25 ms·

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

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.
    - labcomputer 6y ago
      > which, by the way, is now being built Yea, over 25 years late. The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to have a real LAX station, instead of the (current) station-near-LAX-with-a-bus-transfer. The Crenshaw Corridor train (which connects to the Green Line) will open an LAX station sometime in 2021, if it isn't delayed.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to have a real LAX station ...until the FAA intervened and said the Metro couldn't build all the way out to the airport, due to the potential danger from crossing existing flight paths. (In a nutshell: the Green Line would have crossed perpendicularly to the existing runways, which would be fine normally but a huge risk in the event a plane overshoots or undershoots the runway.)
  - dcftoapv 6y ago
    @tom No, it's not being built. The train that is currently under construction will connect the airport terminals to a cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica. By the way, we're paying $4 billion for that. $4 billion to carry passengers less than a mile from the airport so they can then take a cab... LA cab drivers are all unionized now and they had their entire hand stuck in this process. It was corruption as an art form. Our government sucks.
    - monadic2 6y ago
      Blame the corrupt officials that enabled this, you can hardly blame a union for trying to act in their own self interest. They don't represent you but the city does.
      - TheAceOfHearts 6y ago
        It's possible to blame both. You can certainly blame the union for acting against the common good.
      - dcftoapv 6y ago
        I'll continue to blame the minority interests that are doing everything possible to keep LA transportation stuck in the stone ages, thank you.
        monadic2 6y ago
        I mean sure but to what end? Regardless, you couldn't have this effect without the corrupt politicians that ARE supposed to represent your interests, unlike the taxi union. What's the point of raging at perfectly understandable lobbying?
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      The train that is currently under construction will connect the airport terminals to a cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica. This is false to the point of being deliberate FUD. The LAX people mover is $4 billion because the FAA requires a fuck-ton of care to be taken so that construction and the people-mover itself doesn't interfere with the operation of the airport. It is a 2.25 mile system with 6 stations: the terminals, the rental car facility, the parking lots, the metro station, and two employee-only facilities. The shuttle you speak of will only operate for 2-3 years, between the parking facility (expected completion 2021) and the terminals, while the Peoplemover is built out to the terminals (expected completion: 2023). LA taxi drivers had literally no influence over the design of the airport or public transportation to it. I don't understand the bizarre logic required to think that a few hundred people making just above minimum wage have the political leverage to block a multi-billion dollar project.
  - mdorazio 6y ago
    Was there ever a legitimately priced proposal for a train to go from LAX to DTLA? The only reason the Expo line worked was because the rights of way, and in some cases the rail itself, was already in place. I don't remember seeing anything other than concepts for an LAX train (not the people mover under construction now, an actual train) and thinking they would never get the funding and permits to make it work. To your comment about rideshare pickups at the terminals. Just no. Pre-COVID I was flying for work weekly and Uber & Lyft pickups were awful for congestion in the circle, in addition to taking forever to get to you. It was often faster to walk off-airport and get a ride from the Hyatt. And that was with normal level of traffic, not the expected Olympics-level. I'm sure the taxi union was involved, but the decision to switch to LAX-it made a whole lot of sense.
    - dcftoapv 6y ago
      Also a frequent flier. It sucked before but the solution was 100% designed to benefit cab drivers. Moreover, it absolutely fucked up the entrance to the airport which went from long, but doable, to dozens of people missing their flights per-day bad. I live in Playa Vista and had a 1.5 hour trip to LAX in November. I was this close to driving through there at 3am and stealing every one of their traffic cones.
  - gamblor956 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. This is false. Pure FUD. The LA taxi union isn't a very powerful union, and was never the primary roadblock to building the Green Line all the way to the airport. The FAA was the reason: they thought the power lines for the rail line would interfere with landing paths of planes. https://www.dailynews.com/2008/01/09/why-green-line-stopped-short-of-lax/ https://www.dailynews.com/2008/01/09/why-green-line-stopped-... 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. This is also a fraudulent representation of history. The old rail lines (i.e., Pacific Electric) were never profitable because they were intended as loss leaders for suburban housing developments. The lines ultimately went bankrupt when cars became popular because they had a max speed of approximately 15 mph. When LA formed its nascent public transportation system in the 50s, it acquired the few busy/profitable lines remaining. Some of those rights of way were used for new rail construction (for example, the E line to Santa Monica).
    - dcftoapv 6y ago
      Every other city in the country has figured out rail transportation. The FAA could have been pacified if there was any political will to find a real solution. Blaming the FAA because they rejected one design is pure bs. GM most definitely ran a campaign through the '50s and '60s designed to increase the use of buses as a replacement for street cars. That's not anywhere close to debatable and LA was not the only city that went along with it. And if you're going to continue to claim that corruption is not the driving force behind these decisions then I would love your explanation for BH doing everything in their power to prevent and delay a rail line because they didn't want homeless people to be have easy access to the area. It's all about money, not the common good. Nobody here is planning for anything other than their own pocketbook.
      - gamblor956 6y ago
        The FAA could have been pacified if there was any political will to find a real solution. Blaming the FAA because they rejected one design is pure bs. It's literally the truth. You can't build a rail to the airport if the ultimate governing body for airports in the country won't let you build the rail to the airport. It took decades to get the FAA to withdraw its opposition, and that didn't happen until a Democratic president took over. I would love your explanation for BH doing everything in their power to prevent and delay a rail line because they didn't want homeless people to be have easy access to the area. That's not corruption. That's residents of the city of Beverly Hills being opposed to having a rail line in their city because they don't want homeless people having easy access. (And they're not wrong to be worried about it; the homeless use the E Line daily to shuttle between Santa Monica and downtown LA.) It's not corruption simply because you disagree with them. That's how democracy works. Notably, the businesses in Beverly Hills were very much in favor of a rail line station terminating in the city. However, businesses aren't voters, so if the rail station had been built over the objections of the voting residents, that would be an example of corruption.
ReaLNero 6y ago
California is about 5% of revenue for Uber.
- dcftoapv 6y ago
  Maybe, but this law will prevent Uber from ever turning a profit in CA, so it's far easier to just shutdown operations, and move their headquarters. I live here, pay taxes here, and vote here. I am actively rooting against the state right now.
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    Ironically, according to their SEC filings, CA (and specifically SF/Bay Area and LA/OC) was one of Uber's few profitable markets, pre-COVID.
- dmode 6y ago
  CA is 12% of Uber's revenue and 25% of Lyft's revenue
  - lhorie 6y ago
    Source? I've seen many different figures (including a very reliable source that stated it was in the single digits for Uber)
    - tyrust 6y ago
      You've asked for a source without linking your "very reliable source".
      - lhorie 6y ago
        Uber's CEO is my source
        gamblor956 6y ago
maire 6y ago
