Hacker News Reader

Comment by irjustin | Hacker News Reader

In broad strokes, I support this because it's helping the driver who used to get great money but then has been getting the squeeze lately.

While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable. Charging more per ride or gig doesn't pan out well as ridership and usage drop in step. So far all our Uber rides have been subsidized by Softbank and other investors. Similar story for lots of other gig based apps.

I'm not sure what the real answer is here, but overly simplifying the problem, better pay/benefits for the individual person is better.

Let's hope it pans out to be exactly that.

View on HN

It will be an interesting case study for sure. I think we can expect fewer drivers, mandatory time slots, and capped 40 hour weeks. Prices should go up to cover all of it, and both Uber/Lyft are cheeky enough to separate that line item as a “CA Tax Recovery Fee” or some such.

Probably will be better off for those making it their living, worse for those looking for extra income.

It’s going to be harder on all the other businesses getting hit suddenly with this, newspapers threw a fit and got a 1 year reprieve but the rest didn’t have a bully pulpit.

30 hours is the threshold for “full time” worker if you’re determining eligibility for health insurance. No way Uber will offer health insurance to drivers, so guessing hours would be capped at 30 max per week.

I would think the exact opposite...in this scenario drivers who do this part time anyway are fine but anyone driving more than 30 hours a week will be hosed.

Perhaps this will encourage tech companies to recognize access to health services as a basic human right.

I look forward to day when corporations support universal health care from purely selfish grounds: if government takes care of employee's health, companies won't have to deal with it, or worry whether driver crosses the threshold of working over 30 hours a week.

You have a right to health (as in nobody can stop you from being healthy). Healthcare is a service that others provide and can't really be a human right.

A better healthcare system requires the government to do something rather than an individual corporation. In fact it's the tight coupling of healthcare to employment that makes it such a nightmare already, and companies are not against a more universal system because it would greatly reduce costs and overhead.

Drivers will simply split their time between Uber and lyft like they do already.

I don’t think it’s that simple. What is considered “work hours”? I assume it’s whenever the app is turned on and you are looking for fares, not just when you have someone in your car.

I think a lot of drivers who use both have both apps turned on simultaneously? This would probably mean that you’d only be able turn on one at a time, which might mean fewer trips per hour.

Another interesting consequence is potential to introduce stricter employment contracts that might say you can’t drive for a competitor...

If they have to be paid minimum wage I think uber will be playing a much more direct role in setting their work hours, not just whenever the app is turned on. They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job but they can prevent them from doing their second job when they're on the clock of the first. This actually solves a common complaint lately of drivers cancelling one ride while they pick up someone on another service.

> Another interesting consequence is potential to introduce stricter employment contracts that might say you can’t drive for a competitor...

This aspect is good for uber, there are many ride sharing apps now and drivers will flick between them and uber has zero competitive advantage. As private contractors they're free to recommend others to clients and this will go away. Bootstrapping competitors will be much harder.

> They probably can't prevent them from taking a second job

They absolutely can and they probably will. You can put almost anything you want in an employment contract, and agreeing not to work for a competitor is an extremely common clause.

Not in California can they do that (non compete clauses are not enforceable in California).

I am aware, but I don't believe California's prohibition on non-competition clauses covers the scenario where you're still employed by the company.

It depends if they are exempt or not. If non exempt, then no.

You can bet your bottom dollar that as employees drivers will be afforded no freedom to double dip. The only reason they are able to at the moment is because companies held back on initiatives that they feared would classify drivers into employees. Now they will have no such fear and gig work will be strictly controlled. Prices will go up simply due to the loss of efficiency from multiplexing gain that gig work provided the economy. California never fails to take every opportunity to reduce market efficiency.

Prices up, sorry consumers. total earnings down, sorry full time drivers. hourly earnings up, yay part time drivers.

Why hire part-time drivers at all? The marginal costs don't make sense if they can't get all the hours they can.

Mmm I think you get the best of all worlds (as the hiring company) with part timers.

- <30 hours/week so no benefits - you can only work in these hours - take it or leave it cause we now can remove your ability to work for any other times

No marginal costs outside the min wage (no benefits) and honestly you don’t want more hours unless they are explicitly in the time and place you want them.

not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers. almost every driver drives for both companies. the drivers are going to get shafted here in total earnings. they will work fewer hours and make more per hour, but won't be able to drive crazy hours on both apps any more.

> not only will they cap it as you have said, but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers.

Citation needed.

> but generally you aren't allowed to be employed by multiple employers

This is a standard condition of many employment contracts that the employee not also work for a competitor. Uber and Lyft previously had no such condition because drivers driving for both companies helped their case that drivers should be considered independent contractors. But now that drivers are employees by fiat, Uber will obviously ban driving for Lyft (or anyone else) and Lyft will obviously ban driving for Uber (or anyone else).

Why would uber or lyft do that, because they know the other will do the same ?

It will reduce the number of aviable drivers on each platform, thus pushing their (drivers) price up.

I haven’t closely followed this but it definitely seems like something that could have serious second order effects that (surprise, surprise) politicians who optimize for optics never think about.

For example I think the bar will immediately be higher for drivers who want to remain drivers, meaning less tolerance for drivers that have below median ratings. Maybe that’s a good thing for riders but it could make driving more stressful than it already is.

This is why it's good to have states be the test beds for policy experiments.

It's not all bad for everyone. If this turns out to be a giant net negative, the rest of the world can learn from California's experience. Worst case it will be a boon for other states who will be able to offer better taxi availability for all the business people they are trying to attract away from California, putting pressure on CA to update it's laws (although let’s be honest this is pretty rare even in the face of changing marketplaces).

This could also accelerate the adoption of AI and the subsequent loss of the driver's jobs in favour of automation as the human capital costs increases and/or driver availability issues could help tilt the cost efficiency scales.

Plus a lot of people are predicting truck drivers are going first and I wouldn’t be surprised if there will be an influx of people looking for urban Taxi jobs soon.

1. Although it's not always the case other states actually look at data and studies first before copying other state's policy.

It's an auction - they used to make great money because there were fewer drivers. If drivers walked away when pay got too low, the pay would rise to equalize with rider demand.

> While it seems like "big corporations complaining", I admit this does threaten certain companies, especially the ones that are not profitable.

So basically all the "gig economy" companies.

Airbnb?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com