Hacker News Reader

Comment by SauciestGNU | Hacker News Reader

I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.

View on HN

> you have to admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law

I mean, that has been Uber's MO since they started. AirBnB too, nothing new about this

Yeah, I'm not surprised they intend to violate the law. I'm surprised that they're broadcasting their intention in advance.

They are a public company. Not doing so could be a securities law violation.

There's some nuance being lost here - they aren't saying they will violate the law, they are saying that their lawyers will advance an argument that the law (ABC test) does not apply to them.

I think the legislature and many on HN believe that courts will think it's absurd that Uber's drivers are doing work "outside the usual course" of Uber's business. I'm inclined to agree, but I'm not a lawyer and I don't know how well written the law was or whether California courts will include legislative intent in applying that language.

The article pretty clearly states that Uber believes it will continue to pass the ABC test.

You're right about the article, I was responding to people in this thread: "broadcasting their intention [to break the law] in advance", "[admitting] that they will not adhere to the law" and so on. Those are the statements I am responding to.

I was responding to your incorrect assertion about the argument ABC's lawyers would advance (as indicated by the article.)

Perhaps you should have indicated that's what your disagreement was, I think we agree but you misrepresent what I mean by "apply". Since it's not clear what it means to "pass" or "fail" the ABC test, and Uber is using the term "pass" to indicate that condition of the test is false (i.e.: failed), I used the term apply.

For example, when the Lemon test applies to something, it's because all of its three prongs are true. Is that a "pass" or a "fail"? That distinction I think is irrelevant to the law, but I'm sure the litigants on both sides would argue that their argument is good ("pass"), and the opposing argument is bad ("fail").

A city putting up decorations for a religious event and denying others would argue that they have "passed" the Lemon test, while articulating that one of its conditions "fails".

A litigant against such a city would argue the city "fails" the test.

I did not want to use Uber's language ("But just because the [ABC] test is hard does not mean we will not be able to pass it") because their job is to frame things positively for their client. Passing the ABC test is trivial - I'm doing it right now! So are you! What we care about is whether or not the test applies to something, that is, it entails some consequences, and Uber is going to argue that one of the specific prongs of the test will fail. From their view, this is a win, and this is them "passing" the test.

So, I used the word apply.

> I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business

TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.

That's like saying Yellow Cab is not a taxi company because the drivers are independent contractors who lease their cars from the company, and it doesn't actually drive anyone around.

And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.

Or that e-bay is not a fashion store. (I think u re referring to a probably tiny part of uber that leases cars to drivers)

Ebay matches sellers (who choose what to sell) with buyers (who choose what to buy).

Uber tells drivers where to go, and when, if the driver agrees to do the work. Uber regulates the kind of cars acceptable, and regulates who does the work. Your Uber driver can't subcontract the drive to another driver.

uber has in the past successfully claimed that its customers are its drivers and its users are .. its users. They classify both as clients, and it seems to have worked so far.

> Your Uber driver can't subcontract the drive to another driver.

Even if their ToS does not allow it , it's not the law

Depends on where you are. Some places, it is the law. Or at least part of the terms of your ride hailing license.

Uber doesn't tell drivers where to go or when, drivers are free to go whereever they like (but Uber does provide incentives and information on where demand is)

Uber regulates what cars are acceptable the same way an Ebay seller has to maintain some standards in their store. Similarly Ebay also verifies that you can even be a seller on their platform, just like Uber does with background checks, DMV checks, etc.

To your last point on subcontracting...I'm not even sure thats part of being a contractor or employee so its neither here nor there.

> Your Uber driver can't subcontract the drive to another driver.

Drivers can absolutely sub-contract. most choose not to in the US but it's the core of how the Uber Black business functions (a limosine company with a number of employee drivers) and is still how it meets demand in developing markets or in developing economies.

https://help.uber.com/partners/article/i-want-to-become-a-fl...

Source on uber leasing cars? I was only able to find this: https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/ which talks about paying for a rental car to uber people in

Try this one: https://www.uber.com/gb/en/drive/vehicle-solutions/

The only existential threat to Uber is how long it takes self driving cars to become a reality. Human drivers are a speed bump in their business model. It only affects the length of their runway and thus when they intersect with self driving cars.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com