13 ms·

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s

My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Some months over $1000. He can work when he wants, and make as much or as little money as he needs. I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. Had the law passed, people like my husband would have had to quit working for Uber. It would have unfairly punished the part-time and “free time” drivers in favor of full-time drivers. I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here.

intricatedetail 6y ago
People who want it to be full time, in reality want it so they can install unions and then leech money of the workers with no options.
- Bjartr 6y ago
  Care to share what makes you so certain of this?
esrauch 6y ago
It's anecdotal but I always chat with my Uber drivers and nearly 100% of them are driving full time. I assume it's a "most rides are driven by a full-timer, most drivers are part timers" situation. I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers short of driver incentives also going way up (which would benefit people like your husband).
- JamesBarney 6y ago
  Where are you taking Ubers? I'm surprised by this since even low level entry jobs, like hostessing(sp?), working at the grocery store, delivering pizza, all pay better than Uber. In Houston almost everyone I talked to were - retired, raising kids, had another jobs, going to school, or had some health issues that prevented full time employment. The vast majority of the economy is made up of jobs where a company tells you when to show up, when to go home, and tries to schedule you for 38 hrs. Why can't we have just one job for people who have life circumstances that require flexibility.
  - esrauch 6y ago
    I have the most experience in the greater Boston area, but a spattering all over the US (but maybe to/from airports is a biased sample too). Note that I've also had a lot of responses that they are "retired" but also say they drive >30 hours per week, which I'd personally consider "switched careers" or "unretired" but it's somewhat a matter of perspective.
  - inglor_cz 6y ago
    My experience with Uber drivers here in CZ is that they are guys who like to drive.
  - lacker 6y ago
    In Oakland there are a lot of Uber drivers who seem like they don’t speak English well enough to get a job like a grocery store checkout clerk. From my time working in retail I have also known many people who couldn’t get enough hours at their primary job, but its scheduling constraints meant it was hard for them to find a second job that fit in with it. Uber or similar gig work seems ideal for these situations.
- Jommi 6y ago
  I have the complete opposite anecdotal experience. Your 2nd paragraph is exactly what prop22 added. Now full-time drivers enjoy some benefits.
  - 6y ago
momokoko 6y ago
Did he collect unemployment, which he does not pay into, during Covid? What is the max payout for his insurance as we’ll need to cover the rest since he is not covered by workers compensation? I could go on, but the point isn’t to protect him, the point is to protect us from picking up the bill for things he and Uber are not paying into.
- ericabiz 6y ago
  I think you’re misreading our situation. We run phone and computer repair shops as our primary business. Uber is his part-time side gig. We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business. He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open. That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays the bills and you just want some extra cash. The extra cash from Uber enabled him to pay off his car quickly and continues to provide extra money for our family. It is not a full-time income, nor do we ever expect it to be. This is our situation, and I understand that others are different. However, you specifically asked about him, so I replied with our details.
  - momokoko 6y ago
    Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount. There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.
    - renewiltord 6y ago
      Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs. Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.
      - momokoko 6y ago
tru3_power 6y ago
Before Uber came along driving a cab was mostly a full time thing. My father was a cab driver for 30 years before Uber came onto the scene, and now he does Uber full time. A lot of Uber drivers I talk to are full time drivers.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Before Uber came along, flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either. The "glass half full" way to think of it is that Uber bought work flexibility; and as it turns out the labor market values this flexibility with slightly lower wages. If you think we should out-regulate that, should we ban part time jobs too? How about we ban unpaid time off? Any barriers to work (i.e. regulation) just accelerates AI taking over all the jobs. Anything that drives up the cost of labour, just means more automation like self-serve kiosks or robo security guards today; and who knows what tomorrow. If you want to solve societal inequality and provide a safety net, which is something I 100% back, do that through taxation + a universal basic income.
  - freehunter 6y ago
    > flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either Sure they did, we called them “cottage industries”. You’ve always been able to buy from a farmer’s market or small general stores (who source a lot of their merchandise from random craftsmen). Craigslist pre-dates Uber, and classified ads pre-dates Craigslist. There are stores around the world specializing in hand-made and home-made items. Independent contractors have existed since the beginning of civilization, and any city in the world will have a generic handyman service for work around the house. My wife just sold four candles, Uber wasn’t involved with that. My grandmother knits dishclothes and sells them to a local shop for distribution whenever she decides to go into town, Uber didn’t invent that.
  - claudiulodro 6y ago
    Piece work has existed for at least 500 years[1] and those were definitely "flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time." Unsurprisingly, piece-work employment also suffered from many labor issues[2]. Uber is just piece work for giving rides, and so should be governed by laws that protect piece-workers[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage
Alex3917 6y ago
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.