I remember when there was a crackdown on software independent contractors. What most contractors did was go through an agency that managed your services. The difference in pay was usually 20% since the agency took 20% of your pay. I suspect this will happen ultimately with the drivers - although I can't imagine the drivers will be thrilled with a 20% cut in pay.
- grugagag 6y ago
  20% cut on top of the 30-40% that uber/lift take?
JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago
They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them like independent contractors. Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform. Make the changes necessary to fit the independent contractor model. And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or the ridesharing businesses.
- theroo 6y ago
  This is a key point, well made.
- piptastic 6y ago
  I think they do allow them to set rates now in CA https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
- apsec112 6y ago
  Uber and Lyft already did this in California after the passage of AB5 earlier this year. That's why they now have price estimates instead of giving exact values ahead of time.
  - smsm42 6y ago
    So how that works in practice? One of the major advantages of Uber for me was fixed price upfront. So now I don't know the price until I order the ride? What if the driver sets an excessive price - can I decline the ride?
    - grandmczeb 6y ago
      See https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ My understanding is that the rider is presented with a range of possible fares before searching (e.g. $9-10). If they are matched with a driver asking for a higher fare than that range they have the option to decline.
deminature 6y ago
The RideShareGuy is the most prominent blog for drivers and their annual survey seems to reflect that [1] >66% of drivers said they wanted to be independent contractors vs 15.8% who wanted to be an employee [1] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/
- shanemhansen 6y ago
  There's lots of ways to lie with surveys, I wonder what the exact wording was and what the responses would be to variants such as: 1. Do you want to be CEO of your own company or a peon employee? 2. Do you want uber to set your hours? 3. Do you want medical, vacation days, or unemployment insurance? For some people these are all basically the same questions. For most folks, I don't think they are.
  - haberman 6y ago
    > When we polled drivers about their preference between remaining an independent contractor or becoming an employee, an overwhelming number of drivers wanted to remain independent. > "What type of employment relationship would you like to have with rideshare companies" > (A) I don't know the difference: 3.3% > (B) I'd like to be an employee: 20.8% > (C) I'd like to be an independent contractor: 75.9% https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-for-misclassifying-workers/ https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-fo...
    - deleted 6y ago
      [deleted]
    - kelnos 6y ago
      Is 734 out of a population of 80,000 a representative sample? And even if it is, are the 80,000 people on their mailing list a representative sample of all drivers? Not saying they aren't, but I... just don't know.
      - notafraudster 6y ago
HaloZero 6y ago
I believe the idea is that employee protections and standards must come from the government. Sometimes it comes up naturally (see the benefits of being a software engineer) but when unemployment is high those protections tend to go away especially for jobs that have minimal barrier of entry (ie ride share driver). Right now drivers have very little leverage or power over Lyft/Uber except for not participating in their market. The question of AB5 is the right protections and classifying them as employees is I think the debate. I believe most drivers want independence b/c most drivers only drive part time. But the drivers who drive full time want better protections.
all_blue_chucks 6y ago
We should all care. Uber doesn't provide health insurance. Instead Uber drivers get their healthcare costs covered by the rest of us (either via ACA subsidies or written-off care provided to the uninsured).
- usaar333 6y ago
  Making them employees doesn't give them health insurance. Only if they work over 30 hours a week, which Uber is highly incentived to cap. Besides, what you are actually stating is that Uber riders should pay for Uber driver's health insurance, rather than the general population.
  - all_blue_chucks 6y ago
    Correct. Uber drivers should play by the same health insurance rules as other workers. And under today's laws that requires they become employees. Ideally health insurance should be decoupled from employment status, but until then, we should all play by the same rules.
    - usaar333 6y ago
      Again, I'm not following. Even if Uber drivers became employees I don't see why they'd even get health insurance. (This seems to be more about minimum wage, workers comp, UI, etc. which they would get)
    - google234123 6y ago
      So now uber drivers can only work 28 hours a week and now can't afford health care....
- crazyjncsu 6y ago
  Uber drivers pay taxes on earnings as contractors too. This at least partially covers ACA subsidies (if not fully). And we subsidize employer-provided healthcare also, hence its existence.
tempsy 6y ago
imo biggest problem with the independent argument is Uber and Lyft actively penalizes you as a driver if you decline unprofitable trips. Also I believe Lyft (unsure about Uber) even stopped showing you how much you make per trip and instead just rolls it into one summary, presumably to make it harder for you to do the cost/benefit of deciding whether a trip is worth doing. that sort of big brother behavior is the antithesis of independence and throws out any argument that Uber is somehow just providing drivers with lead gen software like they’re Salesforce or something
- grugagag 6y ago
  I agree, the driver's independence is only one way : when convenient to them. Both Uber and Lift should lower their cut and stop these practices if they really want the drivers to remain independent
  - tempsy 6y ago
    yeah it feels like a few product level changes could easily swing the argument back in their favor - but I guess the risk has always been the impact to the efficiency of the marketplace and overall customer experience.
dmode 6y ago
I think the problem is that driver’s want to remain independent, but their cost is borne by the society. Such as the recent CAREs act had unemployment for drivers. I am assuming they also get subsidized healthcare, and would be eligible for Medicare ? Their employers don't really contribute to these things. But perhaps the law should just have complied them to contribute via additional taxes instead of asking them to be classified
- deleted 6y ago
  [deleted]
- jschwartzi 6y ago
  If you're an IC, you have to pay Self-Employment Tax to cover the employer's part of the payroll tax deductions. Plus you're also liable for all the usual payroll taxes. That burden doesn't go away just because you get a 1099 instead of a W-2. So it's the drivers who are in theory paying in to healthcare subsidies and Medicare.
  - pishpash 6y ago
    Taxes are on earnings after top-of-the-line deductions for business expenses including gas and depreciation that they'd lose on the W-2. Drivers aren't stupid as you think.
    - gnopgnip 6y ago
      If they were employees they would be required to be reimbursed for business expenses including commercial insurance, and mileage to cover gas and depreciation.
      - pishpash 6y ago
        The reimbursement requirement is baselined with respect to minimum wage, so it could be effectively $0. If it is not $0, the form would be additional W-2 pay, which is allowed by law, and this would be subject to all taxes. On top of the tax loss, calculation would not be at the generous IRS mileage rate that drivers currently exploit, but true expenses which most say are lower. Yet people continue to think drivers are stupider than they are at doing what they do every day. It's pretty fucking arrogant.
Consultant32452 6y ago
I feel like there is a general pattern. The left tends to prioritize all the good ideas: gender equality, racial equality, income gaps, etc. The right tends to prioritize systems that actually function in the real world with real people who are sometimes jealous, stupid, unethical, liars, etc. This is just a case where the first group has run amok without talking to the second group. It's the good idea of everyone should have good benefits without taking the time to design a system that actually works in the real world. You actually see this sort of dynamic in startups where you have two people at the top. One is the creative one who pushes all the boundaries and stuff. The other person is the more pencil pusher/lawyer/business type who makes sure the bills get paid on time. Lots of good things happen when you can get these two types working together instead of hating each other.
