6 ms·

California Court Affirms Right to Treat Drivers as Contractors

43 points by lxm 4y ago

qaz_plm 4y ago
https://archive.ph/BSt3p https://archive.ph/BSt3p
telotortium 4y ago
> A group of ride-share drivers and labor unions challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 22. In August 2021, a California judge ruled that it was unconstitutional because it limited the state legislature’s authority and its ability to pass future legislation. The companies appealed that decision, which led to Monday’s ruling in the California First District Court of Appeal. So let's wait for the appeal to the California Supreme Court.
650REDHAIR 4y ago
I’m doing rideshare while I figure out what I want to do next and it is soul-crushingly manipulative. Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, etc are all horrible, terrible, awful companies and I cannot wait for them all to fail.
- csa 4y ago
  > it is soul-crushingly manipulative In what way? I’m a CA resident, and I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market). I’m willing to change my stance if there is a good reason to do so.
  - Rimintil 4y ago
    > flexible labor market By and large, this only benefits the employer. Why would you support anti-human markets?
    - phpisthebest 4y ago
      This is not a compelling statement or argument, it is simply an assertion based on an appeal to emotion. There are lots of reasons, and people that do not want to be considered an employee, with all the limits that come with that, mainly people who are using the apps as "side hustle" not full time employment
      - ok_dad 4y ago
        I’ve never gotten into an Uber or Lyft that wasn’t clearly a full time hustle. I started asking at some point, and literally everyone told me they do it full time. Sure that’s not an accurate poll, but I keep hearing this “side hustle” stuff as if it’s okay to let Uber fuck people over as faux contractors just because a few of the drivers want to make some extra scratch.
        itake 4y ago
        That stance goes both ways: “It’s not ok for Uber to fuck people over as full time employees just because a few drivers want to treat Uber like a full time job.”
        ok_dad 4y ago
        Yes, until we know how many people are doing it for what reasons, we both can’t say either with authority. I’m arguing that I’ve never seen a part timer, though I don’t use those services anymore. I do see a lot of appeal to that particular point by proponents of prop 22, but never seen hard numbers to trust.
        scarface74 4y ago
        My anecdote beats your anecdote. I’ve ridden in Ubers all across the country. I know many who are doing this part time.
        phpisthebest 4y ago
        I am sure your definition of "fuck people over" is vastly different than mine. Fraud, or lying would be things I consider "fucking people over". Presenting a work for hire situation where adults agree to the terms is not "fucking people over" >I’ve never gotten into an Uber or Lyft that wasn’t clearly a full time hustle. My guess that is very regional.
  - hotpotamus 4y ago
    https://thepopinsider.com/news/nycc-marvel-and-doordash-are-making-delivery-drivers-the-heroes/ https://thepopinsider.com/news/nycc-marvel-and-doordash-are-... There's no need to actually click that link; it's what it looks like - Doordash teaming up with Marvel to create a comic book that shows "Dashers" as super-heroes. Seems pretty condescending to me. But on a day-to-day level, these companies will use every dark pattern available to them to encourage drivers to make deliveries that are uneconomical to that driver.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      If you haven’t heard, there is a severe labor shortage in the US even for “unskilled labor”. They could be working somewhere else.
  - thexumaker 4y ago
    yep that makes sense. Every job should be contractor status to maintain a flexible labor market. Tech market would've benefited greatly xD
    - lotsofpulp 4y ago
      If you want to work wherever and whenever you feel like, you can be a contractor in the tech market.
      - 650REDHAIR 4y ago
        But it’s not really wherever and whenever. The only way to make above minimum wage is to do the streaks/bonuses/etc. Those are only offered during rush hour and aren’t consistently offered.
      - s1artibartfast 4y ago
        There are a lot of relgulatory challenges, like AB5 itself, and prior court rulings (e.g. microsoft IIRC). Most companies are scared of the legal liability of hiring willing contractors. Actual contractors practically dont exist as a result. Most contractors you see in tech are actually empoyees of a 2nd firm, which takes 50% of the paycheck to shield the tech company from liability. My company is extremely picky about who they will engage with for actual contrating. They must have a demonstrated contracting work history, and get no more than 1/3 of their annual income from the contract. This is all to prevent worker misclassification lawsuit.
    - scarface74 4y ago
      I know plenty of people who have left AWS Professional Services to go independent and are making much more than they made here (where I work). For reference ProServe consultants make about 10% less at each level than SDEs - most of us work from “virtual offices” that allow us to work from anywhere - this was the case pre-Covid. What do you think the difference really is between being a contractor and being an at will employee?
  - yonran 4y ago
    > I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market) A ride share or delivery company could offer flexible hours with part-time workers too, so flexibility is not why the delivery companies created Proposition 22. As I understand it, Proposition 22 was necessary in order to: * Allow drivers to use their own car rather than forcing Uber to manage all the cars in their fleet. * Avoid paying drivers when they are parked waiting for an order, which allows drivers to have multiple apps open looking for orders.
- MattGaiser 4y ago
  How are they manipulative? I know the pay is probably low, but are there lots of day to day tricks as well?
  - 650REDHAIR 4y ago