- dannyw 6y ago
  Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC. P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    > P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
    - viscanti 6y ago
      Prop 22 allows for treating drivers differently based on how many hours per week they drive. Previously a gig economy company needed to decide how to classify their entire workforce (a single driver treated as an employee meant all need to be). It seems reasonable to be able to treat full time drivers like full time drivers and part time drivers like part time drivers. That's why CA voted for prop 22.
  - 6y ago
jakelazaroff 6y ago
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”
- thekyle 6y ago
  Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.
  - slg 6y ago
    I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
    - Dylan16807 6y ago
      I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
      - slg 6y ago
        I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.
truculent 6y ago
Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.
- stevesearer 6y ago
  I’m in Santa Barbara and I’ve had a number of drivers who are not full-time. Students, retired people, and my favorite was a guy who would take 1-2 trips on the way home from his job to put into a travel savings so he and his family upgrade their vacations.
  - simias 6y ago
    Here in Portugal the vast majority of the drivers seem to be doing it full time (having 3 phones at the same time to use several apps and all that). Many (most?) of them are Brasilian immigrants. Uber is dirt-cheap too here, and gas is expensive, so I don't understand how they even manage to turn a reasonable profit. Taxis are significantly more expensive (easily twice as much in my experience). Every market is different though, I can definitely believe that the situation could be very different in California.
- thehappypm 6y ago
  There is a STRONG selection bias at play here. Just to illustrate the point with fake numbers.. If 90% of drivers are doing the gig thing, maybe they’ll be driving Uber an hour a day on average. Then if 10% of drivers are doing 12 hours a day, most rides will be from the small minority of full time drivers. It’s exactly the same as the experience most people have that flights tend to be overflowing with people, when the airlines claim many flights are totally empty.
- caymanjim 6y ago
  Just to throw more anecdata in, I've never met a fulltime Uber driver. Most of my drivers are retired people who got bored and wanted some extra cash, like to chat, and wanted to get out of the house. Others have some disability that prevents them from working fulltime. Many are doing it for extra cash, especially around the holidays. Many only selectively drive when there are events that they know will make the rates spike. I'm sure there are tons of fulltime Uber drivers, especially if you live in a city where cab drivers have made the switch. I live in the suburbs, and I've never met a fulltimer.
gowld 6y ago
How would the AB5 law without 22 hurt him? What's wrong with part-time employment? Why is someone's beer money more important than someone else's full time subsistence?
- dannyw 6y ago
  I've done lots of things that deprive full time subsistences. For example, I used to repair people's phones and gadgets as a beer money gig; which deprive full-time repair shop employees. Should it be illegal for me to offer that service?
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    That's not what anyone is arguing for. The whole argument is that a company who treats people like employees (full control over interactions with and access to customers) should have to provide the benefits and pay the costs of an employer.
    - dannyw 6y ago
      Companies who treat people like employees generally: * do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work * do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want * do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters) but most importantly: * do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time. If Uber is too driver-unfriendly, drivers can switch to Lyft. Or maybe Amazon Flex. There's a very, very real choice that you do not get with a traditional employer-employee relationship. Uber is in between an employee, and an IC. I believe the appropriate treatment is also somewhere in between.
      - xeromal 6y ago
        Yeah, it almost seems like a compromise would be an hourly line. If you work more than 30 hours, you become an employee but you lose freedom in the hours you choose since you're now in an employee relationship and below 30 hours, you're just a contractor. Some kind of part time tinkerer.
IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago
Just declaring "oh this is a transitory job" doesn't make it so. Yes, according to Boomer legend, fast food joints used to be exclusively staffed by high school students for whom $8.25 is more than enough for an adequate weed supply. But that's just not true anymore, is it? And yet, its used as argument to deny full protection (for Uber) or not raise minimum wage (my fast food example). At the very least, it should be uncontroversial to include these assumptions in legislation: require full benefits, but only for drivers driving > 15h per week. If your assumptions hold, Uber shouldn't need to oppose this, considering they have few drivers it would apply to.
- intricatedetail 6y ago
  So why people who don't want protections should be limited to 15 hours?
  - rtkwe 6y ago
    It's the same distinction between part time and full time work, a lot of things kick in when you work more than 35-40 hours for a company. It's not about limiting people's time it's about making sure companies don't take advantage of people. You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime?
    - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
      > You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime? Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, still don't get any overtime, but now they have the expense of a second commute and get paid less because the second job has to duplicate all of the employment benefits the first job was already providing instead of paying that money as wages.
smileysteve 6y ago
> He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. Especially in terms of congestion and efficiency, the "piggyback" model solves many problems and is complementary to clean air campaigns that governments spend millions on.
