I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night.
Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question.
The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.
If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal.
> Where is the line? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question.
40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act.
> The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.
It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how the tax burden is split, and on and on.
Well, yes and no. They can avoid healthcare requirements by not allowing people to work 30+ hours per week (as Walmart and MacDonalds often do), but that doesn't get rid of their other obligations to employees (disability, unemployment, social security, payroll tax, etc.). They already provide these services for their non-driver employees, so the issue here is purely cost.
The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.
Because one political party has spent the last 4 decades fighting to prevent "national healthcare," forcing states and businesses to deal with it.
Hell, they've spent the last 10 years trying to demolish a law that the overwhelming majority of voters support, including those within their own party.
Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.
They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system.
However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all taxpayers (including employers), which would spread out the costs more.
It's pretty clear that the opinionists didn't actually read the studies they linked to, since at least one of the studies they cited to claim that single-payer would increase costs actually said single-payer would do the opposite, to the tune of a more than 8% reduction of 2017 amounts, which was before a number of health insurers jacked up their premiums just because they could. https://www.peri.umass.edu/media/k2/attachments/PollinZetZal...
The biggest factor encouraging Californians to move out of state is high cost of housing, not the higher taxes.
For example on a household income of $100,000 with members married filing jointly, California effective state income tax rate is about 3%, or in this case $3,000.
Moving to a zero state income tax state like Washington or Texas will only save you that much in state taxes but will probably save you a huge amount more in lower housing costs - for a common single-family home perhaps on the order of 20 to $30,000 a year.
If you want to place blame anywhere, place it on restrictive zoning laws that limit the construction of new housing, and on proposition 13 which has disincentivized the building of residential real estate in favor of commercial, and allowed untold numbers of properties to multiply and value over the decades without paying anything near an equivalent increase in property taxes.
Lord have mercy on anyone trying to explain this to angry boomer parents that live in Orange County (mine generally included).
The reason your kids cant buy a house down the street from yours has nothing to do with how much taxes your kids pay and everything to do with the policies that you've voted for over a lifetime of homeownership that have insured way less supply than demand.
These people _love_ to talk about how much more their houses are worth at dinner parties everytime you see them and then are all surprised pikachu face when they've priced out their own kids.
Housing can be affordable or an investment, but not both.
Most of the people leaving CA were of the far-right political persuasion, so good riddance to them. And generally, CA is already overpopulated for the amount of housing currently available (or constructable within the near future), so having fewer people actually relieves a lot of the overusage issues currently plaguing many of the public services in CA.
With specific respect to the tax issue, the flipside of "one more tax" to pay for a single-payer system is that it would replace health insurance premiums. Because premiums are currently set for smaller risk sharing pools than a statewide pool of nearly 40 million, and those premiums must also include significant profit margins to pay for health executive's multimillion dollar annual bonuses, it would be very easy for a single-payer tax levy to undercut premiums by more than 50% (and for the single-payer proposals currently under consideration, the employee savings range from 50-90%).
If anything, the problem with a tax for a single-payer health system is that people would be saving so much money compared to paying health insurance premiums that CA would have too many people moving into the state for the rest of our public services to handle.
>> Suffice to say CA has some of the highest taxes of any state, yet it also has some of the worst social problems - poverty, homelessness, etc.
I was under the impression that much of the homelessness problem is because CA is a nice place to live (with or without a home) and because the climate is temperate and thus safer to live than most other places (where a homeless person could literally freeze to death.)
Sorry if this sounds insensitive -- I really want to understand this: I concede that cost of housing could lead to homelessness, but I dont understand this -- isnt the housing cost really a problem just in the two major metro areas? Is housing exorbitant once you leave those areas? For someone who is homeless, is there any gravity anymore to -- say -- being close to SF/SV/Hollywood?
You're right on both counts. CA has a big homeless problem because of the weather, and other states exploit that to use CA as a dumping ground for their own homeless.
LA Times' Steve Lopez interviewed a number of homeless last year in a series of articles. Most of them weren't from LA. They just came because they were told the weather was great and that drugs in LA were free.
CA is a huge state, and while the big cities are mostly liberal, the rural parts of the state are very conservative. Nixon and Reagan hail from Southern California, and up until fairly recently, Orange County and the Inland Empire were more conservative than the Southeast.
A number of far right groups can trace their origins to the Inland Empire or to CA's far North.
As for the homeless issues: multiple states admit that they use CA as their dumping grounds for their homeless. It was, and still is, the unofficial policy of the state of Texas to buy their homeless tickets to LA. (Former TX governor Rick Perry used to openly brag about this, including when he was running for president.) A recent survey conducted by the LA Times last year found that more than half of LA's homeless aren't even from California. They just came here because authorities back home suggested that they would enjoy CA more. Excluding the non-local homeless, LA would have enough beds to house its own homeless. We just don't have enough to house the entire country's homeless as well.
