38 ms·

Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

424 points by badwolf 6y ago

filereaper 6y ago
Good, this can wait till Covid-19, forest-fires and other urgent matters right now in California have been taken care of.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Yes. Once those crises are over it's all smooth sailing ahead! There'll be TONS of time for labor law then.
  - filereaper 6y ago
    I'm not saying it'll be smooth sailing at all, just that this isn't the right time to cut access given all the other issues that are ongoing.
    - Bahamut 6y ago
      Tell that to Uber and Lyft.
      - slimed 6y ago
        Tell them what? That they are required to operate in CA no matter the terms? Good luck with that.
    - AlexandrB 6y ago
      I know global warming is a pretty controversial topic on this site, but I expect the frequency and severity of "other issues" to increase in the future. Thus what you're saying is there will never be a right time.
- HaloZero 6y ago
  It won't even have to wait till then. November is the Prop 22 ballot. If it fails, I imagine Lyft/Uber will just have to start switching. By Sept. 4 each defendant must submit a sworn statement from its CEO “confirming that it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal.” From: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-win-last-minute-reprieve-Service-to-15499317.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-win-l...
- fsociety 6y ago
  I and many others have never been as reliant on Uber and Lyft as we have now. I’m fortunate enough to have finances to adapt to this, but a lot of people don’t.
tyre 6y ago
For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to bully voters into voting their way on Prop 22 in November. They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition approved by voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it in the press and the courts.
- product50 6y ago
  I hope you realize that AB5 will eventually make its way into delivery services too. All those services will cost a lot more then. Are you ready for that? Even if you are, have you thought about low income earners and how they will cope up with this? These are 2 sided marketplaces - just thinking from the driver's standpoint, who mind you have also protested against this since it robs them of flexibility, is missing the point. I really hope people vote for Prop 22 and kill this awful law which was mostly brought in by unions/taxi drivers to have their way around things.
- apsec112 6y ago
  AB5 was a legislative act, not a proposition.
- ztratar 6y ago
  They did not have "years to adjust their businesses" to a changing landscape of demands, the worst-case scenario of which literally destroys their innovation/business. "You had years to plan for us removing 95% of your business!" is quite the argument.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    Their business was a legal dodge to begin with and they knew it. You can't start a business selling cocaine through a series of complex transactions such that it's "technically" legal and then complain when the government tries to regulate your "innovation" to bring it in line with existing law.
    - sushid 6y ago
      Freelancing is already a thing. This is a horrible analogy.
blakesterz 6y ago
"Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation." I was curious about what drivers think. I guess they're not happy [1] but want to be independent contractors still [2]. 1. https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ 2. (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and Lyft drivers nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent contractors) https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-classify-drivers-as-employees-11597106349 https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-classify-d...
- Skunkleton 6y ago
  > ...Uber drivers reported earning $13.47 per hour, which means that on average, drivers report that their car is costing them over $6 per hour to operate. If you were to drive full time, that would get you about 27k/year, which is about the average income that a taxi driver makes. Rideshare companies are asking you to take more personal financial risk than you might as a taxi driver, but giving you more flexibility. Still 27k/year is not much money really anywhere in the country. I think this is a symptom of some major underlying problems with our economy rather than an indictment of the rideshare industry. If we can't afford to pay drivers a living wage to do their work, then the people who are using these services aren't as well off as they think they are.
  - jluxenberg 6y ago
    Tangent: $6/hr sounds a bit low; actual costs are probably higher. The IRS standard mileage rate (the amount you can deduct from your taxes for each mile driven) is $0.58/mi (https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates) $6/hr operating costs means the driver is driving a max of ~10mi/hour, if costs to operate are in line with IRS guidelines.
    - Hamuko 6y ago
      I wouldn't be surprised if drivers are underestimating their costs. The true cost of vehicle ownership is rather murky and I doubt many of these drivers are self-taught accountants.
ffggvv 6y ago
I’m not sure why we need prop22 specifically targeting rideshare drivers instead of just repealing AB5 i know so many people’s whose jobs were destroyed by it and still haven’t found anything else.
- wskinner 6y ago
  Can you share the professions of the people you know whose jobs were destroyed?
  - ffggvv 6y ago
    one was a contractor for a company that did content moderation/fact checking on a big tech website. when ab5 was passed they predictably laid off everyone in california. others include freelance writers, and other online work
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm not taking chances. Just ended everything with Cali contractors.
      - ffggvv 6y ago
        yeah i mean frankly speaking it’s just not worth the risk to hire someone from ca given the law. it’s not like ca employees provide anything special over other state’s that would justify paying them more for low skill jobs that can be done remotely
  - victorvation 6y ago
    Freelance writers, both bloggers as well as longform investigative journalists.
  - kooshball 6y ago
    one example https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/vox-media-cuts-hundreds-freelancers-ab5 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/vox-media-... The only reason we haven't seen other professions being widely decimated by AB5 is because they all lobbied for exemptions which again shows how corrupt this law was. See the full list here https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/exempt-job-categories-under-californias-new-ab5-law.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/exempt-job-categorie...
donsupreme 6y ago
Uber gained market cap of $4B since this appeal news broke, already spent $100M to fight AB5, all the while they burnt $2B in their last quarter. And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance.
- creato 6y ago
  > And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance. You compared global market cap/revenue losses to just the impact of CA. What happens when other markets follow in CA's footsteps?
  - r00fus 6y ago
    This argument that local laws can't be followed because "what would other jurisdictions do" doesn't seem to apply to authoritarian places like China who impose pretty onerous requirements for operation (like state ownership). There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers set their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make them less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would crater their valuation.
    - foota 6y ago
      And also make the service much less useful. Or at least very different from what it is now.
    - majormajor 6y ago
      > There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers set their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make them less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would crater their valuation. That isn't enough, is it? Don't they still fail the "core business functionality" part of the test?
    - creato 6y ago
      I'm not making an argument for or against Uber. Just explaining why they didn't just eat the cost of this because it would have been insignificant/cheaper than fighting it.
xwdv 6y ago
Why does it seem like people are trying so hard to be outraged about this?
CharlesMerriam2 6y ago
Recognize that more reasonable solutions exist, for example, modifying AB5 exempting anyone pulling in >$50K ($25/hour for any hour available or logging into the app). Propositions, being like an unchangeable binary library, are 'take-it-or-leave-it' laws.