- treeman79 6y ago
  Good insight. Coming together is tricky when there is no common grounds. One side wants wealth to be fairly Evenly distributed to help the poor. The other side helps the poor by creating so much wealth that that most poor people have a lot of wealth. These days you can be considered poor and have housing, ac, heat, tv, video games, maybe a car, and weight problems because food is so cheap. This only leaves those who truly can not or will not work. Severe physical or mental illness, etc. Some can’t stand that inequality exists. Others “know” that destroying inequality means we create more poor people. That’s not even touching right to own body vs right to life crowd. There is almost no middle ground in that battle. Either it’s removing a sac of cells or killing a baby. Maybe some wiggle room at the start, but none by end
  - chillwaves 6y ago
    They are poor because they live on a knife's edge, one accident away from financial insolvency or lack of sufficient access to necessities like health care and education opportunities. Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US is so low compared to other wealthy nations.
    - deleted 6y ago
eitherisarb99 6y ago
Either one is an arbitrary choice that influences the market. Why should a supposedly free society be free to accept only how Uber or Lyft might have it? It isn’t just bureaucrats but the public that votes them in. You’re cherry picking bits n pieces from the broader social narrative to highlight. Why should anyone care what any random poster on HN thinks is just as valid and vapid a question once you take 5 minutes to think it over. HN is just as knee jerky and shallow as Twitter and Reddit. Don’t kid yourselves folks
908B64B197 6y ago
Posted it in an other thread [0] but Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648
TuringNYC 6y ago
This is about bureaucrats. This is about politicians seeking lobbying dollars, and return the favor with policy changes, just like it was in NYC. In NYC, the Taxi and Limousine companies were one of the top donors to the Mayoral race and, naturally, the Mayor strangled Uber/Lyft soon after.
RIMR 6y ago
Sure, Uber drivers aren't forced to work at Uber specifically, but everyone is obligated to work in a capitalist society if they want to survive, so it is important that employers in general are bound by laws that protect workers. In this case, California created new laws in response to employee abuses at Uber and Lyft. This notion that Uber and Lyft drivers can afford to quit and find a new career is infantile. The real world does not work that way, and people who labor for low wages should be protected from abuse.
slg 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. Everyone who works for Lyft or Uber is making an active choice to work for Lyft or Uber. It isn't surprising they would choose to continue working for them rather than risk losing that job entirely. That doesn't mean these people aren't being taken advantage of by these companies. It is comparable to someone being paid below minimum wage under the table. If that person entered into that arrangement voluntarily, they likely did it because that is their best option. If that person is given the choice of supporting a lower minimum wage or being fired, they will likely support the lower minimum wage. That doesn't mean that society as a whole would benefit from a lower minimum wage. We should instead enact laws we think are best for society as a whole (I'm not convinced that AB5 is necessarily that, but I am speaking generally here) while also implementing social policies that can take care of the people like this who are caught in the transition of raising labor standards.
chrisjarvis 6y ago
I tend to agree with this, I've always thought ridesharing was rather beautiful in terms of economic efficiency: pair those with extra money but who don't want to drive at that moment with those with extra time who want money. As long as there is adequate education about the all-in costs of car ownership I am all on board. And at scale it reduces traffic (or at least amount of cars in an area).
- CarbyAu 6y ago
  In ages past my first thoughts upon hearing of Uber was entirely about "matching" as you described. I recall thinking it would be great for adhoc rideshare commuting to/from work. Somewhere it turned into a money sucking business platform. Maybe because it required funds to run the servers required and went off the rails from there?
  - jballer 6y ago
    Or maybe because the supply side is full of drivers doing the job for less pay than they should reasonably agree to, betting on a windfall from AB5?
bsder 6y ago
> overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money. I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period. It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine, then you owe as payment to the government to provide that. We WANT people to have stable employment, not gigs.
- dgellow 6y ago
  Some people explicitly want gigs.
- labcomputer 6y ago
  Sure, but you can't always get what you want. Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models. You can ban exploiting labor, you can force companies to share more with the workers, but you can't legislate well-paying jobs into existence. You might view Uber as an exploitative employer, but it isn't some wildly-profitable company that is failing to share its bountiful profits with the workers. I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome.
  - bsder 6y ago
    > Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models. And that's fine. We have minimum wage laws for a reason. A "contractor" who is earning near or below minimum wage isn't a contractor--they're a mechanism to skirt labor law. I want to see every layer of "contracting" have to pay benefits. If the contractor is expensive enough (aka $100K+ a year), people won't care. But, yeah, if the "contractor" is skirting labor law, they'll lose--big time. > I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome. I'm willing to roll the dice on this one. The last time Uber and Lyft pulled this stunt (Austin), a whole bunch of companies stood up to take their place. Uber and Lyft then went to the state to override Austin--so we never got to see the end evolution of that. Maybe the business model isn't viable. However, I'm willing to let a bunch of people try competing against it without having to compete against VC subsidy.
monadic2 6y ago
Exploitation does not just go away when you consensually sign a contract. In any idea that these folks resemble independent contractors in any way is bullshit. They can't set the rates of the rides or that they give to Uber or Lyft. They can't set the basic terms on when and where you accept rides. When someone doesn't want to drive me across the bay, I can hardly blame them, but they have no leverage to dictate their own employment except by quitting. I guess these people end up accepting some kind of opaque, kafkaesque punishment to their livelihood. Independent my ass. Granted, single payer healthcare would ameliorate some of the problems here, but it's very difficult to categorize the cut that Uber or Lyft takes for the commodity service they provide, protected by absolutely massive moats of capital, as anything but exploitative.
addicted44 6y ago
Uber/Lyft drivers don't badmouth it. Would you if some random person, who for all you know could be an Uber/Lyft employee, and even if not, is someone who uses Uber/Lyft and therefore is likely happy with it, asks you a question about it?
GoodJokes 6y ago
Completely anecdotal. I know everyone here knows about stats. Shame this is a top comment.
deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
gnopgnip 6y ago
Because taxpayers in the state of CA are in effect picking up the slack when the employer fails to pay for sick and family leave, unemployment, and healthcare. This change didn't happen overnight. AB5 was passed 6+ months ago, after over a year of political negotiation.
fishywang 6y ago
I'm sure there's a few drivers really want to stay independent, but have you considered that the majority only "want tob stay independent" because the current situation? That doing this full time won't be enough income to feed the family, so they want to stay independent in order to have another job? If doing this full time is enough income, maybe they no longer need to be independent?
- Akababa 6y ago
  My impression is that Uber fulfills a niche for drivers who want a certain tradeoff between flexibility and job security. There are people who fit into that niche and people who don't, but forcing the company to change its value proposition is going to make some people start or stop driving for Uber depending on how well the new contract suits them. This could be a net economic win or loss, but we don't know the numbers. In the long run, if there are enough drivers who value the flexible arrangement that Uber provides, then either another company will fill that niche or these people will find similar work elsewhere.