I keep hearing that most of the homeless in SF are actually from SF.
As of 2015, approximately 71% of the city's homeless had housing in the city before becoming homeless, while the remaining 29% came from outside of San Francisco. This figure is up from 61% in 2013.[1]
The current solution is also a tax, just in a different form.
A broader solution would not be one-more-tax, it would be net-zero. The current proposal is also a tax -- it forces a cost on Uber (which will be passed onto customers) to solve the problem on a micro level. Whether I pay an "Uber regulatory recovery fee" or some other tax is all net zero. But I'd love to see a broader solution that solves the problem more universally (if not at the federal level, then at least at the state level).
California has seriously discussed doing exactly that. But given the situation in DC, it is likely that they would be actively sabotaged by the federal government if they tried. So much for "states rights"....
Let me anecdotally tell you that a large healthcare program has not been good in my experience. Single Payer maybe good though so long as there is choice and competition.
Another consideration is that the US has been setup to allow a sort of localism where states can design their own solutions. It might be best for each system to be setup as a state level item.
Does that not ignore the massive disparity in population between states. In California the risk pool would be wide enough that it wouldn't be a problem, in states with < 1 million residents that suddenly becomes very difficult indeed.
Looking at rates that employers (and then employees pay, especially in copays) the answer would appear to be "expensively".
Look at the NHS in the UK, on average it costs £3k per person per year, outcomes are broadly similar (if not better, especially in areas like post-partum mortality) and as a % of GDP is half as expensive as US healthcare.
Yes, I have. The post office seems to do an EXCELLENT job of delivering mail at an absurdly low price (for standard letters or postcards), although when I lived in Chicago for a few years I found that a certain portion of letters were never delivered.
A number of years ago the DMV (I was in New York and New Jersey at the time) offered terrible customer service; these days the DMV I have gone to (New Jersey and Pennsylvania) seem to do an excellent job.
What I can conclude from this is that quality varies, whether in private industry or public services.
A single-payer system isn't a state healthcare system.
It's a public-private healthcare system in which a single entity pays all healthcare providers for health services rendered.
Individual providers would still be free to negotiate their own rates with the single-payer entity.
Individual providers would still be free to provide concierge medical services or other non-covered medical services (for example, most plastic surgery).
Individual providers would still be free to distinguish themselves on the basis of patient service.
And with all due respect, the problem with the post office is that the GOP requires it to pay for decades of upfront expenses now rather than when those expenses are incurred, unlike a private business, and the GOP won't actually let the post office operate anything like a private business. If the post office could operate like a private company it would shut down every rural post office in America, since those are just money drains that detract from the profitable urban and suburban facilities. If the post office could operate like a government agency again (like it did before Reagan), it would run as smooth as butter.
The ACA has always hovered around 50% favorability and 40% unfavorability nationally, so "extremely unpopular" isn't accurate. Additionally, support among voters for Medicare for all is about 70%.
The Tea Party predates the ACA and was more a general anti-Obama movement than specifically motivated by one policy.
ACA was extremely unpopular because of how it was characterized. It is extremely popular today.
Have I been to the post office or the DMV? Sure. And when there are a ton of people who want to use a service, you tend to have to wait.
Have YOU been to a for-profit emergency room? Or a for-profit, non-fast-food restaurant? Hell, go to a Fed Ex or UPS store. They won't be perfect, and you will wait in line.
> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night.
And for their competitor.
Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.
No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities. Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn cash whenever we feel like it.
EDIT: To a reply saying I don’t understand how fast food restaurants operate, I certainly do, I’ve worked fast food in my life. While they certainly try to be flexible, you can’t just decide to show up approximately “whenever you feel like it.” The closest approximation to that is to only have 4 hours a week regularly scheduled (otherwise they can’t call you an employee), and then you call in whenever you feel like working to see if they need help (often they will say “yes” but sometimes they will say “no”). However, this arrangement only works once you have enough experience that you can come in and basically work any position in the restaurant, and it’s not something that can be scaled to every worker at the restaurant.
I don't think you actually understand how fast food restaurants operate.
You actually can take several months off from McDonalds if you want and come back. Many employees do, especially the ones that work at college-town McDs...
Moreover, you can switch shifts at will, so long as you find another employee to exchange shifts with.
Pretty much the difference between fast food and Uber is that fast food is a minimum 8 hour shift and Uber can be as short as a 1 minute ride.