- umvi 6y ago
  So basically "if you are poor you can't use Uber/Lyft you would exploit yourself out of desperation. Go find a different job that pays a living wage/benefits. If you are middle class and already making enough to live on, that's cool you can use Uber/Lyft to supplement your income since you won't abuse yourself trying to make the platform sustain you."
kreutz 6y ago
Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not just seek some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.
- yannyu 6y ago
  The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for whatever job that can get that will help them eat and provide for their families.
  - annexrichmond 6y ago
    Yeah and what if they won't have a job at all because Uber/Lyft suddenly became too expensive for anyone to use? If the costs increase dramatically, demand goes down and thus fewer drivers needed, as people look at alternatives like getting their own car, public transportation, bikes, etc.
  - tetrometal 6y ago
    I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
    - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
      the option is to provide the infrastructure for the market to figure out, but you need some baseline first, and we don't have that baseline. Decouple healthcare from having a job and you're already halfway there, like the rest of the world.
      - throwaway0956 6y ago
        This is like complaining to the landlord that your AC doesn't work and the landlord saying "Fixing is not an option. We need to stop Global Warming so that the temperatures stop going up first."
    - 6y ago
dang 6y ago
The earlier thread, before this new information came up, is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882 and still ongoing.
MangoCoffee 6y ago
Isn't their business is based on "freelance"? if their taxi drivers go full time. the business operation will be a lot more with additional cost.
Ericson2314 6y ago
I'm sad that here was a rare chance that people voted on something, and the effects of the vote would have been palpable. We'll have scare tactics, stays, negotiations, changes to the bill, etc., all leading to a complete lack of shock and awe. People will not pay attention, and continue assume the effects of votes is nothing. And I wouldn't want to convince them otherwise. To be clear, this comment doesn't assume people actually want Lyft to leave. Whether people are thrilled or filled with regret, it doesn't matter. I just want them to feel the power of a vote. :(
ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
This is all a shit show because the infrastructures in place are currently doomed for the market to succeed: - no healthcare means you're a slave of whatever you can find, - tipping culture means your employer can pay you shit
- ram_rar 6y ago
  +1 for tipping culture. I just dont get it, why can employers pay their fair share, instead of expecting customers to foot the bill.
  - ksdale 6y ago
    I wouldn't mind at all if tipping culture disappeared, but I think it's naive to think that costs wouldn't go up dramatically for customers. Customers are footing the bill one way or another, it's just a matter of whether we're willing to pay enough to ensure everyone gets a livable wage.
    - crosscorsair 6y ago
      The real problem of tipping culture is it transferred the conflict of interest from businesses/employees to customers/employees. Yes customers may end up paying the same, but when the employees want more, they will not ask for it from the customers.
    - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
      so you're saying you're hopping that tipping goes away like that you can save by not tipping and letting other people tip? Sounds good to me!
      - ksdale 6y ago
        I don’t think there’s any possible interpretation of my comment that lines up with what you said...
  - Skunkleton 6y ago
throwawaygh 6y ago
When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.
- erichocean 6y ago
  Now do Amazon.
  - sneak 6y ago
    Amazon pays more in payroll taxes, SUI, and Social Security alone than the entire revenue of the vast majority of any company you could select in the world.
    - fsociety 6y ago
      Doesn’t Uber pay all that too? I feel like I’m missing the point.
      - throwawaygh 6y ago
        No, not for its drivers.
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- c1b 6y ago
  sounds like you don't know any Uber/Lyft drivers
  - throwawaygh 6y ago
    I think it’s fairly clear I’m referring to the VC and founders who chose a business model that effectively arbitrages others’ belief in an obligation to contribute to the social safety net.
serjester 6y ago
Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving so I really don't buy the exploitation argument. Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats. Also don't see how it's realistic to expect them to be able to adjust to this on a dime. Although large, California is still a minority of their revenue.
- lovecg 6y ago
  The talking points I heard was that this was done because of 1) Payroll tax revenue 2) Unions feeling threatened The implication is in either case it’s an explicitly hostile action by the government in favor of special interests, and the majority of drivers did not want this. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic pitch in — is there any truth to these arguments?
  - dcftoapv 6y ago
    The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and coerced) the state / city government from installing a train from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash. Then, they got pissed about Uber, and had a rule enacted that forced passengers to take a bus to an external lot which turned the world's worst airport congestion into a way worse situation. It is not unrealistic to think that they are a driving force behind this situation as well. California is corrupt as fuck, from GM paying LA to take out way more efficient train lines so they could sell buses to Beverly Hills preventing LA from building a subway. It makes living here absolutely miserable.
    - tomjakubowski 6y ago
      What "Los Angeles taxi union" organization specifically lobbied against the LAX train, which, by the way, is now being built? There may well have been industry lobbyists fighting this but until very recently (the last five years) almost no taxi drivers in Los Angeles were unionized.
tareqak 6y ago
The article links the appellate injunction here: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2325037&doc_no=A160706&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw3W1BNSCMtVEtIMFw6UVxfJSJeWzpSUCAgCg%3D%3D https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.... . I read the following section in it “Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020”, but nothing about an October deadline. Here is the relevant section in full. >> start On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) from classifying their drivers as independent contractors and from violating certain laws. Both Lyft and Uber have appealed the order, and the trial court stayed the injunction for ten days to allow them to seek relief in this court. Lyft (in case No. A160701) and Uber (in case No. A160706) have each petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas. The People have filed an opposition to the petitions. The petitions for writ of supersedeas are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. The petitions are granted and the preliminary injunction is stayed pending resolution of Lyft and Uber's appeals, subject to the condition that, by 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020, Lyft and Uber shall both file written consents to the expedited procedures specified herein. If Lyft and Uber do not both file such written consents, the stay shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020. The procedures are as follows: 1. Lyft's and Uber's appeals shall be consolidated. Lyft and Uber may file separate briefs or combined briefs as they prefer. 2. Lyft and Uber shall proceed with an appendix in lieu of a clerk?s transcript on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.) They shall cooperate to prepare and file a single combined appellants' appendix, rather than separate appendices, which they shall file no later than the date they file their opening briefs. The appendix shall include a full copy of the index at the beginning of each appendix volume, and the digital copy of the appendix shall include pdf bookmark tabs for each entry on the index. 3. Briefing shall proceed on the following schedule. The appellants' opening briefs shall be filed no later than September 4, 2020. The respondent's brief shall be filed no later than September 18, 2020. The reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later than September 25, 2020. Absent unforeseen extraordinary circumstances, there shall be no extensions. Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020. 4. On or before September 4, 2020, each defendant shall submit a sworn statement from its chief executive officer confirming that it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. 5. Should Lyft or Uber fail to comply with these procedures, the People may apply to this court to vacate this stay. Unless otherwise ordered, the stay will dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.) << end Hopefully, the above should help others here figure out where the October deadline is coming from.