parineum 6y ago
I rarely use ridesharing apps but I always ask about this kind of thing and I have the same takeaway as you. The drivers seem to like the situation they are in. I could really care less about the "technically..." type of arguments. The drivers don't think they are being exploited, they like the job and the freedom it gives them. Any law that puts an end to that is _bad_ for those people. Just because these laws were put in place to help people doesn't mean they always help people. The people who are supposedly being helped by the law here think it's hurting them. The law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. The law needs to change to allow these people to continue the situation they enjoy. It drives me crazy to read people arguing about the technicalities of the law and ignoring what the supposedly exploited people are saying.
- mycall 6y ago
  > The drivers seem to like the situation they are in. Yet when you explain to them what they are missing, what employees get, they also like that.
  - mikeg8 6y ago
    Do you also explain some of the downsides of being an employee? I don’t know if they are dying for the rigid hours, bureaucracy, same environment etc. it’s not all upside being an employee
noncoml 6y ago
What they are telling you is that they don’t want anyone to set their working hours for them. That’s all
momokoko 6y ago
Because I’m stuck footing the bill for everything Uber(and by proxy their drivers) are not paying into. Currently, we all paid for their Covid unemployment benefits that they did not pay into. We pay for unpaid hospital bills after accidents because they did not pay into workers compensation. We’ll pay for disability after those accidents that they did not pay into. Uber and Uber drivers a freeloading off a system we are paying into. If they want to pretend they are not employees, then they should all have to pay into all these things themselves.
ur-whale 6y ago
> drivers tell me they want to stay independent This whole business has nothing to do with the drivers, neither what they want, what's good for them or even what's good for customers. It's about a class of politicians (unions and the leftist politicians they back/finance) scared to death to see their historical grip on power disappear because of a paradigm shift and who are using the people's goody-two-shoes knee-jerk reflexes to try and regain said grip.
akvadrako 6y ago
Because it's inconsistent. If you allow drivers to work without protections you should allow everyone to work without protections. There are some issues though; for one the state ends up subsidising workers who don't have good unemployment and health insurance. The best solution would be UBI - give people enough money to live on while removing worker protections like minimum wage and mandatory insurances.
ksec 6y ago
But you also have people like DHH claiming otherwise. To those of us not living in US, America just feels like a nation that constantly shout at each other, and now it is amplify by its a dominant media platform; Twitter. Considering lots of news media quote, find new information and use Twitter. And no one wants to compromise.
- bryan_w 6y ago
  I promise you, real life in America is nothing like Twitter.
CPLX 6y ago
Imagine for arguments sake you were deriving your income from a company that’s known to be highly aggressive in suppressing threats to their business model. Imagine that you held an opinion that was counter to a major legal and public option battle that company was engaged in. In the situation, what would you say if someone approached you while you were on the job and started asking for your opinion on this topic?
ryanisnan 6y ago
Whether or not a group of people is aware of their exploitation should not be a factor in whether or not a society allows their exploitation.
- Nacdor 6y ago
  Yes, it's amazing that the top comment misses the point completely. Plenty of inmates become "institutionalized" and claim they would prefer to stay in prison, but no one would ever cite that as a legitimate reason to keep them there.
- neap24 6y ago
  Ah, well. I think I can make this circular. It is perhaps exploitative to demand these laws. It's unfair treatment of Uber/Lyft employees to imposing regulatory regimes against their wishes (claiming it actually benefits them) to satisfy the political benefits/desires of an outside group. Society should not allow that exploitation to exist whether or not the outside group realizes it is exploitation.
  - Nacdor 6y ago
    It's pretty silly to say that protecting workers is exploitative. You're essentially trying to redefine the word "exploitation" be reversing its meaning.
    - neap24 6y ago
      It's pretty silly to make an absolute claim that one is protecting workers when that is far from obvious.
mcguire 6y ago
A couple of points. 1. Valid survey questions are very hard to phrase. Asking someone about their job when their job depends on your goodwill in not conducive to truthful answers. 2. Given the corporations' behavior, the driver's job depends on their following the corporate script.
itsoktocry 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. Why would you bring this up every time you get in an Uber? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, these people are concerned about complaining to a stranger about their "employer"? Imagine someone walking into your office and asking you, "hey, do you like this company?"
deaddodo 6y ago
> I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. Because, that's not the argument. The argument is the precedent it sets. We've seen companies utilize weak independent contractor regulations in the past to take advantage of individuals (most specifically, the Dynamex case that lead directly to this), despite many of them not knowing/not complaining. This is why California is so hard on independent contractors. I would prefer a state strong on worker's rights than vice versa. > From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving so I really don't buy the exploitation argument. Your anecdotes don't mean anything, sorry. We have vast evidence that companies will take advantage of worker's in an independent contractor situation to their benefit. We have evidence that Uber had requirements in it's worker interactions (route penalties, hour requirements, etc) that do not fit independent contractor ideals. > Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats. The bureacrats gain nothing. > Also don't see how it's realistic to expect them to be able to adjust to this on a dime. I can only assume you don't live in California. This isn't on a dime. They were notified over three years ago. The FTB and legislature have been on them about it constantly. The law was introduced in 2018-12-03 and signed into law on 2019-09-18. I know operations can be slow, but two years should be plenty of time, considering how fast they were able to adjust to failing markets like Germany that they ultimately lost anyways. > Although large, California is still a minority of their revenue. It makes up 16% of Lyft and Uber's users. It has the highest valued rides, lowest effective overhead (driver retention, driver acquisition, passenger acquisition) and most effective mileage. But you're right, they should give up their most established and profitable market or California should shut up. Because you talked to some people.
zjaffee 6y ago
This is a disgusting comment and shows an incredible lack of understanding around how labor rights historically have been both won and lost. The further allowance of classifying people as contractors will only expand until companies can further use this as a tool to pay people less and avoid taxes (where based on federal judicial precedent, the healthcare premiums both individuals and employers pay are considered taxes under federal law). Today Uber drivers, tomorrow nurses and teachers, ect. Also people are absolutely being forced into working as rideshare and delivery drivers, the alternatives are often destitute poverty. These companies had a long time to get their act together on this issue, they just decided that a capital strike was more favorable to them at this time. Until we live in a country where healthcare is separate from employment, hiring someone on as a contractor just so you can avoid healthcare costs for them is absolutely exploitative (both of the law, and to the workers themselves).
ec109685 6y ago
What flexibility will drivers be forced to give up if they are classified as part-time or full-time employees by Uber?

