7 ms·

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the e

That's pretty interesting! In my view, the set your own fare part and penalty removal definitely moves them from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. I guess AB5 is much more strict.

deminature 6y ago
AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The modifications discussed in the top-level post address the A and C portions of the test, but not B unfortunately. The B clause is very broad, so likely has ramifications for many tech companies. Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. [1] https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...
- novok 6y ago
  So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?
  - omnipugent 6y ago
    Couldn't Uber allow other operating companies to use its service along with Raiser/Raizer LLC as long as they follow certain platform terms?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - Keyframe 6y ago
    That’s exactly how they operate in, for example, Croatia. Every driver owns an LLC.
  - jmwilson 6y ago
    There's the $800 California LLC annual fee, which is the highest in the country, and applies before you make a dollar in revenue.
    - kadoban 6y ago
      Does something prevent incorporating in another location that allows it? Doubt it.
      - jmwilson 6y ago
        Of course they could do that, but any corporation or LLC that does business in California [1] (surely a Uber driver operating in California would be considered as such) has to pay the fee. Incorporating out of state would just mean a second set of fees and more forms to file. [1] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/doing-business-in-california.html https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/doing-business-in-calif...
        kadoban 6y ago
        Ah, I did not know that. Thanks
    - paul_f 6y ago
      You don't need an LLC to run a business. Plenty of sole proprietors do this along with filing self employment taxes without ever forming an LLC.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, because Adorama is a company, and companies can't be employees... Nothing prevents drivers from registering LLCs to drive for uber, and that is in fact what the CA DOL website says is a bare minimum for satisfying another part of AB5.
  - lkrubner 6y ago
    I think you might mean this as a "gotcha" but it is the correct way to move forward, for both individuals and the nation. Incorporation allows the kind of formalization that the government prefers, and that point the government is much more willing to recognize an independent supplier.
  - Retric 6y ago
    The people absolutely required for Amazon to function are actual employees. Remove drivers and Uber’s business instantly shuts down literally that second, but Amazon can keep selling until their inventory runs out. Amazon.com sells inanimate objects or intellectual property which can’t be employees. Uber sells rides which require a physical person to preform them. So, I really don’t understand what your trying to convey.
- tfehring 6y ago
  Whether Uber's business is providing taxi service or just providing a platform for independent drivers to connect with clients, intuitively it seems like the work drivers do is clearly within the usual course of Uber's business. What would Uber's counterargument look like here? Am I just reading it too literally?
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    No, you've just described Uber/Lyft's problem in a nutshell.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Please first define what is "work in the usual course of business". What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business? Gig companies are market makers. By their very nature they are sitting in the middle of transactions and would be without a job without the transacting parties. Are all transacting parties therefore employees of market makers?
    - sidlls 6y ago
      > What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business? There are existing, relatively easily identified examples: tech companies hiring (on contract) workers to provide janitorial or cafeteria services, retailers hiring contracts to fix plumbing or install fixtures in their stores, landlords hiring individuals to paint homes, and the list could go on. The "usual course of business" has a clear legal definition under California law: "the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer." In the case of Uber, "software development" and "drivers" clearly are required in the "ordinary and regular and expected course of dealings" in their marketplace. The company's entire premise is built on connecting drivers to passengers via a software platform: they don't have a business without both of those things. One might argue over whether drivers' cars count as a "worksite", or whether remote workers working from home count as working from a "worksite" or "on premise"--but those arguments would be thin and shallow.
- canada_dry 6y ago
  > Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second I can see Uber desperately looking for non-obvious applications for its core software to strengthen its argument. Suggestions?
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Uber already re-uses this type of supply/demand matching platform for Uber Freight[1] to match shippers with "haulers". They also have a vertical agnostic "Uber Works"[2] that lets contract workers find jobs, sort of like Fiverr or TaskRabbit. They also partnered with the Thames Clipper to allow passengers to book tickets on the ferry in London[3]. You'd have a hard time arguing that the Thames Clipper staff would be considered Uber employees, even under the AB-5 test. [1] https://www.uber.com/us/en/freight/ https://www.uber.com/us/en/freight/ [2] https://www.uber.com/blog/chicago/uberworks/ https://www.uber.com/blog/chicago/uberworks/ [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uber-boat-london-thames-clipper-a9607701.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uber-boat-lo...
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Its a subtle distinction but one that matters legally since it means there isn't a compensation-for-work arrangement. (A host can choose to voluntarily go above and beyond, but that's not required or expected.) Amazon Marketplace and eBay: No. The Amazon marketplace acts like a real marketplace, so sellers transact with the buyers for AM purchases and Amazon acts as an agent of the seller in that transaction. Sellers determine what they sell on Amazon, how much they charge for the products they sell, and are largely responsible for acquiring sales traffic on their own. Sellers independently acquire and own the inventory they sell on Amazon, and can sell on their own websites or on competitors' websites. Crucially, Amazon isn't paying AM sellers for their labors in selling products. They only receive payment for goods actually sold, meaning again, there is no compensation-for-work arrangement. Also, for Amazon and eBay: AB5 carves out exceptions for direct sales, in this context defined as any sales not made through a retail store, so direct sales salespersons may continue to be treated as contractors or employees as the business so chooses. Twitch: Possibly! Twitch and streamers are in the business of streaming live video. Streamers are usually exclusive to a particular streaming service. And generally, except for the biggest streamers, they are unable to set or negotiate their own rates for streaming. BUT...Twitch doesn't actually pay streamers for streaming; most of them do it for free. When it does pay streamers, it pays them commissions and marketing fees for any ad revenue, sales of digital products, or subscriptions tied to their channels (even if not actually arising from streaming), and marketing services and commission-based arrangements are largely excluded from AB5. And generally, for the bigger streamers, it pays them through personal companies so that AB5 does not apply (since AB5 does not apply to contracts between two legal entities).
  - Retric 6y ago
    Twitch streamers also retain ownership of their content which is often repackaged for revenue on YouTube. Twitch is really the least employee vs employer relationship as payment is essentially independent of specific actions preformed by the streamer. It’s not like a streamer is paid to beat a boss, or even play a specific game it’s a question of entertaining people. IMO it’s the closest to a ‘new economy‘ out there, though sharing roots with earlier real time online performers (porn).
- abduhl 6y ago
  I'd just like to point out that while Uber may argue that they are a tech company first and driver/delivery second, the judge ruled that they are the opposite. The judge isn't arguing anything.
- jlarocco 6y ago
  > Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. That argument reminds me of the George Costanza quote, "It's not lying, if you believe it." Regardless of what they consider themselves, everybody else thinks of them as a big taxi company. > Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. I don't think it does, and that sounds like FUD. Do you have any references of those businesses actually being required to reclassify vendors as employees?
- pishpash 6y ago
  It's clear to me that Prong B of AB5 is broken and it's not fixable, except by arbitrary exemptions galore. Rather than admitting this, the state seems hellbent on shoehorning this law into something politically motivated against gig companies. All the actions on the state's part points to bad faith.
  - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
    Or maybe the state is acting in good faith on behalf of gig workers, and it's the gig companies tying themselves into knots trying to avoid legislation who are acting in bad faith?
    - pishpash 6y ago
      No, that's delusional. The state is at most interested in recouping revenue because it's out of money due to Covid. There are proposals on the table that would realistically improve the environment around gig work, but the state doesn't appear to care about those.
      - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
        So altruistic Good Guy Underdog Uber fighting in good faith to stick it to Big Bad Government is not delusional? Also, the legal wrangling over this started long before Covid.
        unishark 6y ago
        To first order, both Uber and drivers were willingly choosing to work together. The state is outlawing a money-making venture consenting adults wanted to do. You don't know that the second order effects will be what you want. Government is a blunt instrument and many ordinary people will be upset and perhaps completely screwed by this. As the story says, for the next several months at least, the state may have cost people their source of income. Owners of taxis and shuttle services should be thrilled though. Were they the little guy here?
  - 6y ago
- chx 6y ago
  > Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. Uber is a mess. It clearly needs to be a franchise. You have Mother Uber that develops the app and sells the franchise and Uber SF, Uber LA, Uber Seattle etc that hires the drivers. It's utterly unclear to me what efficiencies can be found for having one company doing all that.
  - SrslyJosh 6y ago
    > It clearly needs to be a franchise. Think bigger. Why should transportation infrastructure (which is a public good) be controlled by a private, for-profit corporation?
    - brianwawok 6y ago
      Because that’s how innovation happens in the US? How are passengers trains innovating over the past 60 years?
      - SrslyJosh 6y ago
        Yes, the US sucks at investing in public infrastructure, especially transit. Obviously we should do nothing to try to change that. =)
        TheColorYellow 6y ago
        Not the GP, but what would you suggest is a realistic alternative in the current state? Reforming public institutions to more effectively build public transportation infrastructure seems to be incredibly difficult. Local institutions seem to have maxed out their ability to improve beyond what exists. So why not let the private market innovate and improve? If the public institutions where smarter they'd be taking advantage of these innovations the same way as has happened in reverse when public institutions have had success with innovation.
        6y ago
- freediver 6y ago
  > Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. UBER could theoretically function without the technology (a taxi service) but it could not function without the drivers, yet. If the fleet was driverless, then of course, they wouldn't have these problems in the first place.
SilasX 6y ago
Keep in mind, Sidecar went all the way with that -- drivers set their own prices and riders picked from a list of said drivers' offers, weighing their quality/time/cost. And yet I can't seem to find anyone at at the time of operation (i.e. up to EOY 2014) defending Sidecar as being substantively different from Uber with regard to the contractor distinction. Edit: corrected the year
- gamblor956 6y ago
  This wasn't a big issue back in 2014, so there wouldn't have been much if any discussion on it for a much smaller service that had almost no market share.
  - SilasX 6y ago
    That's a different memory than I have, where it was huge by late 2013. Here's a HN story from mid 2014 where a taxi company discusses adapting by selling medallions (and thus ceding some car's right to street hails) and going more app-based in order to compete with Uber, so yes, low cost Uber rides were huge then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      We were talking about Sidecar, not Uber. SideCar was not huge at any point in its lifecyle. At one point in 2016/2017 it very briefly had the opportunity to become big, but failed the execution.
      - SilasX 6y ago
        We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar did, when they have a viable example to point to. As best I can tell, no one distinguished Uber from Sidecar when the latter was a legit rival. Example of a typical article that mentioned the three but said nothing about what made Sidecar's case more defensible. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabilities-for-uber-sidecar-and-lyft/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabi... Raising the question that on-the-job injuries for drivers for the three could bring liability to the platform; no distinction for Sidecar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-compensation-uber-drivers-sharing-economy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-co... So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker. Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.
sandworm101 6y ago
>> from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. Courts are not everyday people. For decades they gave lip service to a variety of factors, but inevitably each decision turned on one question: how are taxes handled? If the employer is managing the payment or withholding of taxes, then the worker was an employee. That is changing slowly but remains very much a determining factor.

