Hacker News Reader

Ebay doesn't control how much you sell your product for. Ebay doesn't police how you sell, package, or ship your product. It's mostly hands off. Compare this with the level of control Uber exerts on its drivers.

Similarly, Ebay's service is less dependent on how well you provide your commerce services, it pretty much lets the market determine your prospects on its platform. On the other hand, Uber is highly reliant on the conduct of its drivers and the service the provide.

That's a difference that arises out of a goods market (with some services attached) vs. a more pure-play labor/services market, but it's not a fundamental distinction about control or what is core to the platform provider. The whole gig economy is a new phenomenon, because it is enabled by the ease of communication that is only recently possible to create a liquid labor market, something that should be applauded.

The obvious Duck test is staring you in the face, that here is a new type of thing that only half looks like a duck, and should be treated as such, which is what rideshare companies have been arguing for forever, including at the legislative level. Instead of forcing a non-duck into a duck because of stupidity, lack of imagination, or pure emotional hatred for certain companies, the level-headed thing to do is to look at how such a new type of market really should work for the benefit of all participants. The race-to-the-bottom thing that drivers complain about is a consequence of ideological cock-blocking by pandering politicians unable to come up with a real solution between fucked-up taxi medallions and raw market forces. AB5's madness lies in pretending it's the 1950's and takes the cake in making it worse not just for gig companies but a shit load of other industries as collateral damage.

Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn’t have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers.

I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be but they aren’t quite contractors and they aren’t quite employees.

California could have taken the lead and helped define this new classification...

Whether they need to do it for their business to work isn't that relevant, they are still doing those things.

In the UK we have two classifications that are different from self employed (contractors). We have worker and employee. They're similar but differ in the level of control the employer has and the responsibilities of the employer.

The case in the UK decided that the drivers were workers but not employees.

More info: https://www.gov.uk/employment-status

A corporation's illegal business practices don't become legal just because they're required to sustain its business model.

I don't think your post makes a strong statement to this effect, but it suggests it, and it's good to be clear on this point.

Can you explain how what they do is illegal?

Making it illegal is the the whole point of AB5. Contractor status was once for a very specific kind of worker: independent professionals who were basically solo businesses. It has turned into a giant loophole, where worker have the downsides of employment along with the downsides of being a contractor. AB5 aims to return to the status quo, where if you want to hire a bunch of employees, you really have to treat them like employees.

Except they aren’t employees. They are something else. Make a new classification for them.

They were arguably employees before (and outside of CA) and unarguably employees under AB5. That’s why Uber is making this ridiculous claim that it’s not a transportation company: otherwise, its drivers are employees.

If the law says they're employees, they're employees until the law changes. In the same vein as my earlier post, the fact that a corporation wants to "employ" (in the basic dictionary sense) workers under certain arbitrary terms doesn't make said arbitrary terms legal, nor does it create a mandate to make them legal.

I made a general statement about illegality. Do you disagree with it?

If you can't figure out why the general statement I made is relevant in this context, no amount of explanation from me is going to solve that problem.

> These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist.

This isn't necessarily wrong, but if you want to make the claim, you'll have to say what that new classification is.

Current employment law has a well-evolved set of protections that help prevent employees getting too badly screwed. Traditional contractor relationships, on the other hand, use the power of the market (that is, the contractor ability to either easily switch clients or maintain multiple clients) to keep things fair.

If there's something in between, it can't be the status quo (we treat you like employees when it's convenient but call you contractors so we can screw you over). And it also can't be some midpoint, like an employee-lite, where Uber, etc, just exploit people 50% less than now but 50% more than they could with real employees.

> Traditional contractor relationships, on the other hand, use the power of the market (that is, the contractor ability to either easily switch clients or maintain multiple clients) to keep things fair.

There's a lot fewer clients to choose from but doesn't driving for Uber and Lyft simultaneously satisfy this to some extent?

> Does it make me a Microsoft employee if I use Outlook to conduct business?

If Microsoft is the one paying you, and dictating how you use Outlook, what you can say, who you talk to you - then yes, it does.

Except Uber doesn't dictate how you use the app, they set parameters on how you can use it. They also don't tell you that you HAVE to take all rides, but if you do not meet a quality bar or are abusing their product then they can kick you off it / revoke your access...

The only difference here is the payment. And to that end, if Outlook supported the ability to transfer money then it still wouldn't make Microsoft your employer...

> Except Uber doesn't dictate how you use the app, they set parameters on how you can use it.

a distinction without a difference. if you don't follow their parameters they kick you off, which feels a lot like dictating how its used to me

> The fact alone that they can have two messaging/dispatch apps open at once, on two phones, makes me question, which company do you think the driver works for? Both simultaneously?

I'm not saying you are guilty of this, but I think many of us with full-time, salaried jobs tend to not be able to grasp that yes, you can be an employee of multiple companies simultaneously.

You can't necessarily be paid by more than one employer for the same unit of time -- but that's not what's happening here.

If a driver who is an employee of both platforms accepts a Lyft ride, they are working as an employee for that one company for the duration of the ride. If they then accept an Uber ride, they are working as an employee for that one company for the duration of the ride.

Keep in mind there's no minimum amount of time you have to work to be considered working as an employee. Even if you're clocking in for just 5 minutes, you're still a working employee for those 5 minutes and should get paid for those 5 minutes.

The only difference between this type of employment relationship and traditional employment relationships is that at least in theory, the drivers can set their own working hours. Although the degree to which Uber and Lyft exert influence over drivers' working hours makes me wonder just how freely chosen they are.

But even if Uber, Lyft, and the like are able to argue that drivers can freely chose their working hours, that's NOT the only criterion necessary to be considered contractors. It is possible to be able to freely chose your own working hours yet still be classified properly as an employee, provided other factors point toward an employment relationship.

What if you accept a Lyft ride before youve completed your Uber ride?

Im not even making the argument that they are employees or contractors, I am more saying that drivers are consumers of Ubers matching service, and that there is some accuracy in viewing Uber as a matchmaking service and payment facilitator.