    Lyft has streak zones where you get $X extra for 3 rides. Say $12 for 3 rides in an hour in a given zone. The first one might take you slightly out of zone. You’ll get back to the zone and maybe you’ll wait 30m for a ride or maybe your 2nd ride will take you an hour away to the middle of nowhere and pay under $1/mile and $.30/minute. The market at that destination is dead so you’ll travel back without a paying customer. If you decline that ride you ruin the streak and forfeit any bonuses. I’ve had $21 streaks and the 3rd request is a 4hr drive away. You could take 2 truly awful rides that come out to pennies because of gas costs banking on the bonus and then the 3rd ride never happens. I’ve waited an hour to finish a streak only to give up. Meanwhile Uber is blowing up so it would seem the market isn’t dead at that time. There’s also anecdotal evidence to suggest new drivers get preferential rates to encourage the jump to full time only for it to dry up after the honeymoon phase and/or they’ve rented a fancier car through the rideshare app because drivers are bombarded with in-app ads to increase their income by renting a Tesla for example.
- twblalock 4y ago
  Would you be better off if the rideshare jobs didn't exist? Is a bad gig job worse for you than no job at all? (If it is, then why are you doing it?) These are serious questions, because rideshare jobs would not exist if you were compensated as a full-time employee with benefits. Uber and Lyft have never made a profit as it is, and increasing their costs would make the business simply impossible to sustain.
  - flangola7 4y ago
    If the resources used to build Uber were put to better different use, then indeed it would certainly be better for the average worker. Even mediocre uses would be better than uses that specifically optimize exploitation and wealth extraction.
    - twblalock 4y ago
      This is hand-wavy and assumes that investment in business is zero-sum. It's not, because our economy works on wealth creation not wealth extraction. The existence of Uber is not preventing anyone from investing in other things.
      - yamtaddle 4y ago
        I don't see how the post assumes that investment is zero-sum; to me it reads, rather, as assuming that capital isn't unlimited, which isn't the same thing. > It's not, because our economy works on wealth creation not wealth extraction. This can be true of the economy overall, but false of particular actors or actions within the economy, as in the case of rent-seeking, for example.
  - robotnikman 4y ago
    As much as I loathe the current system, it is also true that treating drivers as full time employees is unsustainable for a company not even making a profit. Probably better for such opportunities in a gig economy to exist than not exist, but with how unsustainable the business is in general I can see it all collapsing at some point either way. How long can a company go without ever generating a profit?
- fdasjvaklj 4y ago
  > Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, etc are all horrible, terrible, awful companies and I cannot wait for them all to fail. If they fail you'd no longer be able to do rideshare, right? Why are you still doing it now?
- pokstad 4y ago
  But they are the only opportunity you have left. If California makes drive sharing less profitable, that opportunity could disappear.
  - ok_dad 4y ago
    I love how those Uber stockholders are all riding the drivers like donkeys while holding this particular carrot just out of reach of them. Maybe if the drivers could stand up they could see clearly that beyond the horizon is nothing but investor profits and self driving cars.
- whalesalad 4y ago
  Soul-crushingly manipulative? Please elaborate. Have you been manipulated? Assuming you are in the US, you are free to do whatever you please. You don't need to work for these places. You can work literally anywhere: Starbucks, the local library, or heck you can even choose to not work at all.
- 908B64B197 4y ago
  It's interesting how it's now fashionable to bash on Uber and Lyft. Seems everyone conveniently forgot about the medallion system Uber and Lyft disrupted. Pre-Uber/Lyft, 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). Sure back then the dispatch only took a 15-20% cut, but medallion payments took at least a 50% cut on every ride. That money didn't get re-invested or re-distributed as incentives to drivers, no. It went straight to the pockets of the local rent-seeker. The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber/Lyft 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. And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
  - ESTheComposer 4y ago
    I'm guessing a lot of people doing uber driving now either never A. Attempted to be a taxi driver so never saw that system B. Grew up in the Uber generation and has only seen the improved taxi system that happened as a result of ride share C. Never experienced the refusing cards and non white stuff. It really is looking at it through rose colored glasses. I remember when Uber first emerged on the scene everyone that I talked to thought it was a God send because they were so tired of taxis being garbage and scammy
    - 650REDHAIR 4y ago
      Uber treated drivers better at that time. Like I mentioned previously fares are pretty consistent over time, but driver pay is plummeting. Same rides 8 months ago are paying 30-50% lower to the driver in my experience.
brundolf 4y ago
I don't think it's crazy to see gig workers as contractors, I do think it's crazy how businesses have been able to abuse contractor/part-time classifications to dodge a bunch of labor-rights requirements. That's the real issue, and it goes way beyond Uber and Lyft and the like.
- lotsofpulp 4y ago
  The real issue is the government using businesses as a conduit for things like tax advantaged retirement and health insurance subsidies.
  - brundolf 4y ago
    That's a key part of it, yes. The fact that basic pillars of life are tied to full-time employment means that people who aren't full-time employees aren't fully-benefitting members of society. And because these things cost the business money, it's incentivized to push as many people out of the benefitting category as possible