deminature 6y ago

AB5 imposes an ABC test on businesses after the precedent set by Dynamex [1]. The specific point of contention the judge has is the B of the ABC - that is whether drivers 'perform work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business'. Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. The modifications discussed in the top-level post address the A and C portions of the test, but not B unfortunately. The B clause is very broad, so likely has ramifications for many tech companies. Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. [1] https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/understanding-the-abc-test-for-independent-contractors-in-california/ https://www.californiaemploymentlawreport.com/2019/03/unders...

novok 6y ago
So if Adorama sells on amazon.com, does adorama the corporation become an employee of amazon? If the separation on that mindfuck is 'register a corp / LLC', then what prevents drivers making an LLC to drive for uber?
- omnipugent 6y ago
  Couldn't Uber allow other operating companies to use its service along with Raiser/Raizer LLC as long as they follow certain platform terms?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- Keyframe 6y ago
  That’s exactly how they operate in, for example, Croatia. Every driver owns an LLC.
- jmwilson 6y ago
  There's the $800 California LLC annual fee, which is the highest in the country, and applies before you make a dollar in revenue.
  - kadoban 6y ago
    Does something prevent incorporating in another location that allows it? Doubt it.
    - jmwilson 6y ago
      Of course they could do that, but any corporation or LLC that does business in California [1] (surely a Uber driver operating in California would be considered as such) has to pay the fee. Incorporating out of state would just mean a second set of fees and more forms to file. [1] https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/doing-business-in-california.html https://www.ftb.ca.gov/file/business/doing-business-in-calif...
      - kadoban 6y ago
        Ah, I did not know that. Thanks
  - paul_f 6y ago
    You don't need an LLC to run a business. Plenty of sole proprietors do this along with filing self employment taxes without ever forming an LLC.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, because Adorama is a company, and companies can't be employees... Nothing prevents drivers from registering LLCs to drive for uber, and that is in fact what the CA DOL website says is a bare minimum for satisfying another part of AB5.
- lkrubner 6y ago
  I think you might mean this as a "gotcha" but it is the correct way to move forward, for both individuals and the nation. Incorporation allows the kind of formalization that the government prefers, and that point the government is much more willing to recognize an independent supplier.
- Retric 6y ago
  The people absolutely required for Amazon to function are actual employees. Remove drivers and Uber’s business instantly shuts down literally that second, but Amazon can keep selling until their inventory runs out. Amazon.com sells inanimate objects or intellectual property which can’t be employees. Uber sells rides which require a physical person to preform them. So, I really don’t understand what your trying to convey.
tfehring 6y ago
Whether Uber's business is providing taxi service or just providing a platform for independent drivers to connect with clients, intuitively it seems like the work drivers do is clearly within the usual course of Uber's business. What would Uber's counterargument look like here? Am I just reading it too literally?
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- gamblor956 6y ago
  No, you've just described Uber/Lyft's problem in a nutshell.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Please first define what is "work in the usual course of business". What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business? Gig companies are market makers. By their very nature they are sitting in the middle of transactions and would be without a job without the transacting parties. Are all transacting parties therefore employees of market makers?
  - sidlls 6y ago
    > What work that any contractor does, given that it is work contracted for a necessary economic purpose within the business of the contracting party, isn't within the latter's usual course of business? There are existing, relatively easily identified examples: tech companies hiring (on contract) workers to provide janitorial or cafeteria services, retailers hiring contracts to fix plumbing or install fixtures in their stores, landlords hiring individuals to paint homes, and the list could go on. The "usual course of business" has a clear legal definition under California law: "the regular and customary work of a business, performed within or upon the premises or worksite of the client employer." In the case of Uber, "software development" and "drivers" clearly are required in the "ordinary and regular and expected course of dealings" in their marketplace. The company's entire premise is built on connecting drivers to passengers via a software platform: they don't have a business without both of those things. One might argue over whether drivers' cars count as a "worksite", or whether remote workers working from home count as working from a "worksite" or "on premise"--but those arguments would be thin and shallow.
canada_dry 6y ago
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second I can see Uber desperately looking for non-obvious applications for its core software to strengthen its argument. Suggestions?
- bhupy 6y ago
  Uber already re-uses this type of supply/demand matching platform for Uber Freight[1] to match shippers with "haulers". They also have a vertical agnostic "Uber Works"[2] that lets contract workers find jobs, sort of like Fiverr or TaskRabbit. They also partnered with the Thames Clipper to allow passengers to book tickets on the ferry in London[3]. You'd have a hard time arguing that the Thames Clipper staff would be considered Uber employees, even under the AB-5 test. [1] https://www.uber.com/us/en/freight/ https://www.uber.com/us/en/freight/ [2] https://www.uber.com/blog/chicago/uberworks/ https://www.uber.com/blog/chicago/uberworks/ [3] https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uber-boat-london-thames-clipper-a9607701.html https://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/home-news/uber-boat-lo...
gamblor956 6y ago
Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. Airbnb: no, because hosts aren't being paid for providing services, they're being paid for providing access to their accommodations. Its a subtle distinction but one that matters legally since it means there isn't a compensation-for-work arrangement. (A host can choose to voluntarily go above and beyond, but that's not required or expected.) Amazon Marketplace and eBay: No. The Amazon marketplace acts like a real marketplace, so sellers transact with the buyers for AM purchases and Amazon acts as an agent of the seller in that transaction. Sellers determine what they sell on Amazon, how much they charge for the products they sell, and are largely responsible for acquiring sales traffic on their own. Sellers independently acquire and own the inventory they sell on Amazon, and can sell on their own websites or on competitors' websites. Crucially, Amazon isn't paying AM sellers for their labors in selling products. They only receive payment for goods actually sold, meaning again, there is no compensation-for-work arrangement. Also, for Amazon and eBay: AB5 carves out exceptions for direct sales, in this context defined as any sales not made through a retail store, so direct sales salespersons may continue to be treated as contractors or employees as the business so chooses. Twitch: Possibly! Twitch and streamers are in the business of streaming live video. Streamers are usually exclusive to a particular streaming service. And generally, except for the biggest streamers, they are unable to set or negotiate their own rates for streaming. BUT...Twitch doesn't actually pay streamers for streaming; most of them do it for free. When it does pay streamers, it pays them commissions and marketing fees for any ad revenue, sales of digital products, or subscriptions tied to their channels (even if not actually arising from streaming), and marketing services and commission-based arrangements are largely excluded from AB5. And generally, for the bigger streamers, it pays them through personal companies so that AB5 does not apply (since AB5 does not apply to contracts between two legal entities).
- Retric 6y ago
  Twitch streamers also retain ownership of their content which is often repackaged for revenue on YouTube. Twitch is really the least employee vs employer relationship as payment is essentially independent of specific actions preformed by the streamer. It’s not like a streamer is paid to beat a boss, or even play a specific game it’s a question of entertaining people. IMO it’s the closest to a ‘new economy‘ out there, though sharing roots with earlier real time online performers (porn).
abduhl 6y ago
I'd just like to point out that while Uber may argue that they are a tech company first and driver/delivery second, the judge ruled that they are the opposite. The judge isn't arguing anything.
jlarocco 6y ago
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. That argument reminds me of the George Costanza quote, "It's not lying, if you believe it." Regardless of what they consider themselves, everybody else thinks of them as a big taxi company. > Taken to its furthest extent, AB5 makes Airbnb hosts Airbnb employees, Amazon marketplace sellers Amazon employees, eBay sellers eBay employees, Twitch streamers Twitch employees, etc. I don't think it does, and that sounds like FUD. Do you have any references of those businesses actually being required to reclassify vendors as employees?
pishpash 6y ago
It's clear to me that Prong B of AB5 is broken and it's not fixable, except by arbitrary exemptions galore. Rather than admitting this, the state seems hellbent on shoehorning this law into something politically motivated against gig companies. All the actions on the state's part points to bad faith.
- 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
  Or maybe the state is acting in good faith on behalf of gig workers, and it's the gig companies tying themselves into knots trying to avoid legislation who are acting in bad faith?
  - pishpash 6y ago
    No, that's delusional. The state is at most interested in recouping revenue because it's out of money due to Covid. There are proposals on the table that would realistically improve the environment around gig work, but the state doesn't appear to care about those.
    - 9nGQluzmnq3M 6y ago
      So altruistic Good Guy Underdog Uber fighting in good faith to stick it to Big Bad Government is not delusional? Also, the legal wrangling over this started long before Covid.
      - unishark 6y ago
        To first order, both Uber and drivers were willingly choosing to work together. The state is outlawing a money-making venture consenting adults wanted to do. You don't know that the second order effects will be what you want. Government is a blunt instrument and many ordinary people will be upset and perhaps completely screwed by this. As the story says, for the next several months at least, the state may have cost people their source of income. Owners of taxis and shuttle services should be thrilled though. Were they the little guy here?
- 6y ago
chx 6y ago
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. Uber is a mess. It clearly needs to be a franchise. You have Mother Uber that develops the app and sells the franchise and Uber SF, Uber LA, Uber Seattle etc that hires the drivers. It's utterly unclear to me what efficiencies can be found for having one company doing all that.
- SrslyJosh 6y ago
  > It clearly needs to be a franchise. Think bigger. Why should transportation infrastructure (which is a public good) be controlled by a private, for-profit corporation?
  - brianwawok 6y ago
    Because that’s how innovation happens in the US? How are passengers trains innovating over the past 60 years?
    - SrslyJosh 6y ago
      Yes, the US sucks at investing in public infrastructure, especially transit. Obviously we should do nothing to try to change that. =)
      - TheColorYellow 6y ago
        Not the GP, but what would you suggest is a realistic alternative in the current state? Reforming public institutions to more effectively build public transportation infrastructure seems to be incredibly difficult. Local institutions seem to have maxed out their ability to improve beyond what exists. So why not let the private market innovate and improve? If the public institutions where smarter they'd be taking advantage of these innovations the same way as has happened in reverse when public institutions have had success with innovation.
        6y ago
freediver 6y ago
> Uber argues it is a technology company first, and drives/delivers second, whereas the judge argues the opposite. Convincing arguments can be made for both sides. UBER could theoretically function without the technology (a taxi service) but it could not function without the drivers, yet. If the fleet was driverless, then of course, they wouldn't have these problems in the first place.