JumpCrisscross 6y ago
If you want to understand Trump‘s original appeal to working class America, consider what it would take to convince high-income San Franciscans that drivers were not duped into supporting 22. That they were competently looking out for their interests better than a detached observer can.
panpanna 6y ago
This comment is wrong on so many levels. Most importantly, you don't want others get the protection they deserve because it works fine for your husband.
newacct583 6y ago
Just to be clear: I'm assuming you're employed with traditional benefits, so your husband is on your insurance et. al.? Is "you have to have a spouse with a traditional job" really what you imagine "the way Uber was originally envisioned?" That seems to be sorta missing the point. People don't want "Uber to BE a full-time job", they just want it to be possible for it to replace one. > I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here. Really what this is proof of is that employer benefits are a fundamentally broken idea. Employers will always, ALWAYS find ways to cheat their way around providing them when they can. Regulation will always be catching up. Back in 2009, I thought the hippies were crazy to be staking so much on their failed quest for a public option in the ACA. Now? Sign me up as a M4A proponent. The system's just broken.
piokoch 6y ago
I think the question if the law make sense or not is somehow distracting us from a bigger problem. The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money. Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives were supposed to make law based on justice and ethics and common interest. Right now law is made because someone was able to pull out enough money to buy particular regulation. There is some democratic ceremony around all this, but this is just a ceremony. The ancient Rome citizens also thought that they have democracy in the times of triumvirate, but this was also a show.
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Money can't buy you everything in politics. MA had ballot question #2, where the proponents raised an estimated $10M and the opponents raised an estimated $3500. (opponents were out-raised 3000:1) The ballot initiative failed around 55%-45%, despite a massive difference in fundraising (and presumably associated spending).
- syshum 6y ago
  It is completely false that this Passed purely because they spent alot of money Your belief on that is based on reporting bias, reporters never talk about when an initiative's that went counter to the HUGE amounts of money poured in (for or against), for example the Right to repair in MA which has huge money from all the major auto manufacturers, and an ad campaign claiming that if you voted for right to repair rapists would get your garage codes... It is click bait to talk about how "company X bought regulation" but it is rarely true, even in CA there were a few ballot measures this year that failed even with massive amounts of money being spent on supporting them. Money in politics if often used as a scapegoat to explain away why some issue failed, or some issue succeed with out having to accept the fact that majority disagreed with you, as it often hard to admit that the majority rejects your world view
IshKebab 6y ago
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. According to you. It's clearly a full time job for most drivers. The fact that you think it shouldn't be doesn't change that. What do you expect full time taxi drivers to do exactly? Go back to working for local taxi companies and get zero customers?
- sokoloff 6y ago
  Anecdotally, I feel like at least 1/3 of my Uber/Lyft rides are from someone that I'd categorize as a part-timer. (I almost always chat with my driver and ask about their experience driving.) From that (and the much larger number of hours a full-time driver would drive), I conclude that there are probably more part-time drivers than full-time drivers.
download13 6y ago
Good thing they added that clause about how it needs a 7/8ths majority to repeal, ensuring this special law will be with us forever
- neolefty 6y ago
  That sounds constitutionally suspicious. Think it will stand up in court?
sitkack 6y ago
You are in Texas not California. This doesn't affect you.
- randompwd 6y ago
  Not sure why you are being dismissive of the OP putting forward their opinion. HN isn't a California local's site.
tschwimmer 6y ago
If there are some months that he only makes a few hundred dollars, it's possible that you're actually losing money on depreciation (even if you're net positive on current costs like gas and maintenance). This is something that I see very few drivers talk about but influences your earnings significantly. Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you to have more miles and thus sell for $X-$Y, then Y is real cost. Even if you don't sell your car and instead drive your it into the ground, the extra miles you're driving for Uber cause your car to fail faster. I get the sense that many part time drivers think they're making money when instead they're losing it (or maybe making less than minimum wage after expenses).
- kfarr 6y ago
  Shhhh... You're devaluing lyft and Uber stock with your arithmetic! /s of course you're right but this lack of accounting for vehicle depreciation (not to mention a very high liability risk for every minute on the road) is rooted deeply in American's sunk cost fallacy with motor vehicle ownership. It's almost a genetic instinct at this point and for every person who does the math and realizes it doesn't work out there's another who won't care
- austhrow743 6y ago
  I find it incredibly hard to believe depreciation would be that significant of a factor if someone driving part time is pulling in hundreds or occasionally a thousand a month. They’d have to be reducing a new car down to a total loss every couple of years, just through ubering. Doesn’t make sense.
- missedthecue 6y ago
  I hear this thrown around a lot, but to the best I can discern, it is simply unfounded. Uber and Lyft seem to pay between $1-$2 a mile. There are sites where you can put in the model and year of your car and get real life depreciation figures. Unless you're ubering around in a McLaren, you're just not depreciating at a higher rate than what Uber pays. Prius, probably the most common ride sharing car, has a total cost, including fuel, depreciation, and maintenance, of about $0.39 cents per mile.