cltby 6y ago
> Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats Not true, it's a great opportunity for javascript developers to get up on their soap boxes and share with us their moral and economic wisdom.
- dcftoapv 6y ago
  Pot meet kettle
  - Spivak 6y ago
    Poking fun at your own ingroup is the joke.
- jpxw 6y ago
  This made me laugh out loud, lol
- jsharf 6y ago
  haha, point taken. But I'd say it's good that they care. Developers are in a different income bracket. Concern is far better than cold indifference, which is what usually happens...
- talmr 6y ago
  wdym? is this related to the SO developer survey?
- yunderalls 6y ago
  I laughed at this, but I do think I should point out that in a democracy it's good for people to have opinions about things that aren't their profession.
  - Judgmentality 6y ago
    I think it's less about people having opinions and more about people being so self-righteous about something they don't understand as well as they think they do.
vmchale 6y ago
Damn. Too big to regulate!
- node-bayarea 6y ago
  Lets regulate it to death!
  - dang 6y ago
    Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? It's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html
leptoniscool 6y ago
The state government blinked, and Lyft and Uber won
overgard 6y ago
I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the drivers, but I haven't really seen a compelling argument for why all drivers should count as employees. From my perspective being an "employee" implies certain things that don't seem to apply here (predictable work times, exclusivity (so many lyft drivers are also uber drivers), etc. ) "Freelancer" seems way more appropriate, the only problem is the lack of protections. It seems to me that culturally "gig worker" has become its own category anyway and it makes more sense to create a new legal category with its own set of legal protections. I know people will point to health insurance... but that's a separate problem with having health insurance tied to employment. I think it's awful that people that aren't considered full time employees don't get health insurance.. but I also think that's the government's problem and obligation, not Uber or Lyfts
- dannyw 6y ago
  You hit the hammer on the nail. If I was an employee and worked for two directly competing companies simultaneously, I’d be fired for cause.
  - sixstringtheory 6y ago
    Is it actually simultaneous? Of course drivers use multiple services, but I’ve never taken a ride with uber where the driver had passengers from lyft in the car, eg.
    - bhupy 6y ago
      Drivers usually keep both apps open and active, then accept the first dispatch they receive and temporarily go offline on the other app while finishing the trip. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
      - sixstringtheory 6y ago
        I used to work multiple jobs at different restaurants, where I’d do a morning shift at one and an evening shift at the other. They could be considered competitors. What is the difference between what I did and what drivers do, besides the frequency of and duration of shifts? I don’t know what kind of laws might govern requirements here. Could be different between cities/states/countries, too. Now, maybe they’d dictate requirements for things like shift duration if drivers were considered “actual employees” but then they’d presumably also be receiving other benefits that might obviate the need to drive for multiple services.
kumarski 6y ago
What most of the people in this thread don't realize is the reason that Uber became large? The smart ones will understand that Uber's entire subversive cross border growth tactic was tracking cops, which is a felony. They hired Eric Holder to do the clean up job with workplace harassment as the cover story. Eric Holder is not the best sexual harassment lawyer, he's the best lawyer to go close private backroom deals with Attorney Generals in all 50 states. Uber not only did this domestically they did it in places abroad too, india etc... They were able to fly under the radar long enough to circumvent localized taxes. Medallion holders pay taxes into their locales, Uber does not. TNC liceneses are a small fraction of the profits generated. AB5 California Contractor/Employee Policy: To hire a contractor, businesses must prove worker a) is free from the company’s control b) doing non core/critical work to co c) has an ind. business in that industry. Must meet all 3 or be classified as employees. The lack of property taxes, more pension fund shortfalls, etc... means that California is racing to collect taxes. The first levers are things like weird fees on receipts, then it moves to applying payroll logic and taxes to businesses (employee vs. contractor), then to wealth taxes, and then the real big kahuna is the VAT taxes. The VAT taxes are coming. Taxi cab drivers were middle class and medallion ownership created wealth. Uber exploits its contractors, operates at a loss, and is propped up by political nepotism and cheap laundered CCP cash. David Plouffe's job was to run an astroturfing campaign in every major city. He had trouble written all over him. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouffe-uber-lobbying-fine-20170216-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouff... Uber is a revolving door of corruption at the highest levels. Uber circumvented taxes in every city they approached by bribing the State with TNC's and hiring from the revolving door. People don't talk about all the thug life things Uber did to grow. I always call BS whenever some Uber shirt tucker comes my way and says "marketplace dynamics" and "intelligent routing." Uber is an amoral company that built political firewalls against regulatory realities, not one of brilliant technologists. Also, here's me with $50k in uber credits: https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20 https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20 It took me several years to figure out the subversive truths of Uber that made it large.
dmode 6y ago
So, I wasted my outrage in another thread complaining about this only only for a judge to put this on hold. :facepalm:
node-bayarea 6y ago
Democratic politicians are terrible when it comes to business! They are going to kill great companies AND the economy for their self-serving political BS!
iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago
They're lucky to have that judge. Uber and Lyft have consistently flaunted the law with a basic attitude of "screw you, our service is too popular, if you try to regulate us out of existence then your constituents will be madder at you than us". But right now, the service is not popular at all. I was a relatively heavy user of Uber and I haven't even thought about calling one in months. Food delivery sure, but I don't plan on using ride-sharing services for at least another year... who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each other's air? Who wants to DRIVE for Uber, breathing strangers' air all day? Besides, there is nowhere to go. No events, bars are all closed, etc. The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated.
- ojagodzinski 6y ago
  > who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each other's air? XD There are countries (like any other country then US) that have something called PUBLIC TRANSPORT. And people use is every day regardless of pandemic. > The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated Uber is still much more "healthier" than public transport.
  - iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago
    I am posting from the Bay Area, we have public transit here too. Not as good as other countries, but it's normally quite popular. My girlfriend actually works for the transit agency. And right now, let me tell you, they are completely fucked. Ticket revenue is down something like 95%. Nobody wants to be on BART or Caltrain right now. (Although it's worth noting, here specifically the trains are typically used by people who also have a private car that they could take instead if they choose.)
