5 ms·

> Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that 4 out of 5 drivers don’t support. Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argu

• manigandham 6y ago
  100% of the thousands of Uber drivers I've talked to over the past 8 years have said work flexibility is their greatest advantage. Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. If they wanted a FT driving job, they would've gotten one.
  • sb8244 6y ago
    Thinking through this more. I've noticed that a lot of drivers work both Uber and Lyft (flexibility allows this). Would that go away in the employee model?
    • manigandham 6y ago
      Yes. While you can be employed by multiple companies, it's unlikely you'll have the flexibility to do so because they will implement shift schedules to maximize employee driving time and coverage.
    • YuriNiyazov 6y ago
      Yes. You can’t be on the clock at two employers at the same time
    • Androider 6y ago
      I would think so, no more running multiple apps as a driver if you're employed. Because the pool of drivers for a particular company would be massively reduced as well, driver down-time between rides on their platform may be expected to significantly decrease, which was a major reason for running multiple apps in the first place. Basically the remaining drivers will essentially partition themselves into two pools, driving exclusively for either Uber or Lyft. I'm not saying anything about whether that's good or bad, but it seems a likely outcome.
      • sb8244 6y ago
        Thanks for taking it a step further. I didn't think about that perspective but I could see it playing out that way.
    • tensor 6y ago
      If the only option is to be full time I imagine it must. You can't bee full time on both services.
  • tedivm 6y ago
    AB5 left that flexibility in place. It allows for flexible hours and the ability to pick and choose the rides they accept. Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
    • rdschouw 6y ago
      True but the problem is that it mandates presence-based earnings (by the hour) and not output-based. That is the reason it does not work with the model Uber & Lyft built. Obviously, Lyft and Uber could've anticipated this and could've decided months ago to work on an alternative. Instead they let it come to a head and now they are trying to a dramatic PR push to get the law changed.
      • tedivm 6y ago
        The fact that Uber and Lyft had a model that relied on not paying people for the time they are working but not accepting rides is kind of the point.
    • manigandham 6y ago
      Employees were always able to have flexible hours, there's nothing new about that. The major change is that employee classification means predetermined shifts. Uber/Lyft will control when and where and how long work is. That changes everything about the service (which is what matters more than the price) and makes it nonviable outside of a few major urban areas.
    • dntrkv 6y ago
      The legislation doesn't outright ban those things, but the economics won't work out at scale if Uber has to classify the drivers as employees. Do you want low-commitment employment (from both sides) or do you want employee benefits. You can't have both.
      • tedivm 6y ago
        If the economics of Uber don't work when Uber is responsible for treating their drivers right, giving them a minimum wage, and offering benefits- then it sounds like their business model is simply exploiting the working class.
  • xienze 6y ago
    > Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. Exactly, why are so many people forgetting this aspect of ridesharing? The whole point is that you can pick it up and put it down whenever you want for a little extra cash. VERY early on people were able to make a killing doing Uber and that gave others a false impression that this was somehow a viable full time job. It's been years and years since it made economic sense to do Uber on a fulltime basis. Giving drivers benefits isn't going to change the effective hourly rate of $7/hr or whatever it's been for a while.
    • ornitorrincos 6y ago
      Isn't that the point? They spent more than sustainable by paying better than anybody else. Now they are trying to avoid the laws that made them unprofitable in the first term. it was unsustainable from the beggining, they just expected to gain the public opinion to change the laws
      • manigandham 6y ago
        It's no different than any other supply and demand market. If you open a new business selling shoes, nobody guarantees you an income or protection from competitors who take all the customers. A low-skill contract like driving casual passengers just has too much competition to be worth a full-time position, but it's still a great way for extra income with little commitment.
• weyland108 6y ago
  It is... there is same data from uber. This is a classic case of politicians and pundits not understanding the reality on the ground.
• infecto 6y ago
  This might not be the case here but I notice that CA often creates laws that are unrealistic and don't work. So while I don't have the data in this case it would not surprise me if true.
• jayd16 6y ago
  If true, it's also selection bias. Current drivers like the current situation. Current non-drivers might join the workforce under new circumstances. Obviously its just speculation but you should take the statistics with a grain of salt.
• topkai22 6y ago
  Probably, but I bet the 1/5 of drivers that support the getting classified as employees represent a disproportionate amount of driver hours spent on the app. If you are logged in 8.5h a day as your primary source of income, becoming an employee is probably beneficial. If you only log in for likely surge events a few hours a week, you largely won't get to do that anymore.