intricatedetail 6y ago

People who want it to be full time, in reality want it so they can install unions and then leech money of the workers with no options.

Bjartr 6y ago
Care to share what makes you so certain of this?

esrauch 6y ago

It's anecdotal but I always chat with my Uber drivers and nearly 100% of them are driving full time. I assume it's a "most rides are driven by a full-timer, most drivers are part timers" situation. I don't really see why we need a third category, it should just be that some drivers are full time and some are not. I don't believe that Uber could sufficiently fulfill even half the rides with only the true part timers short of driver incentives also going way up (which would benefit people like your husband).

JamesBarney 6y ago
Where are you taking Ubers? I'm surprised by this since even low level entry jobs, like hostessing(sp?), working at the grocery store, delivering pizza, all pay better than Uber. In Houston almost everyone I talked to were - retired, raising kids, had another jobs, going to school, or had some health issues that prevented full time employment. The vast majority of the economy is made up of jobs where a company tells you when to show up, when to go home, and tries to schedule you for 38 hrs. Why can't we have just one job for people who have life circumstances that require flexibility.
- esrauch 6y ago
  I have the most experience in the greater Boston area, but a spattering all over the US (but maybe to/from airports is a biased sample too). Note that I've also had a lot of responses that they are "retired" but also say they drive >30 hours per week, which I'd personally consider "switched careers" or "unretired" but it's somewhat a matter of perspective.
- inglor_cz 6y ago
  My experience with Uber drivers here in CZ is that they are guys who like to drive.
- lacker 6y ago
  In Oakland there are a lot of Uber drivers who seem like they don’t speak English well enough to get a job like a grocery store checkout clerk. From my time working in retail I have also known many people who couldn’t get enough hours at their primary job, but its scheduling constraints meant it was hard for them to find a second job that fit in with it. Uber or similar gig work seems ideal for these situations.
Jommi 6y ago
I have the complete opposite anecdotal experience. Your 2nd paragraph is exactly what prop22 added. Now full-time drivers enjoy some benefits.
- 6y ago

momokoko 6y ago

Did he collect unemployment, which he does not pay into, during Covid? What is the max payout for his insurance as we’ll need to cover the rest since he is not covered by workers compensation? I could go on, but the point isn’t to protect him, the point is to protect us from picking up the bill for things he and Uber are not paying into.

ericabiz 6y ago
I think you’re misreading our situation. We run phone and computer repair shops as our primary business. Uber is his part-time side gig. We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business. He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open. That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays the bills and you just want some extra cash. The extra cash from Uber enabled him to pay off his car quickly and continues to provide extra money for our family. It is not a full-time income, nor do we ever expect it to be. This is our situation, and I understand that others are different. However, you specifically asked about him, so I replied with our details.
- momokoko 6y ago
  Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount. There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.
  - renewiltord 6y ago
    Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs. Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.
    - momokoko 6y ago

tru3_power 6y ago

Before Uber came along driving a cab was mostly a full time thing. My father was a cab driver for 30 years before Uber came onto the scene, and now he does Uber full time. A lot of Uber drivers I talk to are full time drivers.