And what happens if you decide you won't show up today to work at McDonalds? And tomorrow, and the next day? Without telling anyone? Yeah... that's right.
You might get fired. But since restaurants (especially fast food) deal with this all the time, they just move on and will frequently let people start working again once they've resolved their issues.
And what happens if you don't log in to Uber or Lyft every day? You'll fall off their internal automated lists for ride selection priority and get stuck with all the undesirable rides nobody else wanted to drive.
Luckily for Uber, if they don't want their new employees working for Lyft while they're on the clock, they can make it a condition of employment. Bingo bongo, problem solved.
> I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night.
> Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question.
I wonder if there is a reason it could't work like this:
• If you work N hours in a week for employer X, where N meets the benefit threshold, T, for some type of benefit, the employer has to provide that benefit.
• If N does not meet that threshold, the employer has to make a payment of N/T x C to the State, where C is the weekly cost for the person to pay for that benefit themselves.
• The State keeps track of these payments on a per worker basis and works with the benefit providers to use them as a subsidy on the worker's cost to buy the benefit.
For example, for health insurance, if Bob drove 40 hours a week for Uber, Uber would have to offer Bob the same health insurance they provide their full time employees.
If Bob only drives 10 hours a week for Uber, delivers food for Grubhub 15 hours a week, and does 10 hours waiting tables at a cafe, none of those would have to provide health insurance, because the threshold is 30 hours. But Uber would have to contribue 1/3 C, Grubhub 1/2 C, and the cafe 1/3 C to the State for Bob's health insurance. That would be enough to cover Bob getting health insurance on his state's ACA market.
It would actually be more than enough. If the excess carries over to be used in weeks when Bob works less than 30 hours total, then as long as Bob averages 30 hours of work a week, he has health insurance.
>The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.
Because that's the way the stupid system currently works?
So it's both- Uber should be forced to work in the current confines of the system, and there should be questions like national healthcare
>If we offered national healthcare, like many other countries, it would solve the problem across the board. It could be funded by Uber and all other companies through some type of tax. That seems a lot more efficient than trying to solve the problem piecemeal.
As others has said, it's not just healthcare.. payroll taxes, other benefits etc.. Uber is basically trying to avoid all of this by pretending that 100% of their workforce are "contractors" even though many work 40+ hours a week like a normal employee.
If Uber hasn't been preparing internally for the possibility of losing this suit, they've been irresponsible in the hopes that California would go "oh shit, they're gonna shoot the hostage".
Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs. The fact that people have turned to driving for Uber (and others) highlights problems with our government, economy, and priorities, not the companies. I really wish people would stop giving government a pass and wanting corporations to come save them. Go vote, educate yourself, and do something with your democracy. If people have to resort to driving for Uber to live, then that's something we need to fix at a state-wide or country-wide level.
Many people depend on rideshare like Uber to get to work like a public utility. Maybe if California (and this is true of other areas) actually built and invested in bike able neighborhoods and public transport, then they wouldn't need Uber.
California will lose this one eventually. You don't know what you have until it's gone.
> You compare uber to etsy, but uber sets a price and does not even list the name of the driver till you order to pay.
Yes, but the driver is similarly offered the fare, and may choose to accept or not. This is actually one of the critical distinctions between employees and non-employees. If they were an actual employee, Uber would be able to just assign the fare to them.
This is also unlike taxis, where, if your light is on, it is illegal to not accept the fare. (Although violations of these rules are common and blatant, which ironically stopped me from using taxis altogether.)
It’s certainly true that Uber operates in a grey area. When cities have explicitly banned them, they stop operating (e.g. Vancouver). It seems like California has clarified some of the ambiguity around employment, and Uber may similarly stop operating.
The important factor for employee vs contractor isn't whether the worker can accept/reject the job, since employees have that option under many union contracts, and in fact this is how many restaurants have operated for decades (where "job" = "shift").
What matters is whether the worker can independently decide what fare to charge (even if in practice the fare is limited by market forces to what a customer/client would pay). If they can, they are almost always a contractor. If they can't, they are almost always an employee. (Note: Hollywood unions and guilds set minimum rates for work, but members are free to charge higher rates if they can get away with it, and many do. The contractor/employee distinction is largely moot because the unions/guilds took on the healthcare and benefits provisioning functions that employers would normally handle.)
EDIT: reply to ericmay since HN won't let me reply that deep.