    - pixelatedindex 6y ago
      I'm from the Bay Area and public transit here is laughable at best. To go some place would be 15 minutes by car and 45 minutes by bus - if the bus comes on time at all. The light rail in South Bay moves slower than traffic sometimes. Caltrain runs once an hour (apart from 4 hours every weekday when it's once every 20 minutes). BART extension took over 15 years! How is this remotely a good solution? DC Metro's transit and NY transit runs circles around the one here, not to mention ones from Korea/Japan/Poland runs circles. I've been forced to take public transit for over 5 years and boy do I hate it if I've to actually get somewhere on time. Sorry, I'm triggered :)
solutron 6y ago
This is a symptom of the core, underlying problem. The coupling between employer, employee and health care needs to be undone. Employers aren't healthcare providers, we don't need additional middle-men and bureaucracy dictating, by proxy, how people receive care and from who. Universal healthcare would let Uber and Lyft continue to do what their primary focus is, and drivers would be able to do whatever they want work-wise and not have to worry about its affect on their ability to receive healthcare at an affordable price.
- viscanti 6y ago
  It's crazy to see the same politicians who push for universal healthcare also push for more coupling of employment to healthcare.
  - vinay427 6y ago
    The subset of politicians who are pushing for universal healthcare don't all belong to the group supporting coupling with employment. I'm not really sure where you heard that? For instance, I don't believe Medicare for All, at least in its proposed form, encourages coupling employment with healthcare, but correct me if I'm wrong.
timavr 6y ago
Love how they fight for drivers rights and working real hard to replace them with self driving fleet.
omot 6y ago
What really irks me about this whole thing is how Uber Eats and Door Dash is unaffected by all this. Delivery workers have almost exactly the same paradigm, but I guess they're not enforcing it, because of the number of restaurants, drivers, and eaters that will be affected?
- deminature 6y ago
  They are being affected, just not as publicly as the transportation example https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-action-to-make-doordash-recognize-delivery-workers-as-employees https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-action-t... What is particularly egregious is how traditional taxis are being ignored, despite having most of the same labor problems as app-based transportation services.
senderista 6y ago
How much of this debate would be moot if we had a proper social safety net, so workers didn't depend on their employers for necessities like health insurance? Social democracy can make the economy more agile, not less.
afrojack123 6y ago
Possibly a dumb and general question. Is Uber and Lyft responsible for state tax revenue from its contractors? Or are the contractors supposed to pay their own taxes? I could understand the states having problems with contractor's paying their own taxes considering their incomes are lower.
- darkwizard42 6y ago
  Independent contractors pay their own taxes. Uber and Lyft offer tools and assistance to help drivers adequately report and take deductions etc. as needed (Lyft at least offers the ability to export ride data etc. as needed, I believe but am not sure if Uber does the same). Companies pay taxes for their employees (different tax relationship altogether). Another way to think about it is... do you ever pay taxes for a painter or plumber that does a job for you? (probably not)
  - afrojack123 6y ago
    If so, I understand where the state's are coming from. They need to make a special low-income contractor status with which the parent company is responsible income tax for contractors.
m0zg 6y ago
Yeah, removing the means to make a living from 200K people in CA while also pushing millions of people to crowded and epidemiologically disastrous public transportation seems like a particularly idiotic idea right about now. I'm not necessarily against better labor protections, and I only do Uber rides maybe 3-4 times a year, and not in CA, but I'm sure there will be a better time to argue this out to its logical conclusion.
URSpider94 6y ago
We have long ago decided that we don’t let people give away certain rights, even if they do it freely, even if they want to. I can’t work for a business for free, or for below minimum wage, even if I call myself an “unpaid intern”. I can’t work for a business as a child (below working age). I can’t ask a business not to withhold income tax from my paycheck, or to not pay their half of the social security tax, or withhold my half. My employer has to pay into the unemployment insurance pool on my behalf. We have these rules because every unscrupulous employer out there has exploited one or more of these ploys at some time in the past, and would gladly do so again. Companies are constantly looking for ways to avoid one or more of these restrictions. One way is to claim someone is a contractor - basically another business - and therefore is responsible for making sure its own employees are treated according to the law (usually there’s only one employee...). This is a constant cat and mouse game. Uber and Lyft claim to be transportation marketplaces where riders and drivers meet up and contract for services, except they dictate every aspect of the transaction, other than when the drivers choose to work. It’s not 100% of the way employees at Wal Mart or McDonalds are treated, but it’s at least 80% there. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the TNC’s have fulfilled almost all of the standard tests for when someone is considered an employee.
- Cookingboy 6y ago
  >other than when the drivers choose to work. You can't just hand waive away a fundamental difference like that. From my conversation with some Lyft/Uber drivers they really treasure that aspect and they would rather quit if they are forced to be regular employees with dictated working hours.
  - URSpider94 6y ago
    Becoming an employee doesn’t necessarily mean you have to work a rigid schedule. There are plenty of employees, like flight attendants, who bid on shifts on a periodic basis, and who have the opportunity to trade or add shifts freely.
    - pembrook 6y ago
fastball 6y ago
Honestly I think all of these ideas about what isn't and is a contractor are wayyyy over-specified. To my mind, a contractor has always been just someone you are hiring for a particular piece of work. It's about one-offs. You are not hiring them for a year, in which time they will do an indeterminate number of pieces of work. That is what an employee with a salary is for. You are hiring them to do a particular piece of work. That is why you pay them per piece of work. So to me, the simplest (and only) test should be: "are you paying them per piece of work?". If yes, contractor. If no, employee. I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee. If I hire someone to write blog posts for me, and I pay them per blog post, they're a contractor. The employee version is someone I pay a set salary to based on their skillset, and then they output some indeterminate amount of work. If I hire someone to watch my kids for me, and I pay them per time they watch my kids, they're a contractor, not an employee. The employee version is a nanny who lives in my home. If someone is getting paid each time they perform a ride (and not otherwise), they're a contractor. An employee is someone that you are paying even when they're not driving. I don't think "setting prices", "choosing which hours", etc. has anything to do with it. If I hire someone to write a blog post for me this morning and tell them I need it by lunch time, I'm not giving them a choice of when they want to work – they need to do it now. But they're still clearly a contractor. The question remains whether or not contractors under this definition need similar protections that are afforded to employees, and I definitely think this is a question worth debating/considering. But California conflating everything to be an employee seems like the worst way to approach the issue.
- tokai 6y ago
  >I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee. Piece rate work payment exists in construction, agriculture, and other industries. People are permanently on staff, but only paid in direct relation to their productivity. It's an old trick to extract the value of labour.
maedla 6y ago
These companies aren't even profitable, why should they be allowed to survive?