dannyw 6y ago
Before Uber came along, flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either. The "glass half full" way to think of it is that Uber bought work flexibility; and as it turns out the labor market values this flexibility with slightly lower wages. If you think we should out-regulate that, should we ban part time jobs too? How about we ban unpaid time off? Any barriers to work (i.e. regulation) just accelerates AI taking over all the jobs. Anything that drives up the cost of labour, just means more automation like self-serve kiosks or robo security guards today; and who knows what tomorrow. If you want to solve societal inequality and provide a safety net, which is something I 100% back, do that through taxation + a universal basic income.
- freehunter 6y ago
  > flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time didn't really exist either Sure they did, we called them “cottage industries”. You’ve always been able to buy from a farmer’s market or small general stores (who source a lot of their merchandise from random craftsmen). Craigslist pre-dates Uber, and classified ads pre-dates Craigslist. There are stores around the world specializing in hand-made and home-made items. Independent contractors have existed since the beginning of civilization, and any city in the world will have a generic handyman service for work around the house. My wife just sold four candles, Uber wasn’t involved with that. My grandmother knits dishclothes and sells them to a local shop for distribution whenever she decides to go into town, Uber didn’t invent that.
- claudiulodro 6y ago
  Piece work has existed for at least 500 years[1] and those were definitely "flexible jobs that you could engage with at any point in time." Unsurprisingly, piece-work employment also suffered from many labor issues[2]. Uber is just piece work for giving rides, and so should be governed by laws that protect piece-workers[3]. [1] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Guild_system [2] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Abuse [3] https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Piece_work#Minimum_wage

Alex3917 6y ago

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.

dannyw 6y ago
Should this binary classification, devised prior to this whole model of work was invented, still exist? It's like not updating your horse carriage road laws to accommodate automobiles; because everything is either a pedestrian or a horse carriage. If there's no horse, a car isn't a vehicle; it's a pedestrian. Makes no sense. If you think Uber drives deserve more than 120% of min wage, then you can argue that, but I don't see why you have to argue employee vs IC. P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues.
- rtkwe 6y ago
  > P.S. Most Uber drivers, when independently polled, are for Prop 22. It's the unions that were pushing this, so they can collect union dues and grow their revenues. I wonder if this would remain true if you weighted by the number of drives given, there certainly seems to be a distinction between part time and full time drivers. The former could be more numerous while Uber depends on the latter to provide the bulk of their supply.
  - viscanti 6y ago
    Prop 22 allows for treating drivers differently based on how many hours per week they drive. Previously a gig economy company needed to decide how to classify their entire workforce (a single driver treated as an employee meant all need to be). It seems reasonable to be able to treat full time drivers like full time drivers and part time drivers like part time drivers. That's why CA voted for prop 22.
- 6y ago

jakelazaroff 6y ago

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”

thekyle 6y ago
Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.
- slg 6y ago
  I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
  - Dylan16807 6y ago
    I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative? If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
    - slg 6y ago
      I am saying having more options is not inherently good and the will of the individual working should not be the ultimate deciding factor in labor law. What is best for an individual Uber driver is not necessarily what is best for society as a whole or even the population of all Uber drivers. Just like we need to protect the 12 year old who voluntary enters a coal mine, we might need to protect the Uber driver who voluntary gets into their car.

truculent 6y ago

Your husband is very fortunate; I’ve never met someone who drives for Uber and is not doing it full-time. Wishing it wasn’t that way doesn’t make it so.

stevesearer 6y ago
I’m in Santa Barbara and I’ve had a number of drivers who are not full-time. Students, retired people, and my favorite was a guy who would take 1-2 trips on the way home from his job to put into a travel savings so he and his family upgrade their vacations.
- simias 6y ago
  Here in Portugal the vast majority of the drivers seem to be doing it full time (having 3 phones at the same time to use several apps and all that). Many (most?) of them are Brasilian immigrants. Uber is dirt-cheap too here, and gas is expensive, so I don't understand how they even manage to turn a reasonable profit. Taxis are significantly more expensive (easily twice as much in my experience). Every market is different though, I can definitely believe that the situation could be very different in California.
thehappypm 6y ago
There is a STRONG selection bias at play here. Just to illustrate the point with fake numbers.. If 90% of drivers are doing the gig thing, maybe they’ll be driving Uber an hour a day on average. Then if 10% of drivers are doing 12 hours a day, most rides will be from the small minority of full time drivers. It’s exactly the same as the experience most people have that flights tend to be overflowing with people, when the airlines claim many flights are totally empty.
caymanjim 6y ago
Just to throw more anecdata in, I've never met a fulltime Uber driver. Most of my drivers are retired people who got bored and wanted some extra cash, like to chat, and wanted to get out of the house. Others have some disability that prevents them from working fulltime. Many are doing it for extra cash, especially around the holidays. Many only selectively drive when there are events that they know will make the rates spike. I'm sure there are tons of fulltime Uber drivers, especially if you live in a city where cab drivers have made the switch. I live in the suburbs, and I've never met a fulltimer.