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      It also penalizes anyone who wants to operate a small business or be their own boss. It is basically impossible to set up a tax advantaged retirement plan if you have a successful family business. It is obscene that if I work for a huge company I can dump 25k per year free tax in a 401k, but if just work for myself I am s** out of luck We really need to sever all the ties between employment and benefits. Get paid for your work and buy the benefits you want.
- scarface74 4y ago
  What are these “labor rights”?
  - yamtaddle 4y ago
    If you work in an office, you can probably find a poster with a bunch of them on it, somewhere. Break room or something like that, usually. You'll be able to find it because one of the legal obligations employers have to employees is to post that information. Not an exhaustive accounting, but it'll be a good introduction. If your post was intended to be sarcastic or otherwise wasn't serious, sorry for missing your meaning.
deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
supernova87a 4y ago
I know this is endlessly debated elsewhere so I'm not trying to conclude a meaningful discussion here, but, since HN has been an interesting and intellectual environment to discuss things.... (and I'm sure there are past threads on it) Lately (as in, the last 30 years) it feels like the original intent of the CA initiative process has been lost and has swayed the policies of a state back and forth / patched things haphazardly without real public understanding of the implications or tradeoffs. I mention this because a big aspect of Prop 22 was the specific disqualification of the legislature from modifying certain provisions of it (to prevent it being watered down or negated). 7/8 legislature vote required to change it! Why not just make it 99% vote at that point... And btw, part of the court's decision / explanation was that in CA jurisprudence, when an initiative has spoken on a certain topic or requirement, deference to the people's will is mandatory and cannot be circumvented by the legislature against the conditions set by the initiative. In fact that's a good aspect of initiatives. But: -- Initiatives need surprisingly few people to start them, and then it turns into a money-fueled marketing campaign that goes crazy, trying to sell people on very simplified arguments about major policy changes. And then the issue must be decided, there is no deferring it. Perhaps the days of when idealistic founders thought that initiatives would be debated clearly and carefully in the town square are anachronistically long gone, and that check is no longer effective. -- The public as a general group is asked to make big decisions on things that eventually turn into huge debt obligations, change to our fundamental government process, etc. without full understanding or discussion behind the longer term implications. And of course, since when has the general public been a good judge of fiscal restraint or future responsibility? Pitch a spending initiative the right way and of course it will be approved. $500M vs. $20B? Who cares. -- While the notion that the people themselves should be able to put forth legislation directly and override the legislature is admirable and in some circumstances very fitting that some questions go to the people, initiatives are being held on things that the legislature in fact should be the decider or deliberator of. Again, things that have budget impacts, specialized knowledge, etc needed. -- Initiatives are very bad at publicizing or making people aware of who benefits and who does not. And especially in the future. Initiatives never have a time limit to them, freezing the policy in place to solve a problem-at-one-time, but then they go on for decades with unintended aftermath. Prop 13 I'm looking at you. Anyway, this is all part of a larger (admittedly half-baked) theory I have about the problems democracies face when we don't have 4-5 major problems that everyone agrees on, but 200-300 first world problems where everyone thinks theirs is the most important. How is a democratic process to solve: which problems it should spend the time and energy to fix? I would love to know if any progress is being made in CA on the initiative and constitutional processes.
s1artibartfast 4y ago
One thing I never understood is why the option of having drivers as independent businesses wasn't tenable. Is it just because California is so hostile to a small businesses? It seems like it would solve all of the problems. Rideshare companies aren't responsible for labor obligations of b2b partners. Drivers have the option to itemize and deduct the cost of their cars and maintenance and gas. Drivers would have to pay self-employment taxes to the state. In my mind, all the stated concerns should be addressed.
- nostradamus 4y ago
  AB5 has less to do with California dumping on small business, and more to do with bumping organized labor numbers. Labor, and I need to say I'm for generally for organized labor except with AB5. In this case, Uber drivers and other contractors were seen as a ripe target since total labor numbers are in a death spiral. So make these 1099 workers become W2 employees, and eligible to join a union. In practice nothing of the sort has happened, it's just killed thousands of careers, or folks have left CA. The bigger court case was today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which effectively adjudicated that carveouts to AB5 were arbitrarily made, which they were. Notably two of the three judges were appointed or blue-slipped by Democrats. It's amazing given the havoc that AB5 has caused that this ghastly law hasn't been tossed, together with the CA Supreme Court Dynamex decision, in entirety. When crafting AB5, they were careful to exempt key constituencies and power brokers. If a federal court invalidates the carveouts, it's game over for AB5. Note that USDOL is trying to implement AB5 on a national scale with their proposed rule.
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    I think that is an insightful and balanced take. May I ask where you get your information? I like to follow important court cases and usually read the Supreme Court rulings, but don't have a good resource for state and District law. More to the topic, I think the law on the scope of contractors is overly vauge, and this hurts both individuals and business. Both benefit from clear legislation and the topic of contractor definition has mostly been hashed out in case law precedent.