424 points by badwolf 6y ago

Good, this can wait till Covid-19, forest-fires and other urgent matters right now in California have been taken care of.

AlexandrB 6y ago
Yes. Once those crises are over it's all smooth sailing ahead! There'll be TONS of time for labor law then.
- filereaper 6y ago
  I'm not saying it'll be smooth sailing at all, just that this isn't the right time to cut access given all the other issues that are ongoing.
  - Bahamut 6y ago
    Tell that to Uber and Lyft.
    - slimed 6y ago
      Tell them what? That they are required to operate in CA no matter the terms? Good luck with that.
  - AlexandrB 6y ago
    I know global warming is a pretty controversial topic on this site, but I expect the frequency and severity of "other issues" to increase in the future. Thus what you're saying is there will never be a right time.
HaloZero 6y ago
It won't even have to wait till then. November is the Prop 22 ballot. If it fails, I imagine Lyft/Uber will just have to start switching. By Sept. 4 each defendant must submit a sworn statement from its CEO “confirming that it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal.” From: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-win-last-minute-reprieve-Service-to-15499317.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-win-l...
fsociety 6y ago
I and many others have never been as reliant on Uber and Lyft as we have now. I’m fortunate enough to have finances to adapt to this, but a lot of people don’t.

tyre 6y ago

For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to bully voters into voting their way on Prop 22 in November. They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition approved by voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it in the press and the courts.

product50 6y ago
I hope you realize that AB5 will eventually make its way into delivery services too. All those services will cost a lot more then. Are you ready for that? Even if you are, have you thought about low income earners and how they will cope up with this? These are 2 sided marketplaces - just thinking from the driver's standpoint, who mind you have also protested against this since it robs them of flexibility, is missing the point. I really hope people vote for Prop 22 and kill this awful law which was mostly brought in by unions/taxi drivers to have their way around things.
apsec112 6y ago
AB5 was a legislative act, not a proposition.
ztratar 6y ago
They did not have "years to adjust their businesses" to a changing landscape of demands, the worst-case scenario of which literally destroys their innovation/business. "You had years to plan for us removing 95% of your business!" is quite the argument.
- AlexandrB 6y ago
  Their business was a legal dodge to begin with and they knew it. You can't start a business selling cocaine through a series of complex transactions such that it's "technically" legal and then complain when the government tries to regulate your "innovation" to bring it in line with existing law.
  - sushid 6y ago
    Freelancing is already a thing. This is a horrible analogy.

blakesterz 6y ago

"Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials contend this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance and workers’ compensation." I was curious about what drivers think. I guess they're not happy [1] but want to be independent contractors still [2]. 1. https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ 2. (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and Lyft drivers nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent contractors) https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-classify-drivers-as-employees-11597106349 https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-classify-d...

Skunkleton 6y ago
> ...Uber drivers reported earning $13.47 per hour, which means that on average, drivers report that their car is costing them over $6 per hour to operate. If you were to drive full time, that would get you about 27k/year, which is about the average income that a taxi driver makes. Rideshare companies are asking you to take more personal financial risk than you might as a taxi driver, but giving you more flexibility. Still 27k/year is not much money really anywhere in the country. I think this is a symptom of some major underlying problems with our economy rather than an indictment of the rideshare industry. If we can't afford to pay drivers a living wage to do their work, then the people who are using these services aren't as well off as they think they are.
- jluxenberg 6y ago
  Tangent: $6/hr sounds a bit low; actual costs are probably higher. The IRS standard mileage rate (the amount you can deduct from your taxes for each mile driven) is $0.58/mi (https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-rates) $6/hr operating costs means the driver is driving a max of ~10mi/hour, if costs to operate are in line with IRS guidelines.
  - Hamuko 6y ago
    I wouldn't be surprised if drivers are underestimating their costs. The true cost of vehicle ownership is rather murky and I doubt many of these drivers are self-taught accountants.

ffggvv 6y ago

I’m not sure why we need prop22 specifically targeting rideshare drivers instead of just repealing AB5 i know so many people’s whose jobs were destroyed by it and still haven’t found anything else.

wskinner 6y ago
Can you share the professions of the people you know whose jobs were destroyed?
- ffggvv 6y ago
  one was a contractor for a company that did content moderation/fact checking on a big tech website. when ab5 was passed they predictably laid off everyone in california. others include freelance writers, and other online work
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm not taking chances. Just ended everything with Cali contractors.
    - ffggvv 6y ago
      yeah i mean frankly speaking it’s just not worth the risk to hire someone from ca given the law. it’s not like ca employees provide anything special over other state’s that would justify paying them more for low skill jobs that can be done remotely
- victorvation 6y ago
  Freelance writers, both bloggers as well as longform investigative journalists.
- kooshball 6y ago
  one example https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/vox-media-cuts-hundreds-freelancers-ab5 https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/vox-media-... The only reason we haven't seen other professions being widely decimated by AB5 is because they all lobbied for exemptions which again shows how corrupt this law was. See the full list here https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/exempt-job-categories-under-californias-new-ab5-law.html https://www.nolo.com/legal-encyclopedia/exempt-job-categorie...

donsupreme 6y ago

Uber gained market cap of $4B since this appeal news broke, already spent $100M to fight AB5, all the while they burnt $2B in their last quarter. And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance.

creato 6y ago
> And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance. You compared global market cap/revenue losses to just the impact of CA. What happens when other markets follow in CA's footsteps?
- r00fus 6y ago
  This argument that local laws can't be followed because "what would other jurisdictions do" doesn't seem to apply to authoritarian places like China who impose pretty onerous requirements for operation (like state ownership). There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers set their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make them less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would crater their valuation.
  - foota 6y ago
    And also make the service much less useful. Or at least very different from what it is now.
  - majormajor 6y ago
    > There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers set their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make them less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would crater their valuation. That isn't enough, is it? Don't they still fail the "core business functionality" part of the test?
  - creato 6y ago
    I'm not making an argument for or against Uber. Just explaining why they didn't just eat the cost of this because it would have been insignificant/cheaper than fighting it.

xwdv 6y ago

Why does it seem like people are trying so hard to be outraged about this?

CharlesMerriam2 6y ago

Recognize that more reasonable solutions exist, for example, modifying AB5 exempting anyone pulling in >$50K ($25/hour for any hour available or logging into the app). Propositions, being like an unchangeable binary library, are 'take-it-or-leave-it' laws.

umvi 6y ago
So basically "if you are poor you can't use Uber/Lyft you would exploit yourself out of desperation. Go find a different job that pays a living wage/benefits. If you are middle class and already making enough to live on, that's cool you can use Uber/Lyft to supplement your income since you won't abuse yourself trying to make the platform sustain you."

kreutz 6y ago

Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not just seek some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.

yannyu 6y ago
The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for whatever job that can get that will help them eat and provide for their families.
- annexrichmond 6y ago
  Yeah and what if they won't have a job at all because Uber/Lyft suddenly became too expensive for anyone to use? If the costs increase dramatically, demand goes down and thus fewer drivers needed, as people look at alternatives like getting their own car, public transportation, bikes, etc.
- tetrometal 6y ago
  I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
  - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
    the option is to provide the infrastructure for the market to figure out, but you need some baseline first, and we don't have that baseline. Decouple healthcare from having a job and you're already halfway there, like the rest of the world.
    - throwaway0956 6y ago
      This is like complaining to the landlord that your AC doesn't work and the landlord saying "Fixing is not an option. We need to stop Global Warming so that the temperatures stop going up first."
  - 6y ago

dang 6y ago

The earlier thread, before this new information came up, is at https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882 and still ongoing.