No, "accepting" a fare is not the same thing as deciding what fare to charge. Accepting a fare in the Uber/Lyft context means you take the fare Uber/Lyft offers you, or you go home; there is no potential for negotiation or other work. Deciding what fare to charge means you get to post your fare to Uber/Lyft, and customers decide whether they are willing to pay it, or conversely that a customer posts a desired fare, and the driver gets to decide whether they take it. If Uber/Lyft were truly just platforms and their drivers were independent contractors, either of those would be how fares are determined (and in fact, Uber is moving toward the former in CA as a result of this law).
If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price
Paying someone $10 to mow a lawn occasionally would not turn them into an employee. Terms of payment are just one of the factors in part A of the ABC test (which analyzes the worker's level of independence), so stop focusing on that single non-determinative data point.
Moreover, benefits requirements don't kick in until an employee exceeds a certain threshold of work performed (generally 30+ hours/week) for a single employer, and 401K contributions are not mandatory benefits anywhere. If a worker satisfies the ABC test for independence, they aren't an employee and benefits would not be required unless negotiated for as part of the work contract.
I get your point, but I think the restaurant analogy is flawed.
With restaurants, there’s an ongoing relationship and and expectation about shifts. There’s just a small amount of flexibility. The employee with take some good ones, some bad ones (with more good ones probably going to folks with more seniority, or those favored by the managers).
One couldn’t show up every couple weeks for two peak hours at the restaurant and expect to work. But some Uber drivers do exactly that.
Aren't they deciding what fare to charge by accepting the job?
If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm willing to pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price?
It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform.
More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people. Dynamics change when it's only a handful of companies hiring many people.
If you want to take this analogy further, if that kid has the opportunity to do something else for more money and keeps declining to cut my grass for $10 I'll ban her from cutting it and find someone else.
There's also no negotiating with me. It's $10, take it or leave it! (If they leave it, like they don't accept the fare, then so be it my grass doesn't get cut and Uber doesn't make money).
> More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people.
Why? The foundational principles seem to be the same to me here.
I think too many people want Uber to be this company that meets these certain expectations and they want that because the government has failed them and so they've turned to corporations to save people via jobs and paid benefits because they want the illusion that someone is paying their fair share. Instead you need to change the laws in your state/country/area to represent your values. If people don't have healthcare, pay money and give them healthcare. Making Uber do it simply isn't going to work here. Especially for them in particular.
To me there is no fundamental difference between me picking up an app and then getting $10 to go pick someone up and someone coming to mow my grass for $10, or someone paying me $20 to move a couch for them. I'm doing some work for some money. That's it. There's nothing more to it.
Based on your last paragraph, you seem to be conflating you paying someone with you getting paid. If your thoughts on this subject are that confused, it makes sense that you're not understanding the issues here.
AB5 is about the relationship between the worker and the person paying them. Fundamentally, yes, it's all just compensation for work performed, but the law is all about the specific details of the work relationship not the zoomed-out overbroad simplification you've reduced it to, because at that level everybody is the same as everyone else and if everybody is the same why bother with any laws at all?
Yes there is. Or at least there is with most people. Even if you are adamant on price there's plenty of other areas for negotiation like when the work will occur, subscription agreements, or the kid can try to work it out and cut your grass at the same time as your neighbors.
>Why? The foundational principles seem to be the same to me here.
You really don't see a difference in a business transaction between two people and one between a person and a multi-billion dollar corporation?
The genius of early (Uber X) Uber was that it launched a service that was illegal, but got away with it and paved a road to legality because it was significantly better than its competitors, liked by customer (read: voters), and displaced competitors no one had much sympathy for.
Back in 2014...when they were using billions of VC funding to undercut taxi rates.
Uber hasn't been that cheap in years. Uber is now roughly the same or more than using a taxi in LA, and that doesn't even include Uber's original and more expensive black car service.
Tried it. Then compared it to the prices that I would actually get using the app and found that they were nowhere close to the estimates on the website, because the website estimate doesn't account for surge pricing, driver multipliers, waiting time fees, or taxes and other levied fees.
In contrast, the taxi service you linked to is the all inclusive price and is generally standard for all taxis as a matter of local law.
In the app, Uber is now more expensive than a taxi in LA for long trips.
On the first point, could you supply a bit more than just "wrong"? That's not a very convincing argument. Do you have data? Evidence? Anything besides just "wrong"?
I suspect this pleases the gov't transit authorities and unions, now they have less competition by decree. (Yes I realize Uber "could" stay, but practically speaking for a business, not really).
It just annoys me it's couched as "we are doing this for the worker!", and then those workers have no work.
If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healthcare costs.
Etsy is not even remotely the same thing as Uber. For starters, shops choose what they want to sell, and for how much, and customers choose which shops on Etsy they wish to buy from. Other than handling payment processing, Etsy operates just like a mall.
