5 ms·

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 th

by 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.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    You are using a completely subjective opinion of "treating their drivers right". Have you spoken to many drivers about what they actually want? What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
    - tedivm 6y ago
      You're asking a lot of questions that can be answered with Google. With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it. Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
      - manigandham 6y ago
        So you didn't talk to any drivers? None of those questions are for Google. They question your position, and it seems that's why you didn't answer. Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself? Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.

by tedivm 6y ago

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.
- manigandham 6y ago
  You are using a completely subjective opinion of "treating their drivers right". Have you spoken to many drivers about what they actually want? What do you think independent contractor means? Do you think that nobody should be independent then? Do you realize that full-time driving jobs already exist? Why do you presume that drivers can't make this choice for themselves? Why can't the people who are unhappy with the earnings just stop driving? Why is it better for both riders and drivers to lose this service and income by forced legislation when it already works fine for millions?
  - tedivm 6y ago
    You're asking a lot of questions that can be answered with Google. With regards to my experiences- I've spent years as an independent contractor. My linkedin is in my profile, feel free to confirm. I know the pros and cons of being an independent contractor and have followed the changes in the law both on the federal and local level. I'd say I'm fairly well versed in it. Your argument about how "employee == full time" is just a straw man. No one is requiring people to be full time. In fact "flexibility"- which in most survays done on drivers is one of their top concerns- is preserved with the legal cases and subsequent AB5 legislation. The only difference is that as employees drivers would also get paid for idle time while waiting for rides, would have the option of benefits, and Uber would be responsible for paying unemployment taxes for when those riders lose their jobs (like when a pandemic hits).
    - manigandham 6y ago
      So you didn't talk to any drivers? None of those questions are for Google. They question your position, and it seems that's why you didn't answer. Why did you ever work as a contractor if you're against not having a min wage and benefits? You claim that's "right" so what changed? Why impose that on others instead of choosing for yourself? Flexibility means work when, where, and however long you want. AB5 removes this. Employee classification means preset shifts, which means it's only viable with fewer drivers working set schedules in dense areas instead of the fluid supply/demand with high coverage that exists today. This fundamentally changes the service from what consumers want, and that's why it doesn't work.