MangoCoffee 6y ago

Isn't their business is based on "freelance"? if their taxi drivers go full time. the business operation will be a lot more with additional cost.

Ericson2314 6y ago

I'm sad that here was a rare chance that people voted on something, and the effects of the vote would have been palpable. We'll have scare tactics, stays, negotiations, changes to the bill, etc., all leading to a complete lack of shock and awe. People will not pay attention, and continue assume the effects of votes is nothing. And I wouldn't want to convince them otherwise. To be clear, this comment doesn't assume people actually want Lyft to leave. Whether people are thrilled or filled with regret, it doesn't matter. I just want them to feel the power of a vote. :(

ccktlmazeltov 6y ago

This is all a shit show because the infrastructures in place are currently doomed for the market to succeed: - no healthcare means you're a slave of whatever you can find, - tipping culture means your employer can pay you shit

ram_rar 6y ago
+1 for tipping culture. I just dont get it, why can employers pay their fair share, instead of expecting customers to foot the bill.
- ksdale 6y ago
  I wouldn't mind at all if tipping culture disappeared, but I think it's naive to think that costs wouldn't go up dramatically for customers. Customers are footing the bill one way or another, it's just a matter of whether we're willing to pay enough to ensure everyone gets a livable wage.
  - crosscorsair 6y ago
    The real problem of tipping culture is it transferred the conflict of interest from businesses/employees to customers/employees. Yes customers may end up paying the same, but when the employees want more, they will not ask for it from the customers.
  - ccktlmazeltov 6y ago
    so you're saying you're hopping that tipping goes away like that you can save by not tipping and letting other people tip? Sounds good to me!
    - ksdale 6y ago
      I don’t think there’s any possible interpretation of my comment that lines up with what you said...
- Skunkleton 6y ago

throwawaygh 6y ago

When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like unemployment without ever paying into the system, what’s happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC capital. People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad about themselves.

erichocean 6y ago
Now do Amazon.
- sneak 6y ago
  Amazon pays more in payroll taxes, SUI, and Social Security alone than the entire revenue of the vast majority of any company you could select in the world.
  - fsociety 6y ago
    Doesn’t Uber pay all that too? I feel like I’m missing the point.
    - throwawaygh 6y ago
      No, not for its drivers.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
c1b 6y ago
sounds like you don't know any Uber/Lyft drivers
- throwawaygh 6y ago
  I think it’s fairly clear I’m referring to the VC and founders who chose a business model that effectively arbitrages others’ belief in an obligation to contribute to the social safety net.

serjester 6y ago

Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving so I really don't buy the exploitation argument. Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats. Also don't see how it's realistic to expect them to be able to adjust to this on a dime. Although large, California is still a minority of their revenue.

lovecg 6y ago
The talking points I heard was that this was done because of 1) Payroll tax revenue 2) Unions feeling threatened The implication is in either case it’s an explicitly hostile action by the government in favor of special interests, and the majority of drivers did not want this. Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic pitch in — is there any truth to these arguments?
- dcftoapv 6y ago
  The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and coerced) the state / city government from installing a train from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash. Then, they got pissed about Uber, and had a rule enacted that forced passengers to take a bus to an external lot which turned the world's worst airport congestion into a way worse situation. It is not unrealistic to think that they are a driving force behind this situation as well. California is corrupt as fuck, from GM paying LA to take out way more efficient train lines so they could sell buses to Beverly Hills preventing LA from building a subway. It makes living here absolutely miserable.
  - tomjakubowski 6y ago
    What "Los Angeles taxi union" organization specifically lobbied against the LAX train, which, by the way, is now being built? There may well have been industry lobbyists fighting this but until very recently (the last five years) almost no taxi drivers in Los Angeles were unionized.

tareqak 6y ago

The article links the appellate injunction here: https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.cfm?dist=1&doc_id=2325037&doc_no=A160706&request_token=NiIwLSEmXkw3W1BNSCMtVEtIMFw6UVxfJSJeWzpSUCAgCg%3D%3D https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.... . I read the following section in it “Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020”, but nothing about an October deadline. Here is the relevant section in full. >> start On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary injunction enjoining Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Uber Technologies, Inc. (Uber) from classifying their drivers as independent contractors and from violating certain laws. Both Lyft and Uber have appealed the order, and the trial court stayed the injunction for ten days to allow them to seek relief in this court. Lyft (in case No. A160701) and Uber (in case No. A160706) have each petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas. The People have filed an opposition to the petitions. The petitions for writ of supersedeas are hereby consolidated for purposes of decision. The petitions are granted and the preliminary injunction is stayed pending resolution of Lyft and Uber's appeals, subject to the condition that, by 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020, Lyft and Uber shall both file written consents to the expedited procedures specified herein. If Lyft and Uber do not both file such written consents, the stay shall expire at 5:00 p.m. on August 25, 2020. The procedures are as follows: 1. Lyft's and Uber's appeals shall be consolidated. Lyft and Uber may file separate briefs or combined briefs as they prefer. 2. Lyft and Uber shall proceed with an appendix in lieu of a clerk?s transcript on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.) They shall cooperate to prepare and file a single combined appellants' appendix, rather than separate appendices, which they shall file no later than the date they file their opening briefs. The appendix shall include a full copy of the index at the beginning of each appendix volume, and the digital copy of the appendix shall include pdf bookmark tabs for each entry on the index. 3. Briefing shall proceed on the following schedule. The appellants' opening briefs shall be filed no later than September 4, 2020. The respondent's brief shall be filed no later than September 18, 2020. The reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no later than September 25, 2020. Absent unforeseen extraordinary circumstances, there shall be no extensions. Oral argument shall be scheduled for October 13, 2020. 4. On or before September 4, 2020, each defendant shall submit a sworn statement from its chief executive officer confirming that it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. 5. Should Lyft or Uber fail to comply with these procedures, the People may apply to this court to vacate this stay. Unless otherwise ordered, the stay will dissolve upon issuance of the remittitur in the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.) << end Hopefully, the above should help others here figure out where the October deadline is coming from.