SilasX 6y ago

Keep in mind, Sidecar went all the way with that -- drivers set their own prices and riders picked from a list of said drivers' offers, weighing their quality/time/cost. And yet I can't seem to find anyone at at the time of operation (i.e. up to EOY 2014) defending Sidecar as being substantively different from Uber with regard to the contractor distinction. Edit: corrected the year

gamblor956 6y ago
This wasn't a big issue back in 2014, so there wouldn't have been much if any discussion on it for a much smaller service that had almost no market share.
- SilasX 6y ago
  That's a different memory than I have, where it was huge by late 2013. Here's a HN story from mid 2014 where a taxi company discusses adapting by selling medallions (and thus ceding some car's right to street hails) and going more app-based in order to compete with Uber, so yes, low cost Uber rides were huge then. https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=8134323
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    We were talking about Sidecar, not Uber. SideCar was not huge at any point in its lifecyle. At one point in 2016/2017 it very briefly had the opportunity to become big, but failed the execution.
    - SilasX 6y ago
      We were talking about whether critics are going to go hands-off for a company that does it the "right" way (and grant driver's genuine independence) as Sidecar did, when they have a viable example to point to. As best I can tell, no one distinguished Uber from Sidecar when the latter was a legit rival. Example of a typical article that mentioned the three but said nothing about what made Sidecar's case more defensible. https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabilities-for-uber-sidecar-and-lyft/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/robertwood/2014/01/08/big-liabi... Raising the question that on-the-job injuries for drivers for the three could bring liability to the platform; no distinction for Sidecar: https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-compensation-uber-drivers-sharing-economy/ https://www.forbes.com/sites/ellenhuet/2015/01/06/workers-co... So yes, I'm skeptical that there's anyone out there who would actually follow through and recognize a driver as a contractor even if they had 100% control of who they accepted that platform really were just a matchmaker. Edit: If nothing else, I think that shows that SC was significant enough to be talked about alongside Uber.

sandworm101 6y ago

>> from the "employee" zone to "self-employed" in the everyday definition. Courts are not everyday people. For decades they gave lip service to a variety of factors, but inevitably each decision turned on one question: how are taxes handled? If the employer is managing the payment or withholding of taxes, then the worker was an employee. That is changing slowly but remains very much a determining factor.