Hacker News Reader

Comment by hnewsshadowbans | Hacker News Reader

If people want to work for Uber so badly then whats Uber's place not to accommodate them? If single mothers need help so badly then thats not Uber's problem, they're out to run a business not save the world. The government should do something useful for them instead of effectively putting them out of work.

Yes the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards and probably less of these people we're supposedly so concerned about will be able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope. And those left now get to enjoy more regulations, supervisors, time cards, and workplace surveillance and the daily grind just like the rest of us drones. Heck Uber is barely scraping by as is. This might be the killing blow and now everybody is out of work. Good job.

View on HN

> the main effect of this is the company will have to restrict its standards and probably less of these people we're supposedly so concerned about will be able to work anymore due to qualifications or being able to cope.

This kind of whining and fear mongering is done in response to absolutely every kind of employment regulation or workers rights improvement. Somehow it never seems to come true.

It's come true many times and is already happening in California because of AB5.

Detroit says hi

There are plenty of Uber competitors out there. There model of employment isn’t the only one possible. We can do better, and we should try.

On the basis of your arguments business should make no attempt to care for any of their workers, and all worker protections should be abolished.

That model only works if you buy into the fantasy that employees have any real negotiating power, they don’t. The only negotiating power they have is collective actions taken by governments. France is nice strong democracy, it’s not unreasonable to say this is the French people’s rejection of Uber’s exploitive employment practices.

You're not protecting the worker. You're taking away their freedom and choice and turning them into a different kind of worker.

Perhaps if you speak to some drivers, you'll find the overwhelming response that shows they want flexibility, not another full-time job.

These kind of laws do not take a majority to pass, and France had violent protests and riots by taxi drivers against ride-sharing with plenty of political infighting. The only votes that matter are Uber drivers, and you would find a very different conclusion if you only asked them.

There is nothing that prevents Uber from providing flexibility. The court has not ruled that Uber contracts were illegal, but that they were employment contracts (obviously, with the flexible hours Uber is known for) rather than (Uber) company to (the driver's) company business contracts.

Full-time employment will mean people work when and where Uber decides they do, with a flat-rate and no bonuses or surge pricing.

Only if Uber chooses to, it does not have to.

Uber and Lyft dominate the market as far as I'm aware in the US and neither of them have shown much enthusiasm for these kind of laws afaik.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com