cltby 6y ago

> Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats Not true, it's a great opportunity for javascript developers to get up on their soap boxes and share with us their moral and economic wisdom.

dcftoapv 6y ago
Pot meet kettle
- Spivak 6y ago
  Poking fun at your own ingroup is the joke.
jpxw 6y ago
This made me laugh out loud, lol
jsharf 6y ago
haha, point taken. But I'd say it's good that they care. Developers are in a different income bracket. Concern is far better than cold indifference, which is what usually happens...
talmr 6y ago
wdym? is this related to the SO developer survey?
yunderalls 6y ago
I laughed at this, but I do think I should point out that in a democracy it's good for people to have opinions about things that aren't their profession.
- Judgmentality 6y ago
  I think it's less about people having opinions and more about people being so self-righteous about something they don't understand as well as they think they do.

vmchale 6y ago

Damn. Too big to regulate!

node-bayarea 6y ago
Lets regulate it to death!
- dang 6y ago
  Could you please stop posting unsubstantive and/or flamebait comments to Hacker News? It's not what this site is for. https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html https://news.ycombinator.com/newsguidelines.html

leptoniscool 6y ago

The state government blinked, and Lyft and Uber won

overgard 6y ago

I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the drivers, but I haven't really seen a compelling argument for why all drivers should count as employees. From my perspective being an "employee" implies certain things that don't seem to apply here (predictable work times, exclusivity (so many lyft drivers are also uber drivers), etc. ) "Freelancer" seems way more appropriate, the only problem is the lack of protections. It seems to me that culturally "gig worker" has become its own category anyway and it makes more sense to create a new legal category with its own set of legal protections. I know people will point to health insurance... but that's a separate problem with having health insurance tied to employment. I think it's awful that people that aren't considered full time employees don't get health insurance.. but I also think that's the government's problem and obligation, not Uber or Lyfts

dannyw 6y ago
You hit the hammer on the nail. If I was an employee and worked for two directly competing companies simultaneously, I’d be fired for cause.
- sixstringtheory 6y ago
  Is it actually simultaneous? Of course drivers use multiple services, but I’ve never taken a ride with uber where the driver had passengers from lyft in the car, eg.
  - bhupy 6y ago
    Drivers usually keep both apps open and active, then accept the first dispatch they receive and temporarily go offline on the other app while finishing the trip. Then lather, rinse, repeat.
    - sixstringtheory 6y ago
      I used to work multiple jobs at different restaurants, where I’d do a morning shift at one and an evening shift at the other. They could be considered competitors. What is the difference between what I did and what drivers do, besides the frequency of and duration of shifts? I don’t know what kind of laws might govern requirements here. Could be different between cities/states/countries, too. Now, maybe they’d dictate requirements for things like shift duration if drivers were considered “actual employees” but then they’d presumably also be receiving other benefits that might obviate the need to drive for multiple services.

kumarski 6y ago

What most of the people in this thread don't realize is the reason that Uber became large? The smart ones will understand that Uber's entire subversive cross border growth tactic was tracking cops, which is a felony. They hired Eric Holder to do the clean up job with workplace harassment as the cover story. Eric Holder is not the best sexual harassment lawyer, he's the best lawyer to go close private backroom deals with Attorney Generals in all 50 states. Uber not only did this domestically they did it in places abroad too, india etc... They were able to fly under the radar long enough to circumvent localized taxes. Medallion holders pay taxes into their locales, Uber does not. TNC liceneses are a small fraction of the profits generated. AB5 California Contractor/Employee Policy: To hire a contractor, businesses must prove worker a) is free from the company’s control b) doing non core/critical work to co c) has an ind. business in that industry. Must meet all 3 or be classified as employees. The lack of property taxes, more pension fund shortfalls, etc... means that California is racing to collect taxes. The first levers are things like weird fees on receipts, then it moves to applying payroll logic and taxes to businesses (employee vs. contractor), then to wealth taxes, and then the real big kahuna is the VAT taxes. The VAT taxes are coming. Taxi cab drivers were middle class and medallion ownership created wealth. Uber exploits its contractors, operates at a loss, and is propped up by political nepotism and cheap laundered CCP cash. David Plouffe's job was to run an astroturfing campaign in every major city. He had trouble written all over him. https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouffe-uber-lobbying-fine-20170216-story.html https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouff... Uber is a revolving door of corruption at the highest levels. Uber circumvented taxes in every city they approached by bribing the State with TNC's and hiring from the revolving door. People don't talk about all the thug life things Uber did to grow. I always call BS whenever some Uber shirt tucker comes my way and says "marketplace dynamics" and "intelligent routing." Uber is an amoral company that built political firewalls against regulatory realities, not one of brilliant technologists. Also, here's me with $50k in uber credits: https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20 https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20 It took me several years to figure out the subversive truths of Uber that made it large.

dmode 6y ago

So, I wasted my outrage in another thread complaining about this only only for a judge to put this on hold. :facepalm:

node-bayarea 6y ago

Democratic politicians are terrible when it comes to business! They are going to kill great companies AND the economy for their self-serving political BS!

iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago

They're lucky to have that judge. Uber and Lyft have consistently flaunted the law with a basic attitude of "screw you, our service is too popular, if you try to regulate us out of existence then your constituents will be madder at you than us". But right now, the service is not popular at all. I was a relatively heavy user of Uber and I haven't even thought about calling one in months. Food delivery sure, but I don't plan on using ride-sharing services for at least another year... who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each other's air? Who wants to DRIVE for Uber, breathing strangers' air all day? Besides, there is nowhere to go. No events, bars are all closed, etc. The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated.

ojagodzinski 6y ago
> who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each other's air? XD There are countries (like any other country then US) that have something called PUBLIC TRANSPORT. And people use is every day regardless of pandemic. > The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated Uber is still much more "healthier" than public transport.
- iaabtpbtpnn 6y ago
  I am posting from the Bay Area, we have public transit here too. Not as good as other countries, but it's normally quite popular. My girlfriend actually works for the transit agency. And right now, let me tell you, they are completely fucked. Ticket revenue is down something like 95%. Nobody wants to be on BART or Caltrain right now. (Although it's worth noting, here specifically the trains are typically used by people who also have a private car that they could take instead if they choose.)
  - pixelatedindex 6y ago
    I'm from the Bay Area and public transit here is laughable at best. To go some place would be 15 minutes by car and 45 minutes by bus - if the bus comes on time at all. The light rail in South Bay moves slower than traffic sometimes. Caltrain runs once an hour (apart from 4 hours every weekday when it's once every 20 minutes). BART extension took over 15 years! How is this remotely a good solution? DC Metro's transit and NY transit runs circles around the one here, not to mention ones from Korea/Japan/Poland runs circles. I've been forced to take public transit for over 5 years and boy do I hate it if I've to actually get somewhere on time. Sorry, I'm triggered :)

solutron 6y ago

This is a symptom of the core, underlying problem. The coupling between employer, employee and health care needs to be undone. Employers aren't healthcare providers, we don't need additional middle-men and bureaucracy dictating, by proxy, how people receive care and from who. Universal healthcare would let Uber and Lyft continue to do what their primary focus is, and drivers would be able to do whatever they want work-wise and not have to worry about its affect on their ability to receive healthcare at an affordable price.

