Hacker News Reader

> without providing any alternative

Taxis still exist.

Given the history of Uber and Lyft drivers denying access to riders with wheelchairs, decrying the loss of their services seems weird.

Uber and Lyft were made in San Francisco because the taxis here sucked so badly. Extremely unreliable. Always late. Not enough of them.

Taxis have not gotten better since then.

True Story: Before Uber and Lyft, a nice guy, who worked at a company in my building in SF, got so desperate to hail a cab he stepped off the curb to attract the cab's attention, and got killed by a Muni bus.

Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.

Taxi drivers pay the company for a shift upfront and absorb the risk on not getting enough rides to break even. And they are independent contractors without benefits.

So yeah, what parent was talking about doesn't exist.

HAHAHA. OMG - as one who doesn't drive, and took taxis in the Bay area (South Bay - Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Redwood City) for 7 years (2003 - 2010) - pretty much everywhere - let me tell you that taxis on the Peninsula are the most poorly managed, poorly responsive, and incredibly bad service imaginable. Fully 30-40% of taxis just never show up when you call them. That number gets even higher after 9:00 PM if you are down near Fremont. . Taxis took an absolute minimum of 30 minutes to arrive - I never understood how that was possible given they worked on a zone reservation system, and I presumed you would check into the zone you were geographically present in. The drivers were, as a class - horrible. They wouldn't last a month on Uber - neither their vehicles, nor the drivers themselves - they'd be rated out immediately.

I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.

Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.

> I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living.

Aren't the rates basically set by the drivers? I've never driven for Uber or Lyft but my impression was that drivers have a choice of whether to accept each request or not. If the offered price for a ride is "too low" (but someone still accepts it) that just highlights the fact that your idea of "too low" is not the only one that matters. Maybe your competition isn't relying on this for a living. Maybe they've found other ways to reduce their costs. Either way, I don't really see a problem aside from certain parties' unrealistically high expectations.

Personally I feel a bit sorry for all of the people that deliberately chose to take on these gig jobs as freelancers who are now being pressured into becoming employees to salve the overactive consciences of people who aren't even involved. Not everyone wants to be classified as an employee, with all the restrictions that entails.

Where in California does your sister live that doesn't offer Paratransit services?

Or taxis.

I find it a little vulgar to suggest the regulatory capture variant of a service to a disabled person who was benefiting from the more libre configuration.

Maybe deregulate taxis instead of letting companies bypass labor restrictions with a polite fiction.

Where in California does that service even come close to what Uber/Lyft offer?

Rides subsidized by folks desperate enough to sacrifice tomorrow in order to eat today?

I hope nowhere.

I think she still uses it when there's no alternative. I don't know much about it myself, but from what she tells me it's a fine service for when she needs to go to the library on a lazy day, but meeting a friend or having to make a schedule on a certain time? It's practically a coin flip.

moral victory? this is government overreach. people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees. the government changed the rules not because they care for you but because they collect more taxes from employers than contractors.

But they can't set their own rates.

How is enforcing worker protection government overreach? It’s what they’re supposed to do. And there’s lots of gig workers who aren’t happy with the setup. It’s not like the government took this up on their own accord.

As someone else mentioned Uber and Lyft impose restrictions on these workers that a typical contractor would not have. The litmus test isn’t simply whether you can set your number of hours.

And there's plenty who are fine with this setup. Why should they get screwed over? Calling the removal of worker choice a right is truly perverse.

> people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees

Millions of employees in the US have flexible schedules and work part-time.

> If there really exists a market that is sustainable via the terms outlined by the court of California, why the hell isn't anyone competing in this market that famously yields no incumbent benefits?

There was a cheaper alternative for companies to provide up until now, so I don't think the current lack of this type of service proves that it couldn't exist. Companies will tend to provide the service that costs them the least in the absence of other incentives; that's why labor laws exist in the first place. The fact that child labor and unsafe working conditions used to be the norm wasn't due to it being impossible to make a profit without them, but due to companies having no incentive to get rid of them.