In contrast, riders don't get to choose which driver they get; Uber chooses for them. Uber chooses how much riders pay and how much of that drivers get. Uber is not a platform, it's just a techified transportation service.
Many people depend on rideshare like Uber to get to work like a public utility.
This is an extremely warped and privileged view to have. Only people with lots of discretionary income used Uber to commute to work before COVID. They did not depend on it. And this is a very small subset of the US or CA populations; most people can't afford to take an Uber to work everyday.
I really wish people would stop giving government a pass and wanting corporations to come save them.
The problem is corporations like Uber that are exploiting their employees, not government. Corporations started paying their executives tens of millions for minimal work instead of the labor force doing the work and actually creating the value.
Maybe if California (and this is true of other areas) actually built and invested in bike able neighborhoods and public transport, then they wouldn't need Uber.
California, including especially the Bay Area, LA, and San Diego, has public transportation, and thousands of miles of bike lanes. It is possible to visit every major city and national park in CA using just public transportation.
LA's public transportation system has one of the largest geographic footprints in the world. Most of the system is buses rather than fixed rail lines, but the rails run from Downtown to Hollywood, Pasadena, Santa Monica/Culver City, and Long Beach. Prior to COVID, more than 1.3 million people used LA Metro each week.
Sure, and it's possible for me to canoe to Antarctica but it's not a reasonable way for anyone to travel.
What an extremely narrow and privileged worldview you have. No wonder people hate techies so much these days...
Every day, more than a million people use CA's public transportation systems to travel between cities for work, even now during COVID. I guess they're all being unreasonable.
I took CA public transportation every working day for 5 years. Compared to the rest of the world, it's unreasonable.
Trains and buses are infrequent and have terrible evening/weekend schedules. Sure, during rush hour they can likely be faster than the incredibly overcrowded Californian roads, but otherwise they're crap. They're also not exactly cheap!
It's no surprise why Uber & friends started in the bay area, and why it's so popular there. They had no competition. The transit in these places is like the bare minimum possible. It doesn't even come close to touching world-class transit systems popular all over the world.
With LA you might have a point. We have it but it's young and still growing and not as convenient as it should be. But SF? Are you kidding me? I can take busses, trains, etc. to get anywhere in that city and out to the valley. It's awesome!
Either you aren’t being serious or you just haven’t lived in a city with real public transport.
You can get to a lot of places in the Bay Area by public transport, but the time penalty for doing and the number of services you have to use is absurd outside of downtown SF. Typically 3x driving and upwards.
Compare this to New York, or London or Amsterdam, where it can be close to parity, or on the 1-2x range. (I mention these because I have), and you’ll realize that Bay Area public transport is effectively non-existent.
Zepto, prior to covid, it was faster to take LA Metro between Santa Monica and LA, or Hollywood and LA, or Pasadena and LA, or Long Beach and LA, than it was to drive those same distances. During rush hour, it was approximately 1 hour faster to take Metrolink between LA and OC destinations than it was to drive the same distance. In the Bay Area, it was at least 1 hour faster to take BART cross-bay than to drive, especially if you were headed to places like Dublin or Pleasanton.
Traffic is just that bad in CA.
CA isn't like NY or London. Our cities weren't built to the same level of density as NY or London, and systems that dense would be overkill. Moreover, given that CA's public transportation systems are geographically larger than any other public transportation systems outside of China (in the sense of geographic territory serviced), it would also be prohibitively expensive to build systems that dense in CA. A system as dense as NYC's metro in LA would cost more than a trillion dollars.
I agree with you about rush hour and with central downtown locations only, although even at those times and for those specific routes the Bay Area only approaches parity with the other cities I listed.
I think the point about geographic density is completely fair as an explanation for why the disparity exists, but it mostly serves to confirm the general point.
If you consider the percentage of locations or population addressable in a unit of time - e.g. in 1 hour, by public transport. The Bay Area does terribly.
This is an argument why public transport cannot substitute for ride share or car services in the Bay Area in the way that it can in other cities.
I speak as someone who has personal experience of all of these cities.
I am just waiting for the lawsuits for when they shut down from drivers but also politicians threatening to jail the executives for taking that course.
This just isn't about Uber and Lyft but they were targets because some very big money was getting hurt by their existence.
It’d be a very American thing to do to sue for the government enforcing labor rights through legislation and judicial action. Push that throttle forward further while racing to the bottom.
Perhaps put that time into advocating for a living wage and universal healthcare instead of embracing Stockholm Syndrome with gig platforms. They might not be around much longer, but your government will be.
“Nobody will” is a bet, mostly on history of the last 30 years of winning these bets. If/when someone does do it, being a business that drew a line in the sand is going to make it difficult to adapt. Playing regulatory games is hard.