viscanti 6y ago
It's crazy to see the same politicians who push for universal healthcare also push for more coupling of employment to healthcare.
- vinay427 6y ago
  The subset of politicians who are pushing for universal healthcare don't all belong to the group supporting coupling with employment. I'm not really sure where you heard that? For instance, I don't believe Medicare for All, at least in its proposed form, encourages coupling employment with healthcare, but correct me if I'm wrong.

timavr 6y ago

Love how they fight for drivers rights and working real hard to replace them with self driving fleet.

omot 6y ago

What really irks me about this whole thing is how Uber Eats and Door Dash is unaffected by all this. Delivery workers have almost exactly the same paradigm, but I guess they're not enforcing it, because of the number of restaurants, drivers, and eaters that will be affected?

deminature 6y ago
They are being affected, just not as publicly as the transportation example https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-action-to-make-doordash-recognize-delivery-workers-as-employees https://www.ktvu.com/news/sf-d-a-chesa-boudin-takes-action-t... What is particularly egregious is how traditional taxis are being ignored, despite having most of the same labor problems as app-based transportation services.

senderista 6y ago

How much of this debate would be moot if we had a proper social safety net, so workers didn't depend on their employers for necessities like health insurance? Social democracy can make the economy more agile, not less.

afrojack123 6y ago

Possibly a dumb and general question. Is Uber and Lyft responsible for state tax revenue from its contractors? Or are the contractors supposed to pay their own taxes? I could understand the states having problems with contractor's paying their own taxes considering their incomes are lower.

darkwizard42 6y ago
Independent contractors pay their own taxes. Uber and Lyft offer tools and assistance to help drivers adequately report and take deductions etc. as needed (Lyft at least offers the ability to export ride data etc. as needed, I believe but am not sure if Uber does the same). Companies pay taxes for their employees (different tax relationship altogether). Another way to think about it is... do you ever pay taxes for a painter or plumber that does a job for you? (probably not)
- afrojack123 6y ago
  If so, I understand where the state's are coming from. They need to make a special low-income contractor status with which the parent company is responsible income tax for contractors.

m0zg 6y ago

Yeah, removing the means to make a living from 200K people in CA while also pushing millions of people to crowded and epidemiologically disastrous public transportation seems like a particularly idiotic idea right about now. I'm not necessarily against better labor protections, and I only do Uber rides maybe 3-4 times a year, and not in CA, but I'm sure there will be a better time to argue this out to its logical conclusion.

URSpider94 6y ago

We have long ago decided that we don’t let people give away certain rights, even if they do it freely, even if they want to. I can’t work for a business for free, or for below minimum wage, even if I call myself an “unpaid intern”. I can’t work for a business as a child (below working age). I can’t ask a business not to withhold income tax from my paycheck, or to not pay their half of the social security tax, or withhold my half. My employer has to pay into the unemployment insurance pool on my behalf. We have these rules because every unscrupulous employer out there has exploited one or more of these ploys at some time in the past, and would gladly do so again. Companies are constantly looking for ways to avoid one or more of these restrictions. One way is to claim someone is a contractor - basically another business - and therefore is responsible for making sure its own employees are treated according to the law (usually there’s only one employee...). This is a constant cat and mouse game. Uber and Lyft claim to be transportation marketplaces where riders and drivers meet up and contract for services, except they dictate every aspect of the transaction, other than when the drivers choose to work. It’s not 100% of the way employees at Wal Mart or McDonalds are treated, but it’s at least 80% there. We have to draw the line somewhere, and the TNC’s have fulfilled almost all of the standard tests for when someone is considered an employee.

Cookingboy 6y ago
>other than when the drivers choose to work. You can't just hand waive away a fundamental difference like that. From my conversation with some Lyft/Uber drivers they really treasure that aspect and they would rather quit if they are forced to be regular employees with dictated working hours.
- URSpider94 6y ago
  Becoming an employee doesn’t necessarily mean you have to work a rigid schedule. There are plenty of employees, like flight attendants, who bid on shifts on a periodic basis, and who have the opportunity to trade or add shifts freely.
  - pembrook 6y ago

fastball 6y ago

Honestly I think all of these ideas about what isn't and is a contractor are wayyyy over-specified. To my mind, a contractor has always been just someone you are hiring for a particular piece of work. It's about one-offs. You are not hiring them for a year, in which time they will do an indeterminate number of pieces of work. That is what an employee with a salary is for. You are hiring them to do a particular piece of work. That is why you pay them per piece of work. So to me, the simplest (and only) test should be: "are you paying them per piece of work?". If yes, contractor. If no, employee. I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee. If I hire someone to write blog posts for me, and I pay them per blog post, they're a contractor. The employee version is someone I pay a set salary to based on their skillset, and then they output some indeterminate amount of work. If I hire someone to watch my kids for me, and I pay them per time they watch my kids, they're a contractor, not an employee. The employee version is a nanny who lives in my home. If someone is getting paid each time they perform a ride (and not otherwise), they're a contractor. An employee is someone that you are paying even when they're not driving. I don't think "setting prices", "choosing which hours", etc. has anything to do with it. If I hire someone to write a blog post for me this morning and tell them I need it by lunch time, I'm not giving them a choice of when they want to work – they need to do it now. But they're still clearly a contractor. The question remains whether or not contractors under this definition need similar protections that are afforded to employees, and I definitely think this is a question worth debating/considering. But California conflating everything to be an employee seems like the worst way to approach the issue.

tokai 6y ago
>I can't think of any occupation where the "employee" is getting paid on a per-task basis (rides in this case) and I would consider them an employee. Piece rate work payment exists in construction, agriculture, and other industries. People are permanently on staff, but only paid in direct relation to their productivity. It's an old trick to extract the value of labour.

maedla 6y ago

These companies aren't even profitable, why should they be allowed to survive?