Hacker News Reader

Comment by jeffbee | Hacker News Reader

Uber sets the price. Uber drivers have no ability to set price other than choosing to not use the platform. Uber drivers do not form relationships with Uber riders; they are assigned randomly, by Uber. Uber drivers do not enjoy most of the aspects we associate with truly independent contractors.

View on HN

This becomes less clear in the wake of Uber's new feature enabling drivers to set their own prices in its Driver app.

They basically introduced a bidding system that lets drivers increase fares up to 5x Uber’s set price. Uber matches the rider with the driver who has set the lowest price, and then the next highest price...gradually dispatching up to the highest price as more riders request rides.

Disclaimer: Used to work at a ride-sharing company.

It actually benefits the drivers to have Uber set prices. Uber's revenue is a percentage of drivers' earnings, so prices that maximizes driver revenue maximizes Uber's revenue. It's very easy for individuals to set prices in-optimally which means they either lose out on surplus (priced too low) or can't find riders (priced too high).

To me, the most important aspects of independent work is to set one's own schedules, hours per week (0 for as long as I'd like), and not bound to work for any single company. Though I might be biased because of the disclaimer.

edit: grammar fixes

But being a traditional employee means traditional employee lock-in. That means only working for Uber and not for Lyft or Google Shopping, and Uber chooses when you work.

What you describe applies only to some exempt employees. For hourly labor there is nothing that prevents someone from working at both Target and Walmart. In fact this is very common. Scheduling is a hassle yes but it puts the risk off the driver and back on Uber where it belongs: if they schedule someone for an hour, they pay them for that hour.

That is not true in CA. Employers cannot prohibit moonlighting and fire employees unless it affects their work performance, or it creates a conflict of interest

What you say doesn't apply to a real job. I can't have a Google laptop and Facebook laptop and work for both companies at the same time. It's a huge distinction that drivers can pick and choose what they want to do at a particular time, by having both apps open and accepting whichever ride they please, or just stop working for the day altogether.

Doesn't sound like you have much experience having "a job". What you are talking about is exempt employment. There is a three-part test for exemption in California and Uber drivers don't meet any of the administrative, executive, or professional criteria. They also do not pass the salary basis test. Unless Uber wants to start paying their drivers a regular salary, Uber drivers are non-exempt. Uber drivers are not even hourly wage workers, they are paid by the piece. This is the lowest form of employment.

No, that's describing not being an employee, accepting contracts on a gig-by-gig basis.

The whole point of AB5 was to render your statement incorrect by law.

And... the post in question wasn't reciting what AB5 says.

Common practice among drivers is to be available in both Uber and Lyft simultaneously. That's certainly something I would expect an employer to be able to prohibit.

I wouldn't expect them to be able to prohibit being active on one service while not active on the other (except maybe if you've got committed hours, and working another driving job would put you over DOT permitted hours, as prima facia evidence that additional driving hours would be unsafe)

Great answer, thanks! I still don't think it makes sense for Uber (as a tech company) to start employing their own drivers, but maybe the current system isn't great either.

Saying Uber is simply a tech company is basically doublespeak. Uber doesn't sell their app.. Uber maintains partnership with businesses, and managers their business using technology. Why shouldn't Uber employ their drivers, who power their app just as much as the developers who created it.

Because that's a line of thinking that doesn't really have a well defined limiting principle.

Amazon doesn't sell their app...it maintains partnership with businesses, and manages their business using technology. Why shouldn't Amazon employ their retailers, who power their app just as much as the developers who created it?

Also: Uber is set to announce 25% layoffs, but not a single driver will be affected by this. To the extent that Uber drivers are "out of work", it's because there are no riders requesting rides — but that's a direct relationship between buyer and seller.

Instead, the strongest argument in favor of classifying Uber drivers as employees is the fact that they are unable to set their own prices. On the flip side, Uber has been gradually rolling out a new feature that allows drivers to do just that, which makes that argument moot.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com