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.
  - labcomputer 6y ago
    > which, by the way, is now being built Yea, over 25 years late. The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to have a real LAX station, instead of the (current) station-near-LAX-with-a-bus-transfer. The Crenshaw Corridor train (which connects to the Green Line) will open an LAX station sometime in 2021, if it isn't delayed.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to have a real LAX station ...until the FAA intervened and said the Metro couldn't build all the way out to the airport, due to the potential danger from crossing existing flight paths. (In a nutshell: the Green Line would have crossed perpendicularly to the existing runways, which would be fine normally but a huge risk in the event a plane overshoots or undershoots the runway.)
- dcftoapv 6y ago
  @tom No, it's not being built. The train that is currently under construction will connect the airport terminals to a cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica. By the way, we're paying $4 billion for that. $4 billion to carry passengers less than a mile from the airport so they can then take a cab... LA cab drivers are all unionized now and they had their entire hand stuck in this process. It was corruption as an art form. Our government sucks.
  - monadic2 6y ago
    Blame the corrupt officials that enabled this, you can hardly blame a union for trying to act in their own self interest. They don't represent you but the city does.
    - TheAceOfHearts 6y ago
      It's possible to blame both. You can certainly blame the union for acting against the common good.
    - dcftoapv 6y ago
      I'll continue to blame the minority interests that are doing everything possible to keep LA transportation stuck in the stone ages, thank you.
      - monadic2 6y ago
        I mean sure but to what end? Regardless, you couldn't have this effect without the corrupt politicians that ARE supposed to represent your interests, unlike the taxi union. What's the point of raging at perfectly understandable lobbying?
  - gamblor956 6y ago
    The train that is currently under construction will connect the airport terminals to a cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica. This is false to the point of being deliberate FUD. The LAX people mover is $4 billion because the FAA requires a fuck-ton of care to be taken so that construction and the people-mover itself doesn't interfere with the operation of the airport. It is a 2.25 mile system with 6 stations: the terminals, the rental car facility, the parking lots, the metro station, and two employee-only facilities. The shuttle you speak of will only operate for 2-3 years, between the parking facility (expected completion 2021) and the terminals, while the Peoplemover is built out to the terminals (expected completion: 2023). LA taxi drivers had literally no influence over the design of the airport or public transportation to it. I don't understand the bizarre logic required to think that a few hundred people making just above minimum wage have the political leverage to block a multi-billion dollar project.
- mdorazio 6y ago
  Was there ever a legitimately priced proposal for a train to go from LAX to DTLA? The only reason the Expo line worked was because the rights of way, and in some cases the rail itself, was already in place. I don't remember seeing anything other than concepts for an LAX train (not the people mover under construction now, an actual train) and thinking they would never get the funding and permits to make it work. To your comment about rideshare pickups at the terminals. Just no. Pre-COVID I was flying for work weekly and Uber & Lyft pickups were awful for congestion in the circle, in addition to taking forever to get to you. It was often faster to walk off-airport and get a ride from the Hyatt. And that was with normal level of traffic, not the expected Olympics-level. I'm sure the taxi union was involved, but the decision to switch to LAX-it made a whole lot of sense.
  - dcftoapv 6y ago
    Also a frequent flier. It sucked before but the solution was 100% designed to benefit cab drivers. Moreover, it absolutely fucked up the entrance to the airport which went from long, but doable, to dozens of people missing their flights per-day bad. I live in Playa Vista and had a 1.5 hour trip to LAX in November. I was this close to driving through there at 3am and stealing every one of their traffic cones.
- gamblor956 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. This is false. Pure FUD. The LA taxi union isn't a very powerful union, and was never the primary roadblock to building the Green Line all the way to the airport. The FAA was the reason: they thought the power lines for the rail line would interfere with landing paths of planes. https://www.dailynews.com/2008/01/09/why-green-line-stopped-short-of-lax/ https://www.dailynews.com/2008/01/09/why-green-line-stopped-... 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. This is also a fraudulent representation of history. The old rail lines (i.e., Pacific Electric) were never profitable because they were intended as loss leaders for suburban housing developments. The lines ultimately went bankrupt when cars became popular because they had a max speed of approximately 15 mph. When LA formed its nascent public transportation system in the 50s, it acquired the few busy/profitable lines remaining. Some of those rights of way were used for new rail construction (for example, the E line to Santa Monica).
  - dcftoapv 6y ago
    Every other city in the country has figured out rail transportation. The FAA could have been pacified if there was any political will to find a real solution. Blaming the FAA because they rejected one design is pure bs. GM most definitely ran a campaign through the '50s and '60s designed to increase the use of buses as a replacement for street cars. That's not anywhere close to debatable and LA was not the only city that went along with it. And if you're going to continue to claim that corruption is not the driving force behind these decisions then I would love your explanation for BH doing everything in their power to prevent and delay a rail line because they didn't want homeless people to be have easy access to the area. It's all about money, not the common good. Nobody here is planning for anything other than their own pocketbook.
    - gamblor956 6y ago
      The FAA could have been pacified if there was any political will to find a real solution. Blaming the FAA because they rejected one design is pure bs. It's literally the truth. You can't build a rail to the airport if the ultimate governing body for airports in the country won't let you build the rail to the airport. It took decades to get the FAA to withdraw its opposition, and that didn't happen until a Democratic president took over. I would love your explanation for BH doing everything in their power to prevent and delay a rail line because they didn't want homeless people to be have easy access to the area. That's not corruption. That's residents of the city of Beverly Hills being opposed to having a rail line in their city because they don't want homeless people having easy access. (And they're not wrong to be worried about it; the homeless use the E Line daily to shuttle between Santa Monica and downtown LA.) It's not corruption simply because you disagree with them. That's how democracy works. Notably, the businesses in Beverly Hills were very much in favor of a rail line station terminating in the city. However, businesses aren't voters, so if the rail station had been built over the objections of the voting residents, that would be an example of corruption.