It's called a Taxi. They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.

You've clearly never tried to use a taxi in California.

For the majority who haven't tried to use taxis in California, what's the informative version of this comment?

Taxis everywhere are expensive due to constricted supply and are often unreliable.

Man I could tell some stories about that.

Rideshares have their own cost and reliability problems for riders.

No one is saying taxi services are fine as-is, in addition to rideshare ride being artificially cheap thanks to VC money subsidizing costs, they did offer real user experience improvements. But the rideshare services have also shirked a lot of duties and created new externalized costs for others to bear.

> They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.

The corrected version of this is "they will drive to your location some time within the next 24 hours, pick you up if you want to go to the places they want to go, and maybe accept payment in credit card".

Go on. Ask a brown person who lives by Lake Merced what it's like to try to get a taxi there from downtown.

Also, to be clear, I don't have a problem with this. I think you should have a right to transport whomsoever you desire if you can reach a consensual agreement.

But I don't think it's consensual if you ban the alternative.

If you live too out of the way, the taxi you called might never come.

> what's the informative version of this comment

Called out! But you're right, I should have been more specific.

I think it was covered well below: They are never around and have a low chance of coming if you call one, even if they say they are on the way.

Taxis sound way less reliable in the SF area than my experience with them in the Boston area.

I've only been to Boston a few times pre-Uber, but I agree. I've had great cab experiences in Boston and Chicago, and Manhattan (although in Manhattan they often pulled the "I can't take cards right now" crap).

Probably the most informative source

https://www.sfmta.com/sites/default/files/Draft%20ManagingTa...

Or anywhere, in my experience. I've never had a taxi experience that wasn't terrible. Even before Uber and Lyft came along. That includes several different cities.

In Ireland, Uber has never been allowed. Taxis are pretty good. We use an app called "Free Now" (Previously "MyTaxi", previously "Hailo") where we can book a taxi and pay through the app. It's more expensive than Uber but it's regulated so always feels pretty safe.

We also have some strict laws like a taxi must produce a receipt if you request one etc

flywheel is 'OK'. Better than it used to be before flywheel.

I love these comments like "you've clearly never X".

I have, in fact, used Taxis in California. Is it easier to use Uber or Lyft? Yes. Is there absolutely no alternative as the commenter above suggests? No.

We can have a conversation around why the Taxi system sucks, if you'd like.

Right, except now instead of having the option of taxis and ride share companies she can only use taxis which have artificially inflated prices due to constricted supply.

As opposed to rideshare which had artificially deflated prices due to a temporary infusion of investors money. Maybe push for more rational taxi regulations?

How did that go before Uber showed up?

The OP says they can't be profitable and you're saying they're too profitable at the rider's expense.

Which is it?

The OP says ridesharing can't be profitable, parent says taxis are too expensive. These are statements are not inconsistent with one another.

Taxis are subject to the medallion system where municipalities deliberately limit the number of taxis that can operate. This certainly increases prices for consumers. If Uber and Lyft aren't profitable the they run the possibility of going out of business.

The former is a definite harm to consumers. The latter is a possibility of loss for investors.

Taxis are horrible honestly. I'd rather just not go somewhere than use one instead of Uber/Lyft.

Most taxi's are 1099 as well... Almost 100% outside of the major cities. So no. This is going to backfire hard on the legislature. They should have done their jobs and created a new class. But nope. They went for the headlines.