People are voting & doing something with their democracy; that’s how this passed. And they’ll have another choice when they vote on the prop. You’re tired of people leaning a certain way, I’m tired of people coming up with really cheap shots just because they don’t like outcomes. Get a cup of coffee.
Let's say we leave aside low voting turnout, lack of education about issues, etc. I don't have a problem if people decide to vote Uber and eventually others out of California. Your state, your rules. I don't really use Uber (or Lyft) unless I am traveling so I really don't care what happens to them, and I definitely don't care about what happens to them in California. I just happen to disagree with California, and I think if this goes through it's going to be a losing proposition and once the reality of this sets in (i.e. people won't have access to ride share) it'll cause an actual public opinion upheaval. It's easy to complain about it and be edgy and "support workers rights" - just wait until you reap what you sow.
I'm not sure how my comment on this thread is any more of a cheap shot than any other comment, or how it's more of a cheap shot than telling someone you disagree with to "get a cup of coffee". I thought what I wrote was at least a coherent opinion on the matter. I'm sorry that it made you angry and that you took a negative interpretation of what I wrote. Not my intention.
People depend on Uber for transport because Uber has made their service available, but I strongly doubt that anyone would be stranded at home were they to shutter - and remember, former commuters are flocking to remote work anyway. Uber would be fools to position themselves as too big to fail. They're clearly a marginal business, but even if they were indispensable I think that would just stir CA legislators to further action against them.
The only freedom an uber contractor has is "when to work". All the pricing and trips are decided by uber, and they can't even reject properly. They are in fact an employees in everything but legal status.
In etsy, you choose your prices, what you sell, and even to whom you sell to, it's definitely a market place.
What Uber did likely isn't sufficient. Uber restricts the maximum drivers can set, only allows increases in 10% increments, does not allow passengers to see the rates of more than one driver at a time, does not let a passenger set their own rates, does not allow drivers to go below auto-pricing, and still sets surge pricing themselves instead of letting passengers and drivers set pricing when demand is high.
Starting Tuesday morning, drivers at the three test airports can either accept Uber’s original price for outgoing rides, or ask for up to five times more, in increments of 10%. After next week they will have the option to ask for less than Uber’s original price.
Essentially those drivers now are bidding against one another for riders. Uber passengers will see only the lowest proposed fare range. If that driver rejects their ride request, they could see a new, higher fare range, as Uber would then show the request to the next-cheapest driver.
Uber likely wouldn't be in this position if they stayed out of pricing/visibility and let passengers/drivers set whatever rates they wanted to. Just provide a platform for people to get rides and stay out of pricing entirely.
"For some time now" meaning less than 1 month, or long after this particular point was raised in the trial that just concluded.
And importantly, it's not actually in effect in the entire state yet. It's still just limited to the Bay Area, with the rollout to the rest of CA happening over the rest of the summer.
If this truly is an invalid business model (riders can't/refuse to pay driver's full salary + benefits), then a lot of people willing to work at these lower rates will be losing their jobs / extra income.
True, but to be fair, that is a huge freedom, and one many people want or need.
Yes, driving Uber is a shit job, but for many people it is far better or more compatible with their lives than waiting tables or working retail, which are the realistic alternatives for most Uber drivers.
> There must have been something compelling about it.
One of those compelling things is that it seems like a better deal. Uber relies on you not doing the expenses math on things like vehicle depreciation, car insurance, unpaid time spent waiting for fares, etc.
Would a system that allows the drivers to "set their own pay" and in which Uber dispatches drivers with the lowest rates follow the law better? This would clearly be a race to the bottom (the pay would probably be even lower than what Uber drivers get today). Is that a preferable outcome?
I also object to this characterization of consent.
> The only freedom an uber contractor has is "when to work".
How is this not complete freedom? Loads of contracts out there specify the rate that the contractor will be paid, and both parties are expected to uphold that specified pay. Are those contracts no longer valid? In some cases with written contracts, the pay is specified as a non-negotiable condition from the paying party, and the "only freedom" the contractor has is to take it or leave it. Is that a violation? If a contractor never actually gets hired under a contract for which she sets her own rates and all of the other "freedoms" supposedly necessary for forming a contract (in CA), is she being oppressed in some other way?
No one is holding a gun to Uber drivers' heads forcing them to drive. They seem to be doing it voluntarily (this seems the case for every one I've met). Insofar as this is their only option, this is not a problem of Uber's creation, but of the overall political economy. And that, after all, is GP's point.
The difference is that contractors can negotiate those other contracts to change the rate of pay. An Uber driver cannot negotiate how much they get paid by Uber. (Part A of the ABC test.)