ReaLNero 6y ago

California is about 5% of revenue for Uber.

dcftoapv 6y ago
Maybe, but this law will prevent Uber from ever turning a profit in CA, so it's far easier to just shutdown operations, and move their headquarters. I live here, pay taxes here, and vote here. I am actively rooting against the state right now.
- gamblor956 6y ago
  Ironically, according to their SEC filings, CA (and specifically SF/Bay Area and LA/OC) was one of Uber's few profitable markets, pre-COVID.
dmode 6y ago
CA is 12% of Uber's revenue and 25% of Lyft's revenue
- lhorie 6y ago
  Source? I've seen many different figures (including a very reliable source that stated it was in the single digits for Uber)
  - tyrust 6y ago
    You've asked for a source without linking your "very reliable source".
    - lhorie 6y ago
      Uber's CEO is my source
      - gamblor956 6y ago

maire 6y ago

I remember when there was a crackdown on software independent contractors. What most contractors did was go through an agency that managed your services. The difference in pay was usually 20% since the agency took 20% of your pay. I suspect this will happen ultimately with the drivers - although I can't imagine the drivers will be thrilled with a 20% cut in pay.

grugagag 6y ago
20% cut on top of the 30-40% that uber/lift take?

JMTQp8lwXL 6y ago

They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them like independent contractors. Let them set rates. Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform. Make the changes necessary to fit the independent contractor model. And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or the ridesharing businesses.

theroo 6y ago
This is a key point, well made.
piptastic 6y ago
I think they do allow them to set rates now in CA https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
apsec112 6y ago
Uber and Lyft already did this in California after the passage of AB5 earlier this year. That's why they now have price estimates instead of giving exact values ahead of time.
- smsm42 6y ago
  So how that works in practice? One of the major advantages of Uber for me was fixed price upfront. So now I don't know the price until I order the ride? What if the driver sets an excessive price - can I decline the ride?
  - grandmczeb 6y ago
    See https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/ My understanding is that the rider is presented with a range of possible fares before searching (e.g. $9-10). If they are matched with a driver asking for a higher fare than that range they have the option to decline.

deminature 6y ago

The RideShareGuy is the most prominent blog for drivers and their annual survey seems to reflect that [1] >66% of drivers said they wanted to be independent contractors vs 15.8% who wanted to be an employee [1] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/ https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/

shanemhansen 6y ago
There's lots of ways to lie with surveys, I wonder what the exact wording was and what the responses would be to variants such as: 1. Do you want to be CEO of your own company or a peon employee? 2. Do you want uber to set your hours? 3. Do you want medical, vacation days, or unemployment insurance? For some people these are all basically the same questions. For most folks, I don't think they are.
- haberman 6y ago
  > When we polled drivers about their preference between remaining an independent contractor or becoming an employee, an overwhelming number of drivers wanted to remain independent. > "What type of employment relationship would you like to have with rideshare companies" > (A) I don't know the difference: 3.3% > (B) I'd like to be an employee: 20.8% > (C) I'd like to be an independent contractor: 75.9% https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-for-misclassifying-workers/ https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-fo...
  - deleted 6y ago
    [deleted]
  - kelnos 6y ago
    Is 734 out of a population of 80,000 a representative sample? And even if it is, are the 80,000 people on their mailing list a representative sample of all drivers? Not saying they aren't, but I... just don't know.
    - notafraudster 6y ago

HaloZero 6y ago

I believe the idea is that employee protections and standards must come from the government. Sometimes it comes up naturally (see the benefits of being a software engineer) but when unemployment is high those protections tend to go away especially for jobs that have minimal barrier of entry (ie ride share driver). Right now drivers have very little leverage or power over Lyft/Uber except for not participating in their market. The question of AB5 is the right protections and classifying them as employees is I think the debate. I believe most drivers want independence b/c most drivers only drive part time. But the drivers who drive full time want better protections.

all_blue_chucks 6y ago

We should all care. Uber doesn't provide health insurance. Instead Uber drivers get their healthcare costs covered by the rest of us (either via ACA subsidies or written-off care provided to the uninsured).

usaar333 6y ago
Making them employees doesn't give them health insurance. Only if they work over 30 hours a week, which Uber is highly incentived to cap. Besides, what you are actually stating is that Uber riders should pay for Uber driver's health insurance, rather than the general population.
- all_blue_chucks 6y ago
  Correct. Uber drivers should play by the same health insurance rules as other workers. And under today's laws that requires they become employees. Ideally health insurance should be decoupled from employment status, but until then, we should all play by the same rules.
  - usaar333 6y ago
    Again, I'm not following. Even if Uber drivers became employees I don't see why they'd even get health insurance. (This seems to be more about minimum wage, workers comp, UI, etc. which they would get)
  - google234123 6y ago
    So now uber drivers can only work 28 hours a week and now can't afford health care....
crazyjncsu 6y ago
Uber drivers pay taxes on earnings as contractors too. This at least partially covers ACA subsidies (if not fully). And we subsidize employer-provided healthcare also, hence its existence.

tempsy 6y ago

imo biggest problem with the independent argument is Uber and Lyft actively penalizes you as a driver if you decline unprofitable trips. Also I believe Lyft (unsure about Uber) even stopped showing you how much you make per trip and instead just rolls it into one summary, presumably to make it harder for you to do the cost/benefit of deciding whether a trip is worth doing. that sort of big brother behavior is the antithesis of independence and throws out any argument that Uber is somehow just providing drivers with lead gen software like they’re Salesforce or something

grugagag 6y ago
I agree, the driver's independence is only one way : when convenient to them. Both Uber and Lift should lower their cut and stop these practices if they really want the drivers to remain independent
- tempsy 6y ago
  yeah it feels like a few product level changes could easily swing the argument back in their favor - but I guess the risk has always been the impact to the efficiency of the marketplace and overall customer experience.

dmode 6y ago

I think the problem is that driver’s want to remain independent, but their cost is borne by the society. Such as the recent CAREs act had unemployment for drivers. I am assuming they also get subsidized healthcare, and would be eligible for Medicare ? Their employers don't really contribute to these things. But perhaps the law should just have complied them to contribute via additional taxes instead of asking them to be classified

deleted 6y ago
[deleted]
jschwartzi 6y ago
If you're an IC, you have to pay Self-Employment Tax to cover the employer's part of the payroll tax deductions. Plus you're also liable for all the usual payroll taxes. That burden doesn't go away just because you get a 1099 instead of a W-2. So it's the drivers who are in theory paying in to healthcare subsidies and Medicare.
- pishpash 6y ago
  Taxes are on earnings after top-of-the-line deductions for business expenses including gas and depreciation that they'd lose on the W-2. Drivers aren't stupid as you think.
  - gnopgnip 6y ago
    If they were employees they would be required to be reimbursed for business expenses including commercial insurance, and mileage to cover gas and depreciation.
    - pishpash 6y ago
      The reimbursement requirement is baselined with respect to minimum wage, so it could be effectively $0. If it is not $0, the form would be additional W-2 pay, which is allowed by law, and this would be subject to all taxes. On top of the tax loss, calculation would not be at the generous IRS mileage rate that drivers currently exploit, but true expenses which most say are lower. Yet people continue to think drivers are stupider than they are at doing what they do every day. It's pretty fucking arrogant.