gowld 6y ago

How would the AB5 law without 22 hurt him? What's wrong with part-time employment? Why is someone's beer money more important than someone else's full time subsistence?

dannyw 6y ago
I've done lots of things that deprive full time subsistences. For example, I used to repair people's phones and gadgets as a beer money gig; which deprive full-time repair shop employees. Should it be illegal for me to offer that service?
- rtkwe 6y ago
  That's not what anyone is arguing for. The whole argument is that a company who treats people like employees (full control over interactions with and access to customers) should have to provide the benefits and pay the costs of an employer.
  - dannyw 6y ago
    Companies who treat people like employees generally: * do not allow them unlimited flexibility into when and where they work * do not allow them to take days off, without notice, for any reason, for as long as they want * do not allow them to choose which jobs to do and not do (see: trip destination filters) but most importantly: * do not allow them to work for a competitor at the same time. If Uber is too driver-unfriendly, drivers can switch to Lyft. Or maybe Amazon Flex. There's a very, very real choice that you do not get with a traditional employer-employee relationship. Uber is in between an employee, and an IC. I believe the appropriate treatment is also somewhere in between.
    - xeromal 6y ago
      Yeah, it almost seems like a compromise would be an hourly line. If you work more than 30 hours, you become an employee but you lose freedom in the hours you choose since you're now in an employee relationship and below 30 hours, you're just a contractor. Some kind of part time tinkerer.

IfOnlyYouKnew 6y ago

Just declaring "oh this is a transitory job" doesn't make it so. Yes, according to Boomer legend, fast food joints used to be exclusively staffed by high school students for whom $8.25 is more than enough for an adequate weed supply. But that's just not true anymore, is it? And yet, its used as argument to deny full protection (for Uber) or not raise minimum wage (my fast food example). At the very least, it should be uncontroversial to include these assumptions in legislation: require full benefits, but only for drivers driving > 15h per week. If your assumptions hold, Uber shouldn't need to oppose this, considering they have few drivers it would apply to.

intricatedetail 6y ago
So why people who don't want protections should be limited to 15 hours?
- rtkwe 6y ago
  It's the same distinction between part time and full time work, a lot of things kick in when you work more than 35-40 hours for a company. It's not about limiting people's time it's about making sure companies don't take advantage of people. You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime?
  - AnthonyMouse 6y ago
    > You can make a similar argument about all labor regulations, eg why limit people to 40 hours if they're willing to work more for the same pay if their employer doesn't want to pay overtime? Which is why all such regulations are ridiculous. You "help" someone by requiring higher pay for overtime, the employer responds by prohibiting overtime. The worker still wants more than 40 hours, so they take a second job, still don't get any overtime, but now they have the expense of a second commute and get paid less because the second job has to duplicate all of the employment benefits the first job was already providing instead of paying that money as wages.

smileysteve 6y ago

> He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. Especially in terms of congestion and efficiency, the "piggyback" model solves many problems and is complementary to clean air campaigns that governments spend millions on.

JumpCrisscross 6y ago

If you want to understand Trump‘s original appeal to working class America, consider what it would take to convince high-income San Franciscans that drivers were not duped into supporting 22. That they were competently looking out for their interests better than a detached observer can.

panpanna 6y ago

This comment is wrong on so many levels. Most importantly, you don't want others get the protection they deserve because it works fine for your husband.

newacct583 6y ago

Just to be clear: I'm assuming you're employed with traditional benefits, so your husband is on your insurance et. al.? Is "you have to have a spouse with a traditional job" really what you imagine "the way Uber was originally envisioned?" That seems to be sorta missing the point. People don't want "Uber to BE a full-time job", they just want it to be possible for it to replace one. > I still think we need a third class of employment, but that’s not what was on the table here. Really what this is proof of is that employer benefits are a fundamentally broken idea. Employers will always, ALWAYS find ways to cheat their way around providing them when they can. Regulation will always be catching up. Back in 2009, I thought the hippies were crazy to be staking so much on their failed quest for a public option in the ACA. Now? Sign me up as a M4A proponent. The system's just broken.