43 points by lxm 4y ago

https://archive.ph/BSt3p https://archive.ph/BSt3p

> A group of ride-share drivers and labor unions challenged the constitutionality of Proposition 22. In August 2021, a California judge ruled that it was unconstitutional because it limited the state legislature’s authority and its ability to pass future legislation. The companies appealed that decision, which led to Monday’s ruling in the California First District Court of Appeal. So let's wait for the appeal to the California Supreme Court.

650REDHAIR 4y ago

I’m doing rideshare while I figure out what I want to do next and it is soul-crushingly manipulative. Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, etc are all horrible, terrible, awful companies and I cannot wait for them all to fail.

csa 4y ago
> it is soul-crushingly manipulative In what way? I’m a CA resident, and I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market). I’m willing to change my stance if there is a good reason to do so.
- Rimintil 4y ago
  > flexible labor market By and large, this only benefits the employer. Why would you support anti-human markets?
  - phpisthebest 4y ago
    This is not a compelling statement or argument, it is simply an assertion based on an appeal to emotion. There are lots of reasons, and people that do not want to be considered an employee, with all the limits that come with that, mainly people who are using the apps as "side hustle" not full time employment
    - ok_dad 4y ago
      I’ve never gotten into an Uber or Lyft that wasn’t clearly a full time hustle. I started asking at some point, and literally everyone told me they do it full time. Sure that’s not an accurate poll, but I keep hearing this “side hustle” stuff as if it’s okay to let Uber fuck people over as faux contractors just because a few of the drivers want to make some extra scratch.
      - itake 4y ago
        That stance goes both ways: “It’s not ok for Uber to fuck people over as full time employees just because a few drivers want to treat Uber like a full time job.”
        ok_dad 4y ago
        Yes, until we know how many people are doing it for what reasons, we both can’t say either with authority. I’m arguing that I’ve never seen a part timer, though I don’t use those services anymore. I do see a lot of appeal to that particular point by proponents of prop 22, but never seen hard numbers to trust.
      - scarface74 4y ago
        My anecdote beats your anecdote. I’ve ridden in Ubers all across the country. I know many who are doing this part time.
      - phpisthebest 4y ago
        I am sure your definition of "fuck people over" is vastly different than mine. Fraud, or lying would be things I consider "fucking people over". Presenting a work for hire situation where adults agree to the terms is not "fucking people over" >I’ve never gotten into an Uber or Lyft that wasn’t clearly a full time hustle. My guess that is very regional.
- hotpotamus 4y ago
  https://thepopinsider.com/news/nycc-marvel-and-doordash-are-making-delivery-drivers-the-heroes/ https://thepopinsider.com/news/nycc-marvel-and-doordash-are-... There's no need to actually click that link; it's what it looks like - Doordash teaming up with Marvel to create a comic book that shows "Dashers" as super-heroes. Seems pretty condescending to me. But on a day-to-day level, these companies will use every dark pattern available to them to encourage drivers to make deliveries that are uneconomical to that driver.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    If you haven’t heard, there is a severe labor shortage in the US even for “unskilled labor”. They could be working somewhere else.
- thexumaker 4y ago
  yep that makes sense. Every job should be contractor status to maintain a flexible labor market. Tech market would've benefited greatly xD
  - lotsofpulp 4y ago
    If you want to work wherever and whenever you feel like, you can be a contractor in the tech market.
    - 650REDHAIR 4y ago
      But it’s not really wherever and whenever. The only way to make above minimum wage is to do the streaks/bonuses/etc. Those are only offered during rush hour and aren’t consistently offered.
    - s1artibartfast 4y ago
      There are a lot of relgulatory challenges, like AB5 itself, and prior court rulings (e.g. microsoft IIRC). Most companies are scared of the legal liability of hiring willing contractors. Actual contractors practically dont exist as a result. Most contractors you see in tech are actually empoyees of a 2nd firm, which takes 50% of the paycheck to shield the tech company from liability. My company is extremely picky about who they will engage with for actual contrating. They must have a demonstrated contracting work history, and get no more than 1/3 of their annual income from the contract. This is all to prevent worker misclassification lawsuit.
  - scarface74 4y ago
    I know plenty of people who have left AWS Professional Services to go independent and are making much more than they made here (where I work). For reference ProServe consultants make about 10% less at each level than SDEs - most of us work from “virtual offices” that allow us to work from anywhere - this was the case pre-Covid. What do you think the difference really is between being a contractor and being an at will employee?
- yonran 4y ago
  > I support the contractor status (mainly due to general support of a flexible labor market) A ride share or delivery company could offer flexible hours with part-time workers too, so flexibility is not why the delivery companies created Proposition 22. As I understand it, Proposition 22 was necessary in order to: * Allow drivers to use their own car rather than forcing Uber to manage all the cars in their fleet. * Avoid paying drivers when they are parked waiting for an order, which allows drivers to have multiple apps open looking for orders.