Consultant32452 6y ago

I feel like there is a general pattern. The left tends to prioritize all the good ideas: gender equality, racial equality, income gaps, etc. The right tends to prioritize systems that actually function in the real world with real people who are sometimes jealous, stupid, unethical, liars, etc. This is just a case where the first group has run amok without talking to the second group. It's the good idea of everyone should have good benefits without taking the time to design a system that actually works in the real world. You actually see this sort of dynamic in startups where you have two people at the top. One is the creative one who pushes all the boundaries and stuff. The other person is the more pencil pusher/lawyer/business type who makes sure the bills get paid on time. Lots of good things happen when you can get these two types working together instead of hating each other.

treeman79 6y ago
Good insight. Coming together is tricky when there is no common grounds. One side wants wealth to be fairly Evenly distributed to help the poor. The other side helps the poor by creating so much wealth that that most poor people have a lot of wealth. These days you can be considered poor and have housing, ac, heat, tv, video games, maybe a car, and weight problems because food is so cheap. This only leaves those who truly can not or will not work. Severe physical or mental illness, etc. Some can’t stand that inequality exists. Others “know” that destroying inequality means we create more poor people. That’s not even touching right to own body vs right to life crowd. There is almost no middle ground in that battle. Either it’s removing a sac of cells or killing a baby. Maybe some wiggle room at the start, but none by end
- chillwaves 6y ago
  They are poor because they live on a knife's edge, one accident away from financial insolvency or lack of sufficient access to necessities like health care and education opportunities. Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US is so low compared to other wealthy nations.
  - deleted 6y ago

eitherisarb99 6y ago

Either one is an arbitrary choice that influences the market. Why should a supposedly free society be free to accept only how Uber or Lyft might have it? It isn’t just bureaucrats but the public that votes them in. You’re cherry picking bits n pieces from the broader social narrative to highlight. Why should anyone care what any random poster on HN thinks is just as valid and vapid a question once you take 5 minutes to think it over. HN is just as knee jerky and shallow as Twitter and Reddit. Don’t kid yourselves folks

908B64B197 6y ago

Posted it in an other thread [0] but Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was selling and financing (most banks won't touch these medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an extremely volatile asset and not very liquid). The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car, calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are going to get for the car they have should they sell it. [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648 https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648

TuringNYC 6y ago

This is about bureaucrats. This is about politicians seeking lobbying dollars, and return the favor with policy changes, just like it was in NYC. In NYC, the Taxi and Limousine companies were one of the top donors to the Mayoral race and, naturally, the Mayor strangled Uber/Lyft soon after.

RIMR 6y ago

Sure, Uber drivers aren't forced to work at Uber specifically, but everyone is obligated to work in a capitalist society if they want to survive, so it is important that employers in general are bound by laws that protect workers. In this case, California created new laws in response to employee abuses at Uber and Lyft. This notion that Uber and Lyft drivers can afford to quit and find a new career is infantile. The real world does not work that way, and people who labor for low wages should be protected from abuse.

slg 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. Everyone who works for Lyft or Uber is making an active choice to work for Lyft or Uber. It isn't surprising they would choose to continue working for them rather than risk losing that job entirely. That doesn't mean these people aren't being taken advantage of by these companies. It is comparable to someone being paid below minimum wage under the table. If that person entered into that arrangement voluntarily, they likely did it because that is their best option. If that person is given the choice of supporting a lower minimum wage or being fired, they will likely support the lower minimum wage. That doesn't mean that society as a whole would benefit from a lower minimum wage. We should instead enact laws we think are best for society as a whole (I'm not convinced that AB5 is necessarily that, but I am speaking generally here) while also implementing social policies that can take care of the people like this who are caught in the transition of raising labor standards.

chrisjarvis 6y ago

I tend to agree with this, I've always thought ridesharing was rather beautiful in terms of economic efficiency: pair those with extra money but who don't want to drive at that moment with those with extra time who want money. As long as there is adequate education about the all-in costs of car ownership I am all on board. And at scale it reduces traffic (or at least amount of cars in an area).

CarbyAu 6y ago
In ages past my first thoughts upon hearing of Uber was entirely about "matching" as you described. I recall thinking it would be great for adhoc rideshare commuting to/from work. Somewhere it turned into a money sucking business platform. Maybe because it required funds to run the servers required and went off the rails from there?
- jballer 6y ago
  Or maybe because the supply side is full of drivers doing the job for less pay than they should reasonably agree to, betting on a windfall from AB5?

bsder 6y ago

> overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. However, I overwhelmingly don't want to pay for their healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough money. I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare and benefits, period. It doesn't matter whether those 40 hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine, then you owe as payment to the government to provide that. We WANT people to have stable employment, not gigs.

dgellow 6y ago
Some people explicitly want gigs.
labcomputer 6y ago
Sure, but you can't always get what you want. Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models. You can ban exploiting labor, you can force companies to share more with the workers, but you can't legislate well-paying jobs into existence. You might view Uber as an exploitative employer, but it isn't some wildly-profitable company that is failing to share its bountiful profits with the workers. I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome.
- bsder 6y ago
  > Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those un-viable models. And that's fine. We have minimum wage laws for a reason. A "contractor" who is earning near or below minimum wage isn't a contractor--they're a mechanism to skirt labor law. I want to see every layer of "contracting" have to pay benefits. If the contractor is expensive enough (aka $100K+ a year), people won't care. But, yeah, if the "contractor" is skirting labor law, they'll lose--big time. > I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable outcome. I'm willing to roll the dice on this one. The last time Uber and Lyft pulled this stunt (Austin), a whole bunch of companies stood up to take their place. Uber and Lyft then went to the state to override Austin--so we never got to see the end evolution of that. Maybe the business model isn't viable. However, I'm willing to let a bunch of people try competing against it without having to compete against VC subsidy.

monadic2 6y ago

Exploitation does not just go away when you consensually sign a contract. In any idea that these folks resemble independent contractors in any way is bullshit. They can't set the rates of the rides or that they give to Uber or Lyft. They can't set the basic terms on when and where you accept rides. When someone doesn't want to drive me across the bay, I can hardly blame them, but they have no leverage to dictate their own employment except by quitting. I guess these people end up accepting some kind of opaque, kafkaesque punishment to their livelihood. Independent my ass. Granted, single payer healthcare would ameliorate some of the problems here, but it's very difficult to categorize the cut that Uber or Lyft takes for the commodity service they provide, protected by absolutely massive moats of capital, as anything but exploitative.

addicted44 6y ago

Uber/Lyft drivers don't badmouth it. Would you if some random person, who for all you know could be an Uber/Lyft employee, and even if not, is someone who uses Uber/Lyft and therefore is likely happy with it, asks you a question about it?

GoodJokes 6y ago

Completely anecdotal. I know everyone here knows about stats. Shame this is a top comment.

deleted 6y ago

[deleted]

gnopgnip 6y ago

Because taxpayers in the state of CA are in effect picking up the slack when the employer fails to pay for sick and family leave, unemployment, and healthcare. This change didn't happen overnight. AB5 was passed 6+ months ago, after over a year of political negotiation.

fishywang 6y ago

I'm sure there's a few drivers really want to stay independent, but have you considered that the majority only "want tob stay independent" because the current situation? That doing this full time won't be enough income to feed the family, so they want to stay independent in order to have another job? If doing this full time is enough income, maybe they no longer need to be independent?

