4 ms·

> if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. The Uber workers most definitely are not making minimum wage. They actually see very well how

by xyzzyz 6y ago

> if the workers understand they are making under minimum wage. The Uber workers most definitely are not making minimum wage. They actually see very well how much they’re making, and are not as gullible as HN likes to imply to not notice if they were ripped off. It is common for people here to make argument that Uber drivers make less than minimum wage, but that typically proceeds on some very dubious assumptions, which throw the numbers way off. I don’t want to elaborate too much on nuances of actual operational costs vs IRS mileage rate, depreciation, financing and all that stuff, because there is a more obvious point. Uber drivers can always rent a car from Hertz, which partners with Uber and will rent you a car for ~$250/week. This rate includes all maintenance and repair, so if drivers go this way, their only remaining significant costs are gas and insurance. At the and of the month, they can easily tally up the Hertz bill, their gas costs and their insurance payment, and compare with earnings. Suffice to say, it is above minimum wage, assuming they worked full time.

Barrin92 6y ago
If drivers can easily do that then honestly it shouldn't be difficult for Uber to move from a ridehailing company in California to a SAAS service provider, that is to say license the technology platform to companies that manage the drivers in a traditional way. (In fact that is literally how Uber operates in some European countries where drivers are already classified as employees). And that is a very profitable business and healthy market actually the problem is just, Uber would have to give up its world domination plans and admit it's a software company, not the future of transportation
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  But why Uber would want that? What benefit would they get from they middleman, who’d also want to take his cut?
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    Uber obviously doesn't want it which is why they oppose it. but the law in a democratic society isn't supposed to be written by and for Uber, and the goal of the legislation is guaranteeing employee rights. The argument just simply takes the wind out of the sails of Uber's best counter-argument, that they somehow would need to cease operations in the state and deprive customers of their service. They wouldn't, they can operate just fine as a software provider, they just don't get to eat the entire value chain. (which arguably apart from taking care of the employee issue also makes some sense from a competition standpoint).
    - xyzzyz 6y ago
      I think you’re missing the point. Adding middleman changes nothing, because whatever that middleman could do, so can Uber itself. The argument Uber makes is that the drivers the existing arrangement is beneficial to all involved parties, and if they are required to hire drivers as employees, they won’t be able to offer as many rides as they do today with current prices, so both users will lose out on rides they are no longer able to buy, but also the drivers who now provide these rides won’t be able to. Regardless of whether this argument is any good, it is clear that adding middlemen won’t help here.
gnopgnip 6y ago
"Making minimum wage" in CA means minimum wage( for the whole time you are working, not just when you have a passenger) the employer paying a share of the taxes including unemployment, 3 days of sick leave a year if you work full time, being eligible for healthcare if you work full time(that you still have to pay for), and your employer reimbursing employer related expenses like mileage.
- xyzzyz 6y ago
  Sure, but then again, the Uber drivers know what their getting into. You might argue that they are underpaid, but it’s hard to argue that they are getting scammed or cheated: the arrangement is clear upfront, and the earnings follow not too long after.
  - twanvl 6y ago
    But laws about minimum wage and employee rights are not optional. A company can't decide to offer a job below minimum wage and argue that the arrangement is clear upfront, and therefore ok.
  - La1n 6y ago
    Even if they know what they are getting into its minimum wage, not suggested minimal wage.
jonathan-neil 6y ago
Actually that is incorrect. The Hertz deal does not cover all maintenance expenses, for example if you blow a tire on a pothole, you have to pay for it. There are a lot more of those exceptions in the fine print, so be sure to read it all!

by xyzzyz 6y ago

Barrin92 6y ago

If drivers can easily do that then honestly it shouldn't be difficult for Uber to move from a ridehailing company in California to a SAAS service provider, that is to say license the technology platform to companies that manage the drivers in a traditional way. (In fact that is literally how Uber operates in some European countries where drivers are already classified as employees). And that is a very profitable business and healthy market actually the problem is just, Uber would have to give up its world domination plans and admit it's a software company, not the future of transportation

xyzzyz 6y ago
But why Uber would want that? What benefit would they get from they middleman, who’d also want to take his cut?
- Barrin92 6y ago
  Uber obviously doesn't want it which is why they oppose it. but the law in a democratic society isn't supposed to be written by and for Uber, and the goal of the legislation is guaranteeing employee rights. The argument just simply takes the wind out of the sails of Uber's best counter-argument, that they somehow would need to cease operations in the state and deprive customers of their service. They wouldn't, they can operate just fine as a software provider, they just don't get to eat the entire value chain. (which arguably apart from taking care of the employee issue also makes some sense from a competition standpoint).
  - xyzzyz 6y ago
    I think you’re missing the point. Adding middleman changes nothing, because whatever that middleman could do, so can Uber itself. The argument Uber makes is that the drivers the existing arrangement is beneficial to all involved parties, and if they are required to hire drivers as employees, they won’t be able to offer as many rides as they do today with current prices, so both users will lose out on rides they are no longer able to buy, but also the drivers who now provide these rides won’t be able to. Regardless of whether this argument is any good, it is clear that adding middlemen won’t help here.

gnopgnip 6y ago

"Making minimum wage" in CA means minimum wage( for the whole time you are working, not just when you have a passenger) the employer paying a share of the taxes including unemployment, 3 days of sick leave a year if you work full time, being eligible for healthcare if you work full time(that you still have to pay for), and your employer reimbursing employer related expenses like mileage.

xyzzyz 6y ago
Sure, but then again, the Uber drivers know what their getting into. You might argue that they are underpaid, but it’s hard to argue that they are getting scammed or cheated: the arrangement is clear upfront, and the earnings follow not too long after.
- twanvl 6y ago
  But laws about minimum wage and employee rights are not optional. A company can't decide to offer a job below minimum wage and argue that the arrangement is clear upfront, and therefore ok.
- La1n 6y ago
  Even if they know what they are getting into its minimum wage, not suggested minimal wage.

jonathan-neil 6y ago

Actually that is incorrect. The Hertz deal does not cover all maintenance expenses, for example if you blow a tire on a pothole, you have to pay for it. There are a lot more of those exceptions in the fine print, so be sure to read it all!