Hacker News Reader

> also don't see who benefits from this.

Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.

It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.

This comment has no ethical basis either. The relationship between Uber and its employees is described as a "perfectly reasonable contract between consenting adults", as if the employees were on equal grounds to make demands and the company were not exploiting them in the first place.

How could Uber possibly be exploiting them when it offers a better opportunity than literally everyone else?

Yeah, now they will shut down.

I agree with you but I also think that they should have waited.

Right now is a terrible time to wipe out the gig economy. So many people are turning to it and it is creating value. Economic/employment changes like this one are best suited when the market is strong because people job mobility is higher etc.

There was no choice to "wait". AB5 was passed to fix the law because of a court decision [0]. Had they (the CA Legislature) not passed AB5, the court finding in Dynamex would be just as bad for Uber.

The court doesn't have an option to "wait" just because it's a recession.

Uber doesn't have a choice to "wait" because this ruling is going to go into effect in ~10 days unless the stay is extended.

[0] - https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...

Courts can absolutely choose when to take cases

You do not want courts adjusting when they take cases specifically because of the economy. Doing that is to explicitly make the court an economic actor rather than a legal arbiter, which is a really bad idea.

And on the balance I think that would be preferable to an entire section of the California economy getting wiped out during record unemployment

The authors of AB5 took the liberty of exempting certain professions (presumably influential voter blocs and donors) from Dynamex.[1]

If you drive delivering beverages, whether you're an employee or contractor under AB5 depends on whether or not that beverage is milk.

I don't see why they couldn't have anything in there for rideshare.

https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...

I detest uber. yet AB5 is an abomination, an embarrassment. sad

It just reeks of incompetence and laziness, not to mention failing to go after the real problem of not having proper healthcare and other benefits that is the job of the government to provide.

They could easily survey drivers to determine how many hours a day they work, who's doing it full time, and if they are, why. However, it's just easy to make a new broken law to add to the already broken laws.

Society didn't fail if it turns out that the externalities caused by cheap rides go above the tally of what you're paying for said ride.

A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense.

I think this is a good point and is correct.

But if society has failed the drivers, shouldn't new regulation be the solution?

If the new regulation targets the root of the problem - which is lack of economic opportunities - then yes. Regulation targeting patchwork solution, then it's the definition of virtual signaling.

*virtue

Uber/Lyft aren't too big to fail. They do provide a convenience that went unmet with traditional players. However they had a choice to operate within the confines of the law and chose not to. Venture capital artificially accelerated the traction for this business category before regulators could sustainably address the consequences.

> A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem.

Uber ignored local laws to force their way into the taxi market without having to compete on the same terms as existing businesses.

Uber also classified their drivers as contractors to avoid having to pay fair wages and provide benefits.

They've been criticized for this (and many other things) for years. They could have changed course any time, but they didn't want to. They were too busy using internal tools to avoid scrutiny from regulators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball), threatening journalists who wrote articles they didn't like (https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casual...), and trapping drivers with predatory auto loans (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-l...).

This is 100% Uber's fault.

Drivers aren't forced to drive for Uber. Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so.

What makes something a fair wage?

This is too general an argument. Why did people work in factories where they'd lock the door during the day? Or where there were machines that sometimes ripped people's arms off? Why did this spur regulations on workplace conditions?

Possibly because the legal industry hadn't yet become commoditized or otherwise widely available or well-disposed to the people getting their arms ripped off in such a way as meant that they could sue the pants off factory owners that failed in their reasonable duty of care. The other less egregious examples would likely have improved gradually over time in line with general standards of living amongst the population, spurred on by competition between employers as they retooled and automated, and sought higher-skilled labor.

> Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so

Or, they have very limited other options.

The entire concept of Minimum Wage laws are put in place to address the points you're making.

As FDR stated in 1933:

> It seems to me to be equally plain that no business which depends for existence on paying less than living wages to its workers has any right to continue in this country.