Akababa 6y ago
My impression is that Uber fulfills a niche for drivers who want a certain tradeoff between flexibility and job security. There are people who fit into that niche and people who don't, but forcing the company to change its value proposition is going to make some people start or stop driving for Uber depending on how well the new contract suits them. This could be a net economic win or loss, but we don't know the numbers. In the long run, if there are enough drivers who value the flexible arrangement that Uber provides, then either another company will fill that niche or these people will find similar work elsewhere.

parineum 6y ago

I rarely use ridesharing apps but I always ask about this kind of thing and I have the same takeaway as you. The drivers seem to like the situation they are in. I could really care less about the "technically..." type of arguments. The drivers don't think they are being exploited, they like the job and the freedom it gives them. Any law that puts an end to that is _bad_ for those people. Just because these laws were put in place to help people doesn't mean they always help people. The people who are supposedly being helped by the law here think it's hurting them. The law is supposed to serve the people, not the other way around. The law needs to change to allow these people to continue the situation they enjoy. It drives me crazy to read people arguing about the technicalities of the law and ignoring what the supposedly exploited people are saying.

mycall 6y ago
> The drivers seem to like the situation they are in. Yet when you explain to them what they are missing, what employees get, they also like that.
- mikeg8 6y ago
  Do you also explain some of the downsides of being an employee? I don’t know if they are dying for the rigid hours, bureaucracy, same environment etc. it’s not all upside being an employee

noncoml 6y ago

What they are telling you is that they don’t want anyone to set their working hours for them. That’s all

momokoko 6y ago

Because I’m stuck footing the bill for everything Uber(and by proxy their drivers) are not paying into. Currently, we all paid for their Covid unemployment benefits that they did not pay into. We pay for unpaid hospital bills after accidents because they did not pay into workers compensation. We’ll pay for disability after those accidents that they did not pay into. Uber and Uber drivers a freeloading off a system we are paying into. If they want to pretend they are not employees, then they should all have to pay into all these things themselves.

ur-whale 6y ago

> drivers tell me they want to stay independent This whole business has nothing to do with the drivers, neither what they want, what's good for them or even what's good for customers. It's about a class of politicians (unions and the leftist politicians they back/finance) scared to death to see their historical grip on power disappear because of a paradigm shift and who are using the people's goody-two-shoes knee-jerk reflexes to try and regain said grip.

akvadrako 6y ago

Because it's inconsistent. If you allow drivers to work without protections you should allow everyone to work without protections. There are some issues though; for one the state ends up subsidising workers who don't have good unemployment and health insurance. The best solution would be UBI - give people enough money to live on while removing worker protections like minimum wage and mandatory insurances.

ksec 6y ago

But you also have people like DHH claiming otherwise. To those of us not living in US, America just feels like a nation that constantly shout at each other, and now it is amplify by its a dominant media platform; Twitter. Considering lots of news media quote, find new information and use Twitter. And no one wants to compromise.

bryan_w 6y ago
I promise you, real life in America is nothing like Twitter.

CPLX 6y ago

Imagine for arguments sake you were deriving your income from a company that’s known to be highly aggressive in suppressing threats to their business model. Imagine that you held an opinion that was counter to a major legal and public option battle that company was engaged in. In the situation, what would you say if someone approached you while you were on the job and started asking for your opinion on this topic?

ryanisnan 6y ago

Whether or not a group of people is aware of their exploitation should not be a factor in whether or not a society allows their exploitation.

Nacdor 6y ago
Yes, it's amazing that the top comment misses the point completely. Plenty of inmates become "institutionalized" and claim they would prefer to stay in prison, but no one would ever cite that as a legitimate reason to keep them there.
neap24 6y ago
Ah, well. I think I can make this circular. It is perhaps exploitative to demand these laws. It's unfair treatment of Uber/Lyft employees to imposing regulatory regimes against their wishes (claiming it actually benefits them) to satisfy the political benefits/desires of an outside group. Society should not allow that exploitation to exist whether or not the outside group realizes it is exploitation.
- Nacdor 6y ago
  It's pretty silly to say that protecting workers is exploitative. You're essentially trying to redefine the word "exploitation" be reversing its meaning.
  - neap24 6y ago
    It's pretty silly to make an absolute claim that one is protecting workers when that is far from obvious.

mcguire 6y ago

A couple of points. 1. Valid survey questions are very hard to phrase. Asking someone about their job when their job depends on your goodwill in not conducive to truthful answers. 2. Given the corporations' behavior, the driver's job depends on their following the corporate script.

itsoktocry 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. Why would you bring this up every time you get in an Uber? Have you considered that maybe, just maybe, these people are concerned about complaining to a stranger about their "employer"? Imagine someone walking into your office and asking you, "hey, do you like this company?"

deaddodo 6y ago

> I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. Because, that's not the argument. The argument is the precedent it sets. We've seen companies utilize weak independent contractor regulations in the past to take advantage of individuals (most specifically, the Dynamex case that lead directly to this), despite many of them not knowing/not complaining. This is why California is so hard on independent contractors. I would prefer a state strong on worker's rights than vice versa. > From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving so I really don't buy the exploitation argument. Your anecdotes don't mean anything, sorry. We have vast evidence that companies will take advantage of worker's in an independent contractor situation to their benefit. We have evidence that Uber had requirements in it's worker interactions (route penalties, hour requirements, etc) that do not fit independent contractor ideals. > Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats. The bureacrats gain nothing. > Also don't see how it's realistic to expect them to be able to adjust to this on a dime. I can only assume you don't live in California. This isn't on a dime. They were notified over three years ago. The FTB and legislature have been on them about it constantly. The law was introduced in 2018-12-03 and signed into law on 2019-09-18. I know operations can be slow, but two years should be plenty of time, considering how fast they were able to adjust to failing markets like Germany that they ultimately lost anyways. > Although large, California is still a minority of their revenue. It makes up 16% of Lyft and Uber's users. It has the highest valued rides, lowest effective overhead (driver retention, driver acquisition, passenger acquisition) and most effective mileage. But you're right, they should give up their most established and profitable market or California should shut up. Because you talked to some people.

zjaffee 6y ago

This is a disgusting comment and shows an incredible lack of understanding around how labor rights historically have been both won and lost. The further allowance of classifying people as contractors will only expand until companies can further use this as a tool to pay people less and avoid taxes (where based on federal judicial precedent, the healthcare premiums both individuals and employers pay are considered taxes under federal law). Today Uber drivers, tomorrow nurses and teachers, ect. Also people are absolutely being forced into working as rideshare and delivery drivers, the alternatives are often destitute poverty. These companies had a long time to get their act together on this issue, they just decided that a capital strike was more favorable to them at this time. Until we live in a country where healthcare is separate from employment, hiring someone on as a contractor just so you can avoid healthcare costs for them is absolutely exploitative (both of the law, and to the workers themselves).

ec109685 6y ago

What flexibility will drivers be forced to give up if they are classified as part-time or full-time employees by Uber?