piokoch 6y ago

I think the question if the law make sense or not is somehow distracting us from a bigger problem. The big problem I see is that it is perfectly clear that the decision factor was money put into political campaign done not by politicians, which are sort of accountable for what they do (they might not just get elected), but by people who simply had enough money. Democracy sort of worked because elected representatives were supposed to make law based on justice and ethics and common interest. Right now law is made because someone was able to pull out enough money to buy particular regulation. There is some democratic ceremony around all this, but this is just a ceremony. The ancient Rome citizens also thought that they have democracy in the times of triumvirate, but this was also a show.

sokoloff 6y ago
Money can't buy you everything in politics. MA had ballot question #2, where the proponents raised an estimated $10M and the opponents raised an estimated $3500. (opponents were out-raised 3000:1) The ballot initiative failed around 55%-45%, despite a massive difference in fundraising (and presumably associated spending).
syshum 6y ago
It is completely false that this Passed purely because they spent alot of money Your belief on that is based on reporting bias, reporters never talk about when an initiative's that went counter to the HUGE amounts of money poured in (for or against), for example the Right to repair in MA which has huge money from all the major auto manufacturers, and an ad campaign claiming that if you voted for right to repair rapists would get your garage codes... It is click bait to talk about how "company X bought regulation" but it is rarely true, even in CA there were a few ballot measures this year that failed even with massive amounts of money being spent on supporting them. Money in politics if often used as a scapegoat to explain away why some issue failed, or some issue succeed with out having to accept the fact that majority disagreed with you, as it often hard to admit that the majority rejects your world view

IshKebab 6y ago

> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. According to you. It's clearly a full time job for most drivers. The fact that you think it shouldn't be doesn't change that. What do you expect full time taxi drivers to do exactly? Go back to working for local taxi companies and get zero customers?

sokoloff 6y ago
Anecdotally, I feel like at least 1/3 of my Uber/Lyft rides are from someone that I'd categorize as a part-timer. (I almost always chat with my driver and ask about their experience driving.) From that (and the much larger number of hours a full-time driver would drive), I conclude that there are probably more part-time drivers than full-time drivers.

download13 6y ago

Good thing they added that clause about how it needs a 7/8ths majority to repeal, ensuring this special law will be with us forever

neolefty 6y ago
That sounds constitutionally suspicious. Think it will stand up in court?

sitkack 6y ago

You are in Texas not California. This doesn't affect you.

randompwd 6y ago
Not sure why you are being dismissive of the OP putting forward their opinion. HN isn't a California local's site.

tschwimmer 6y ago

If there are some months that he only makes a few hundred dollars, it's possible that you're actually losing money on depreciation (even if you're net positive on current costs like gas and maintenance). This is something that I see very few drivers talk about but influences your earnings significantly. Depreciation is a real cost. If at the time you sell your car your car, you get $X, but driving for Uber caused you to have more miles and thus sell for $X-$Y, then Y is real cost. Even if you don't sell your car and instead drive your it into the ground, the extra miles you're driving for Uber cause your car to fail faster. I get the sense that many part time drivers think they're making money when instead they're losing it (or maybe making less than minimum wage after expenses).

kfarr 6y ago
Shhhh... You're devaluing lyft and Uber stock with your arithmetic! /s of course you're right but this lack of accounting for vehicle depreciation (not to mention a very high liability risk for every minute on the road) is rooted deeply in American's sunk cost fallacy with motor vehicle ownership. It's almost a genetic instinct at this point and for every person who does the math and realizes it doesn't work out there's another who won't care
austhrow743 6y ago
I find it incredibly hard to believe depreciation would be that significant of a factor if someone driving part time is pulling in hundreds or occasionally a thousand a month. They’d have to be reducing a new car down to a total loss every couple of years, just through ubering. Doesn’t make sense.
missedthecue 6y ago
I hear this thrown around a lot, but to the best I can discern, it is simply unfounded. Uber and Lyft seem to pay between $1-$2 a mile. There are sites where you can put in the model and year of your car and get real life depreciation figures. Unless you're ubering around in a McLaren, you're just not depreciating at a higher rate than what Uber pays. Prius, probably the most common ride sharing car, has a total cost, including fuel, depreciation, and maintenance, of about $0.39 cents per mile.