In some cases with written contracts, the pay is specified as a non-negotiable condition from the paying party, and the "only freedom" the contractor has is to take it or leave it. Is that a violation?
No, because one of the other factors in being a contractor was having multiple (potential) contracting counterparties (aka clients). An Uber driver contracts with just Uber, not the riders. In contrast, a contractor would generally have more than one client if they were in the business of providing that type of service as a contractor. (Part C of the ABC test. Note that Part C requires a contractor to engage in the legal formalities of creating their own business, so it's not just enough to work for both Uber and Lyft.)
But note that for Uber and Lyft, what matters is not that they failed part A and C of the ABC test, since those are relatively trivial to structure around.
Uber and Lyft fail part B of the ABC test, which is that a worker cannot be engaged in a job that is the usual course of the employer's business. Uber and Lyft call themselves transportation companies, ergo, any worker that is providing a transportation service is automatically an employee under the ABC test. Indeed, drivers are the only workers at Uber/Lyft that would be treated as automatic employees; the programmers could be employees or contractors.
They have since before the suit was filed, that's why they are sponsoring a ballot initiative on the November ballot to exempt themselves from the ABC rule articulated in the Dynamex case and then codified in AB5.
The temporary shutdown (which will probably be reversed win or lose, but more profitably if they win) isn't so much a response to the injunction but a stunt related to the campaign for the ballot measure.
They almost certainly have fallback plans if they lose both the suit and the ballot measure, but they aren't as desirable and they'd rather operate with the rules aligned in their favor, and they are willing to accept significant short-term cost to maximize the prospects of that outcome.
The drivers (and customers) are the hostages. Uber should've been spending the last few months preparing for the possibility of this ruling being enforced. (I suspect they have been, and "oh we'll have to shut down!" is a negotiating tactic.)
Yeah, I’m totally with the drivers on this. Far too often “disruption” actually is a very predatory undertaking, with far too little benefit to society. The organizations behind this are typically very low on FTE, and maximizing shareholder value and profits and “democratizing” the suppliers (ie a race to the bottom for the drivers).
You see it all over the place, and I for one hope that this trend is reversed in the next decade. It’s not good for society as a whole.
Of course not, that’s the “hostage” part of the grandparent. I’m saying that taxi drivers and delivery services were better off before being “disrupted”. And I’m not talking about CA per se, but generally all western countries Uber operates in.
They may have a case in developing nations, I am not very familiar with the systems over there pre-Uber so I can’t comment on that.
Why were taxi drivers better off? They were also generally not considered employees (in the US). If anything, the appearance of Uber appears to have spurred some action in defence of taxi drivers, long ignored and kept out of the Fair Labor Standards Act and other legislation to protect the rights of workers.
In fact, for example in NYC, they generally had to pay to work, by being forced to rent cars from medallion owners like the charming Evgeny Freidman (aka Taxi King, formerly an owner of 900 cabs, now a convicted felon).
"The average rate a cabbie paid to take a taxi out for a 12-hour shift climbed 11 percent, to about $85, between 1990 and 1993, based on the most recent figures available from the city's Taxi and Limousine Commission. But meter revenue remained steady during the same period. As a result, the average income of drivers was about $19,000 in 1993, the same as in 1986 and less than in the peak years that immediately followed, taxi commission studies show."
Don’t you think the power balance between Uber and taxi drivers versus the situation before is different?
I’m aware that the US generally already had a very poor system for taxi drivers, but I don’t believe Uber did not make things better. And don’t forget that Uber also has Uber Eats — delivery drivers are most definitely far worse off with that than when they were working for the restaurants themselves.
> Don’t you think the power balance between Uber and taxi drivers versus the situation before is different?
Yes, Uber is more susceptible to competition than the old taxi companies. Where I live there are already three providers, and I stopped using Uber because the other takes a lower cut from the driver.
In the medallion system, you had to submit to Friedman, because even if another provider offered better conditions, they had a small number of medallions.
Competition between employers helps workers.
> I’m aware that the US generally already had a very poor system for taxi drivers, but I don’t believe Uber did not make things better.
Ok, why?
> And don’t forget that Uber also has Uber Eats — delivery drivers are most definitely far worse off with that than when they were working for the restaurants themselves.
Which restaurant replaces its drivers with UberEats? At least around here, the restaurants that already had drivers kept them, and UberEats even lets clients order from those restaurants and have the delivery be made by their own drivers. They just expanded the labor market to restaurants that did not delivery beforehand. I fail to see how can that be worse than before.