MattGaiser 4y ago
How are they manipulative? I know the pay is probably low, but are there lots of day to day tricks as well?
- 650REDHAIR 4y ago
  Lyft has streak zones where you get $X extra for 3 rides. Say $12 for 3 rides in an hour in a given zone. The first one might take you slightly out of zone. You’ll get back to the zone and maybe you’ll wait 30m for a ride or maybe your 2nd ride will take you an hour away to the middle of nowhere and pay under $1/mile and $.30/minute. The market at that destination is dead so you’ll travel back without a paying customer. If you decline that ride you ruin the streak and forfeit any bonuses. I’ve had $21 streaks and the 3rd request is a 4hr drive away. You could take 2 truly awful rides that come out to pennies because of gas costs banking on the bonus and then the 3rd ride never happens. I’ve waited an hour to finish a streak only to give up. Meanwhile Uber is blowing up so it would seem the market isn’t dead at that time. There’s also anecdotal evidence to suggest new drivers get preferential rates to encourage the jump to full time only for it to dry up after the honeymoon phase and/or they’ve rented a fancier car through the rideshare app because drivers are bombarded with in-app ads to increase their income by renting a Tesla for example.
twblalock 4y ago
Would you be better off if the rideshare jobs didn't exist? Is a bad gig job worse for you than no job at all? (If it is, then why are you doing it?) These are serious questions, because rideshare jobs would not exist if you were compensated as a full-time employee with benefits. Uber and Lyft have never made a profit as it is, and increasing their costs would make the business simply impossible to sustain.
- flangola7 4y ago
  If the resources used to build Uber were put to better different use, then indeed it would certainly be better for the average worker. Even mediocre uses would be better than uses that specifically optimize exploitation and wealth extraction.
  - twblalock 4y ago
    This is hand-wavy and assumes that investment in business is zero-sum. It's not, because our economy works on wealth creation not wealth extraction. The existence of Uber is not preventing anyone from investing in other things.
    - yamtaddle 4y ago
      I don't see how the post assumes that investment is zero-sum; to me it reads, rather, as assuming that capital isn't unlimited, which isn't the same thing. > It's not, because our economy works on wealth creation not wealth extraction. This can be true of the economy overall, but false of particular actors or actions within the economy, as in the case of rent-seeking, for example.
- robotnikman 4y ago
  As much as I loathe the current system, it is also true that treating drivers as full time employees is unsustainable for a company not even making a profit. Probably better for such opportunities in a gig economy to exist than not exist, but with how unsustainable the business is in general I can see it all collapsing at some point either way. How long can a company go without ever generating a profit?
fdasjvaklj 4y ago
> Lyft, Uber, DoorDash, etc are all horrible, terrible, awful companies and I cannot wait for them all to fail. If they fail you'd no longer be able to do rideshare, right? Why are you still doing it now?
pokstad 4y ago
But they are the only opportunity you have left. If California makes drive sharing less profitable, that opportunity could disappear.
- ok_dad 4y ago
  I love how those Uber stockholders are all riding the drivers like donkeys while holding this particular carrot just out of reach of them. Maybe if the drivers could stand up they could see clearly that beyond the horizon is nothing but investor profits and self driving cars.
whalesalad 4y ago
Soul-crushingly manipulative? Please elaborate. Have you been manipulated? Assuming you are in the US, you are free to do whatever you please. You don't need to work for these places. You can work literally anywhere: Starbucks, the local library, or heck you can even choose to not work at all.
908B64B197 4y ago
It's interesting how it's now fashionable to bash on Uber and Lyft. Seems everyone conveniently forgot about the medallion system Uber and Lyft disrupted. Pre-Uber/Lyft, 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). Sure back then the dispatch only took a 15-20% cut, but medallion payments took at least a 50% cut on every ride. That money didn't get re-invested or re-distributed as incentives to drivers, no. It went straight to the pockets of the local rent-seeker. The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their industry was a pyramid scheme aimed at helping established rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber/Lyft 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. And I'm not even touching the usual pain points and often discriminatory practices of medallion drivers (refusing card payments, refusing rides to non-white passengers and to non-white neighborhoods...).
- ESTheComposer 4y ago
  I'm guessing a lot of people doing uber driving now either never A. Attempted to be a taxi driver so never saw that system B. Grew up in the Uber generation and has only seen the improved taxi system that happened as a result of ride share C. Never experienced the refusing cards and non white stuff. It really is looking at it through rose colored glasses. I remember when Uber first emerged on the scene everyone that I talked to thought it was a God send because they were so tired of taxis being garbage and scammy
  - 650REDHAIR 4y ago
    Uber treated drivers better at that time. Like I mentioned previously fares are pretty consistent over time, but driver pay is plummeting. Same rides 8 months ago are paying 30-50% lower to the driver in my experience.