You can argue about what you think a fair wage is, but it has been decided that the absolute floor value you are allowed to argue for is set as the minimum wage.

It is unclear, that after accounting for all time spent "driving", and paying all expenses related to driving, that drivers are always paid even minimum wage.

So Uber driver’s are too dumb to realize they’re being paid unfair wages? Why would anyone work for such a company if they have better alternatives?

And if they don't have better alternatives?

Sometimes I actively look forward to the tech job market collapsing.

> And if they don't have better alternatives?

Then it would seem applying more pressure to their already unprofitable employer is an unwise move...

Better not ban child labor if it puts kids out of work, right?

That depends on the environment. In many countries, when you ban legal child labor, the children have to turn to illegal jobs such as prostitution.

Most people dont work for uber because it is fun. They are doing it because their other options are worse.

The fact that we prevent children from consenting to something that may be harmful to them doesn't mean we need a nanny state to protect everyone.

I am not going to state that "drivers are too dumb", but as far as I know it is definitely not clear that it is clear to a (potential) driver what they are actually being paid after all expenses. It is not unreasonable that any given person will not immediately understand the full cost of being a driver, including insurance (like ensuring that their existing auto insurance is even valid if you're ever driving for a company), gas, vehicle maintenance, general vehicle wear-and-tear, as well as any required cleaning/upkeep.

It's not unreasonable that someone who is driving for Uber/Lyft (especially if, as you claim, they have no better alternatives) is aware of the deferred costs that they are incurring.

> It's not unreasonable...

You mean unlikely. It is absolutely unreasonable. But these arguments just don’t stand up. In the early days, perhaps this is true. But everyone is massively aware of these arguments now and what you’re still arguing is that people need to be protected from themselves.

Think about what you’re saying: your back-of-the-envelope conjecture without any empirical evidence should be taken over the millions of people who work in these industries, not just for a month before realizing they’ve been hosed, but for years and years.

How about this: let’s presume all of what you say is true. What if after all those costs are accounted for, it’s still profitable for many people to drive for Uber.

If a person is dying of thirst, they'll stick drink brackish water if it's all their offered.

What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers.

If you believe the end goal of a society is to extract every last bit of value from its members, then yes, Uber is great.

If you believe the end goal of society is to provide some sort of dignified life for its members, then I don't see how you can justify what Uber does.

> How about this: let’s presume all of what you say is true. What if after all those costs are accounted for, it’s still profitable for many people to drive for Uber.

There have many studies done about what someone can earn from Uber. Even without the externalities nobody is going to get rich from Uber. With the externalities, they are barely making a subsistence wage.

Lastly, I would argue that even if working for Uber is a net negative, in the short term (even years) they can extract some value from an assets they already have (their vehicle and their time) against costs in the future. For someone who needs cash today, this is a acceptable tradeoff.

> What is egregious about uber is that they themselves are tapping into the clean water source, extracting the best part for themselves and then leaving only brackish water for all the uber drivers.

Please explain this. Uber is wildly unprofitable. Whether or not you think Uber drivers should earn more, they’re certainly not losing money. Between the drivers, the riders, and Uber...Uber has by far the worst position in this game. Now, they wrote the rules so I certainly won’t lose a wink of sleep over it, but this idea that Uber is making out well in all of this is ludicrous.

The riders make out the best and any future changes will be zero sum between riders are drivers. Uber simply can’t absorb more losses than they already do.

> So Uber driver’s are too dumb to realize they’re being paid unfair wages? Why would anyone work for such a company if they have better alternatives?

I think you've answered your own question here.

Rent, food, clothes, medication...

The main SF organizer for forcing Uber to classify drivers as employees, Mostafa Maklad, has been driving with Uber for six years. I don't think he's either stupid or unhappy to work for Uber. I think he just wants to be paid more, while doing exactly the same.

THe taxi regulation were terrible and created a terrible environment. It's California lawmakers fault for clearly seeing the writing on the walls and instead of lowering regulations trying to raise them. What kind of backwards person does that.