6 ms·

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century

> AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. Why should employees give up rights just because it's the 21st century? Make no mistake, that's Uber/Lyft's entire advantage over traditional taxis: skirting hard-won employment regulation to lower costs at the expense of workers.

manigandham 6y ago
They're not employees. What rights are missing? Do you have an issue with contractors in other industries? Why or why not?
- alpha_squared 6y ago
  > They're not employees. Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
  - manigandham 6y ago
    Their client is Uber. They have complete control to work for them or not. No different than tech support hired on contract. They don't develop relationships with customers, they work for the company that contracted them. Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications. Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort. 1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
ProcNetDev 6y ago
Everyone keeps saying the substitute for Uber/Lyft is taxis. Maybe this is HN bay-area bias but it is just wrong. The substitute for Uber/Lyft in 95% of the US is driving your own car! Driving your own car has significant externalities, eg. More need for parking, more emissions, more drunk driving. I don't live in CA but used to do a fair amount of work travel out there. If they don't have Uber/Lyft in the future, I'll just make work get me a rental car.
- throawayaskdjha 6y ago
  I think OP's argument is the reason why it's "driving your own car" in those markets outside of denser cities is because operating a taxi fleet is not profitable at those densities, in part because of employee protections and other regulatory hurdles, and that removing those protections (and shifting additional costs to the state) is what allows uber/lyft to create an alternative to "driving your own car" in a place where taxis have not been able to profitably operate.
  - ProcNetDev 6y ago
    I think I follow that. My main point is that outside of NYC and SF, Uber/lyft worked by creating new utility not by taking it from taxis. Now the state is steeping in and killing that utility without providing an alternative.
- mola 6y ago
  It could also be good public transportation. Much more efficient.
  - ProcNetDev 6y ago
    I'll believe in public transportation in CA whenever Marin county gets a BART station. Trust me if that happens we'll be able to ride our flying pigs everywhere.
    - runarberg 6y ago
1MoreThing 6y ago
Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model. It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.
- couchand 6y ago
  And if the ride is subsidized by VC, all the better!
- mola 6y ago
  Why is a quickly arriving taxi more important than workers rights? Yes it's more comfortable, for you. But this model is just not sustainable for most people. Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model. They try and play a long game where we both lose workers rights, and have only bad monopolistic transportation available.
  - 1MoreThing 6y ago
    Who says it is? I'm questioning whether the taxi drivers actually have any more rights. The parent comment here said that the disruption that caused ridesharing to rapidly grow this mobility segment was because the drivers were independent contractors instead of being employees. My point is that taxi drivers were never employees, either, and that the success of the ridesharing companies had more to do with user experience and reliability than their business model.
    - mola 6y ago
      Or maybe it's because they give cheap subsidized service. What's the long game? How can they keep it cheap and make profit? They can't. Because it's an extremely inefficient endeavour. I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.

manigandham 6y ago

They're not employees. What rights are missing? Do you have an issue with contractors in other industries? Why or why not?

alpha_squared 6y ago
> They're not employees. Why does this keep getting repeated? They're not contractors. They have little-to-no control over who their "clients" are. They don't develop relationships for repeat service with those clients; don't set their rates (I'd gladly pay some drivers more than others); are forced to jump through hoops to maintain 4.X ratings or they're booted. The only thing they do have control over is when to start and stop working. That's just a much more flexible part-time job as far as I can tell.
- manigandham 6y ago
  Their client is Uber. They have complete control to work for them or not. No different than tech support hired on contract. They don't develop relationships with customers, they work for the company that contracted them. Nobody is guaranteed a contract either. If you don't perform satisfactorily then the contract is terminated. No different than tech support that are rated poorly in communications. Drivers control their rates [1], when they work, where they work, how long they work, and which rides they accept (with user, time and direction shown first). Only thing missing is destination upfront, however that can change anyway. No different than tech support dealing customer requests regardless of effort. 1. https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/

ProcNetDev 6y ago

Everyone keeps saying the substitute for Uber/Lyft is taxis. Maybe this is HN bay-area bias but it is just wrong. The substitute for Uber/Lyft in 95% of the US is driving your own car! Driving your own car has significant externalities, eg. More need for parking, more emissions, more drunk driving. I don't live in CA but used to do a fair amount of work travel out there. If they don't have Uber/Lyft in the future, I'll just make work get me a rental car.

throawayaskdjha 6y ago
I think OP's argument is the reason why it's "driving your own car" in those markets outside of denser cities is because operating a taxi fleet is not profitable at those densities, in part because of employee protections and other regulatory hurdles, and that removing those protections (and shifting additional costs to the state) is what allows uber/lyft to create an alternative to "driving your own car" in a place where taxis have not been able to profitably operate.
- ProcNetDev 6y ago
  I think I follow that. My main point is that outside of NYC and SF, Uber/lyft worked by creating new utility not by taking it from taxis. Now the state is steeping in and killing that utility without providing an alternative.
mola 6y ago
It could also be good public transportation. Much more efficient.
- ProcNetDev 6y ago
  I'll believe in public transportation in CA whenever Marin county gets a BART station. Trust me if that happens we'll be able to ride our flying pigs everywhere.
  - runarberg 6y ago

1MoreThing 6y ago

Most traditional taxis are independent contractors as well. It's the ridematching versus dispatch system that is the advantage, not the employment model. It's easy to see all the folks here who don't remember having to wait an hour for a taxi to show after calling, if it ever did. Pushing a button on your phone and getting a ride five minutes later is magic in comparison.

couchand 6y ago
And if the ride is subsidized by VC, all the better!
mola 6y ago
Why is a quickly arriving taxi more important than workers rights? Yes it's more comfortable, for you. But this model is just not sustainable for most people. Don't forget that this thing is subsidized. It never proved to be profitable. These companies invested huge amounts of money in lobbying all over the world, fermenting social unrest and subverting democracy for a failed business model. They try and play a long game where we both lose workers rights, and have only bad monopolistic transportation available.
- 1MoreThing 6y ago
  Who says it is? I'm questioning whether the taxi drivers actually have any more rights. The parent comment here said that the disruption that caused ridesharing to rapidly grow this mobility segment was because the drivers were independent contractors instead of being employees. My point is that taxi drivers were never employees, either, and that the success of the ridesharing companies had more to do with user experience and reliability than their business model.
  - mola 6y ago
    Or maybe it's because they give cheap subsidized service. What's the long game? How can they keep it cheap and make profit? They can't. Because it's an extremely inefficient endeavour. I understand your point but I'm not sure it's relevant. Taxis managed to survive for a long time without any artificial money injection, it's probably at a stable equalibrium. Allowing this artificial market to keep growing is just a endorsing a bubble. The bigger it gets the worst the collateral will be when it'll finally collapse.