convincing argument. Do you have data? Evidence? Anything besides just "wrong"?
  - jamiequint 6y ago
    The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.
    - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
      And yet you gave it a response. You just gave a totally pointless and worthless one.
      - newfriend 6y ago
        > The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a [longer than one word] response. No one likes a pedant.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Back in 2014...when they were using billions of VC funding to undercut taxi rates. Uber hasn't been that cheap in years. Uber is now roughly the same or more than using a taxi in LA, and that doesn't even include Uber's original and more expensive black car service.

by bpfrh 6y ago

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.
- ericmay 6y ago
  Aren't they deciding what fare to charge by accepting the job? If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm willing to 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? I guess I'm not following here.
  - treis 6y ago
    It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform. More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Dynamics change when it's only a handful of companies hiring many people.
    - ericmay 6y ago
      If you want to take this analogy further, if that kid has the opportunity to do something else for more money and keeps declining to cut my grass for $10 I'll ban her from cutting it and find someone else. There's also no negotiating with me. It's $10, take it or leave it! (If they leave it, like they don't accept the fare, then so be it my grass doesn't get cut and Uber doesn't make money). > More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Why? The foundational principles seem to be the same to me here. I think too many people want Uber to be this company that meets these certain expectations and they want that because the government has failed them and so they've turned to corporations to save people via jobs and paid benefits because they want the illusion that someone is paying their fair share. Instead you need to change the laws in your state/country/area to represent your values. If people don't have healthcare, pay money and give them healthcare. Making Uber do it simply isn't going to work here. Especially for them in particular. To me there is no fundamental difference between me picking up an app and then getting $10 to go pick someone up and someone coming to mow my grass for $10, or someone paying me $20 to move a couch for them. I'm doing some work for some money. That's it. There's nothing more to it.

dehrmann 6y ago

The genius of early (Uber X) Uber was that it launched a service that was illegal, but got away with it and paved a road to legality because it was significantly better than its competitors, liked by customer (read: voters), and displaced competitors no one had much sympathy for.

ericmay 6y ago
Sounds like democracy to me. There's more than one way of voting, and often times laws are made without really much public consent or awareness.

jamiequint 6y ago

> in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Wrong > Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. Wrong (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city-2014-10 https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city... and even more since then with Uber X expansion)

AnimalMuppet 6y ago
On the first point, could you supply a bit more than just "wrong"? That's not a very convincing argument. Do you have data? Evidence? Anything besides just "wrong"?
- jamiequint 6y ago
  The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a response.
  - AnimalMuppet 6y ago
    And yet you gave it a response. You just gave a totally pointless and worthless one.
    - newfriend 6y ago
      > The claim that Uber is illegal in every country is so stupid it doesn't even merit a [longer than one word] response. No one likes a pedant.
gamblor956 6y ago
Back in 2014...when they were using billions of VC funding to undercut taxi rates. Uber hasn't been that cheap in years. Uber is now roughly the same or more than using a taxi in LA, and that doesn't even include Uber's original and more expensive black car service.