brundolf 4y ago

I don't think it's crazy to see gig workers as contractors, I do think it's crazy how businesses have been able to abuse contractor/part-time classifications to dodge a bunch of labor-rights requirements. That's the real issue, and it goes way beyond Uber and Lyft and the like.

lotsofpulp 4y ago
The real issue is the government using businesses as a conduit for things like tax advantaged retirement and health insurance subsidies.
- brundolf 4y ago
  That's a key part of it, yes. The fact that basic pillars of life are tied to full-time employment means that people who aren't full-time employees aren't fully-benefitting members of society. And because these things cost the business money, it's incentivized to push as many people out of the benefitting category as possible
  - s1artibartfast 4y ago
    It also penalizes anyone who wants to operate a small business or be their own boss. It is basically impossible to set up a tax advantaged retirement plan if you have a successful family business. It is obscene that if I work for a huge company I can dump 25k per year free tax in a 401k, but if just work for myself I am s** out of luck We really need to sever all the ties between employment and benefits. Get paid for your work and buy the benefits you want.
scarface74 4y ago
What are these “labor rights”?
- yamtaddle 4y ago
  If you work in an office, you can probably find a poster with a bunch of them on it, somewhere. Break room or something like that, usually. You'll be able to find it because one of the legal obligations employers have to employees is to post that information. Not an exhaustive accounting, but it'll be a good introduction. If your post was intended to be sarcastic or otherwise wasn't serious, sorry for missing your meaning.