I'm sorry, but I can't possibly humor calling a job you're willingly partaking in a "hostage" situation. If Uber is offering them a better deal than what they were going through, even if it's still a bad one (by your standards), why should we forbid these people from taking it?
I live in a developing nation that takes refugees from communist hellholes and the gig economy is helping them out big time by providing the less advantaged ones with a chance at life, all while improving the lives of its users through the service. And it's not just good economically, by creating new markets they help grow the economy and prevent the spread of xenophobia caused by foreign actors participating in a stagnant economy.
Unless you have solved poverty in your country and no one would ever willingly work in such a job you're only causing harm to other people by strangling Uber and similar companies out of existence.
The power balance between employer (Uber) and their drivers is completely out of balance. To claim that the drivers can just ignore Uber would be false, and neither are they able to effectively unionize because they are not officially employees. As such, they cannot negotiate effectively as a group, which means Uber has all the negotiation power.
Again, I am not saying that this is the same case for developing nations; there maybe was no work and/or ability to unionize in the first place. But for large parts of the world this was the case, and Uber just “disrupted” the negotiation abilities of the drivers.
I believe we’re looking at this from two different points of views, a developing nation vs a developed nation (I’m from The Netherlands).
Definitely sucks for the driver. If this new proposition they have cooked up does indeed fail to pass, I suspect they will come up with some sort of "innovation" that will allow them to operate their service with employees collecting W2s. Most likely in the form of a higher price for users.
I applaud the CEO for this decision. It forces at least a glimpse of understanding on the local voters that one cannot combine ideological utopia and a functional economy.
I think your views of local municipalities ability to provide transportation in california are way too optimistic. San Francisco currently operates the most expensive bus stop ever built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
They operate under illegal business models to produce impossibly low costs, driving out all legitimate competitors, including municipal infrastructure.
The Uber business plan has always been to break the law at a massive enough scale that they can buy new laws before enforcement catches up with them.
> one cannot combine ideological utopia and a functional economy.
And still we should try. It's not like California didn't have a functional economy before Uber. Sometimes it's right to make sacrifices in order to uphold our ideas.
Then shouldn't you also be applauding the CEO for his decision? I hate to present this kind of gotcha, but I'm honestly confused on how to reconcile "Uber shouldn't exist in California" and "Uber shouldn't announce it's shutting down in California".
I don't personally have an opinion of the CEO but I think most people would have preferred preventing this situation, making it right, or shutting down in a way that doesn't leave users and drivers without much warning. Instead we see this posturing threat.
I was just pointing out that the market exists and there's money to be made. Something will fill the void if Uber leaves.
I thought that their longer-term plan had been not to need any employees or contractors as drivers in any jurisdiction, and that they were counting on their self-driving technology having matured before this inevitable face-off happened. Although if they had succeeded with introducing something workable, perhaps the state would have blocked it with regulation or legal injunctions in light of the political ramifications of it displacing cab drivers from the job market.
We've banned that account but please don't break the site guidelines yourself, especially not with personal attacks. Note this guideline in particular:
"Please don't post insinuations about astroturfing, shilling, brigading, foreign agents and the like. It degrades discussion and is usually mistaken. If you're worried about abuse, email hn@ycombinator.com and we'll look at the data."
This was the killer feature for those too young to remember a life before Uber. Back when I used to drink at bars it was so frustrating to call different cab companies and have them all say they're "5 minutes away." I felt and continue to feel no sorrow for those cab companies that Uber decimated.
I also remember the extremely poor customer service provided by taxi cabs. Dirty cars, rude drivers who acted as if they were doing you a favor instead of engaging in a business transaction. The taxi cartels are no better than Uber and Lyft corporations for sure.
Right. Because taxis don't typically operate at a loss. Whether it's laws like the ones in California or it's just Uber and Lyft having to be profitable, I have little doubt that you'll see large price increases. I actually don't really understand why they haven't just bitten the bullet and done so before now.
Or not being able to get a cab because you're going to a place they don't want to drive (it was way more common in NYC before Uber for a cabbie to ask where you're going before you get in), or the driver doesn't like something about your look (clothing, group, color, etc), etc.
Sure, it's a threat. Like "human shields" is a threat. Uber surely isn't slavery, but that doesn't make this threat not a parallel to the "food and shelter" slaveowner defense.
Dangerously simplistic viewpoint assuming laws are good and the outcomes of those laws are fair. I'm sure if there was a law personally affecting you negatively you wouldn't feel the same way.
Don't like the laws? Campaign to get them changed.
Until that - follow the laws. It's pretty simple.
The "startups should bend laws because the laws suck" mantra is equally simplistic and immature (not pointing at you, but it's been thrown around A LOT in this sector)