deleted 4y ago

[deleted]

supernova87a 4y ago

I know this is endlessly debated elsewhere so I'm not trying to conclude a meaningful discussion here, but, since HN has been an interesting and intellectual environment to discuss things.... (and I'm sure there are past threads on it) Lately (as in, the last 30 years) it feels like the original intent of the CA initiative process has been lost and has swayed the policies of a state back and forth / patched things haphazardly without real public understanding of the implications or tradeoffs. I mention this because a big aspect of Prop 22 was the specific disqualification of the legislature from modifying certain provisions of it (to prevent it being watered down or negated). 7/8 legislature vote required to change it! Why not just make it 99% vote at that point... And btw, part of the court's decision / explanation was that in CA jurisprudence, when an initiative has spoken on a certain topic or requirement, deference to the people's will is mandatory and cannot be circumvented by the legislature against the conditions set by the initiative. In fact that's a good aspect of initiatives. But: -- Initiatives need surprisingly few people to start them, and then it turns into a money-fueled marketing campaign that goes crazy, trying to sell people on very simplified arguments about major policy changes. And then the issue must be decided, there is no deferring it. Perhaps the days of when idealistic founders thought that initiatives would be debated clearly and carefully in the town square are anachronistically long gone, and that check is no longer effective. -- The public as a general group is asked to make big decisions on things that eventually turn into huge debt obligations, change to our fundamental government process, etc. without full understanding or discussion behind the longer term implications. And of course, since when has the general public been a good judge of fiscal restraint or future responsibility? Pitch a spending initiative the right way and of course it will be approved. $500M vs. $20B? Who cares. -- While the notion that the people themselves should be able to put forth legislation directly and override the legislature is admirable and in some circumstances very fitting that some questions go to the people, initiatives are being held on things that the legislature in fact should be the decider or deliberator of. Again, things that have budget impacts, specialized knowledge, etc needed. -- Initiatives are very bad at publicizing or making people aware of who benefits and who does not. And especially in the future. Initiatives never have a time limit to them, freezing the policy in place to solve a problem-at-one-time, but then they go on for decades with unintended aftermath. Prop 13 I'm looking at you. Anyway, this is all part of a larger (admittedly half-baked) theory I have about the problems democracies face when we don't have 4-5 major problems that everyone agrees on, but 200-300 first world problems where everyone thinks theirs is the most important. How is a democratic process to solve: which problems it should spend the time and energy to fix? I would love to know if any progress is being made in CA on the initiative and constitutional processes.

s1artibartfast 4y ago

One thing I never understood is why the option of having drivers as independent businesses wasn't tenable. Is it just because California is so hostile to a small businesses? It seems like it would solve all of the problems. Rideshare companies aren't responsible for labor obligations of b2b partners. Drivers have the option to itemize and deduct the cost of their cars and maintenance and gas. Drivers would have to pay self-employment taxes to the state. In my mind, all the stated concerns should be addressed.

nostradamus 4y ago
AB5 has less to do with California dumping on small business, and more to do with bumping organized labor numbers. Labor, and I need to say I'm for generally for organized labor except with AB5. In this case, Uber drivers and other contractors were seen as a ripe target since total labor numbers are in a death spiral. So make these 1099 workers become W2 employees, and eligible to join a union. In practice nothing of the sort has happened, it's just killed thousands of careers, or folks have left CA. The bigger court case was today in the 9th U.S. Circuit Court of Appeals, which effectively adjudicated that carveouts to AB5 were arbitrarily made, which they were. Notably two of the three judges were appointed or blue-slipped by Democrats. It's amazing given the havoc that AB5 has caused that this ghastly law hasn't been tossed, together with the CA Supreme Court Dynamex decision, in entirety. When crafting AB5, they were careful to exempt key constituencies and power brokers. If a federal court invalidates the carveouts, it's game over for AB5. Note that USDOL is trying to implement AB5 on a national scale with their proposed rule.
- s1artibartfast 4y ago
  I think that is an insightful and balanced take. May I ask where you get your information? I like to follow important court cases and usually read the Supreme Court rulings, but don't have a good resource for state and District law. More to the topic, I think the law on the scope of contractors is overly vauge, and this hurts both individuals and business. Both benefit from clear legislation and the topic of contractor definition has mostly been hashed out in case law precedent.