This is a bit unfair. Yes, the public transit in cali sucks, but there needs to be a minimum standard with how we treat workers. Gig work was initially framed as a side thing where somebody going to the same area as you hops in your car and you share a ride. Like on demand carpooling. That is no longer the case, its people's livelihoods due to economic inequities and lack of normal jobs available to match the demand for jobs. Gig work should NOT be how people make a living, but due to reality it is what many people have resorted to and these people deserve to be treated like employees for normal companies. I have been in many ride shares where drivers drive from hours away to drive in SF or the bay area in general and then go back at night. They do this because their local economy doesn't provide an equivalently paying job (or jobs at all). Instead of telling people "hey go drive around endlessly in SF, hours from where you live. Also, you get no benefits" we can choose to bolster those local economies or we can choose to force companies to provide benefits. Either one of those options will make their lives better. We have chosen the latter, even though we should have chosen the former but politicians don't give a crap about people who aren't in the bay area, LA, or san diego. So they're screwed and forced to take these bad jobs.

> Gig work should NOT be how people make a living

I don't think I understand this. Why not? Seems like more options besides a traditional 9-5 is a good thing.

With how gig work is defined under prop 22 (pre AB5), its unfair. Look at the parent comment. Apparently these gig workers are insanely important, but they don't deserve health insurance (all of this is operating under the assumption that we won't get universal health care any time soon). People who are doing these gig jobs full time are destroying themselves (many work 60+ hours) doing a menial task with no benefits. That's not fair. My father for years worked a back breaking manual labor job and got excellent health benefits, reasonable hours, and flexible time off most of the year (not all of it though). All of this from a university that was always on the brink of collapse. He didn't make a great salary but there were other benefits. We cannot regress as a society where people are expected to work longer hours and do something more boring and dangerous (driving ain't safe, also sitting down all day is known to be bad) and expect people to not have benefits or a reasonable pay. Maybe you can't give them everything (reasonable pay + good benefits), but at least do one.

What should happen is there should be a UBI in place. Many people would stop being a ride sharing drivers and the people who want to be a driver for extra cash will be paid fairly because only the people who WANT to do it will do it, not the people who NEED to do it. Lyft and Uber and benefiting from how many people are in the second category. Its not Lyft's and Uber's job to fix societies inequities, but they shouldn't be allowed to exist solely on those people's backs.

1. If you think the public transit in California sucks, at least it exists.

2. There are many jobs available that don't allow the lifestyle freedoms of gig work (see the trucking industry, which as it turns out also has a long reputation for unfairly treating employees).

In my opinion, the US continues to punish employers, employees, and contractors by tying employment to healthcare. It's much easier to say: "Look at that company screwing their workers out of benefits!", than it is to say: "Look at our country screwing our citizens out of benefits!".

1. U rite. I lived in a part of florida for many years with basically 0 transportation and didn't have a reliable car. It sucks 2. You are right, but at what cost. We can't have people who are desperate for a normal life take on jobs that nobody wants with no benefits. These jobs are clearly important (see parent comment and many other comments), but yet we don't want to pay them fairly or give them benefits.

If we get universal healthcare, then yeah this problem goes away. But california can't bank on that existing because even Biden during a pandemic isn't committing to single payer healthcare if he's elected. What is California supposed to do? We need standards, its probably not fiscally feasible for California to provide healthcare or UBI for all, therefore this is the best option it has to prevent workers from being abused.

> Instead of telling people "hey go drive around endlessly in SF, hours from where you live. Also, you get no benefits" we can choose to bolster those local economies or we can choose to force companies to provide benefits. Either one of those options will make their lives better. We have chosen the latter

Well, no. Prop 22 would force companies to provide benefits, and the rideshare companies themselves are behind it. What was actually chosen was to just put drivers out of work altogether until November at the earliest, because the government deemed that the current compromise was not good enough.

The "it'll take time to make this change and so we're suspending services for a while" argument is just a PR stunt.

Even if you disagree with the law, Uber/Lyft knew it was coming - they've known for a long time now. Instead of getting ready for it, they chose to spend their time filing lawsuits (which were never going to succeed) and preparing for a ballot initiative. So let's not argue that the law itself "put drivers out of work altogether." - Uber and Lyft did that.

"knew it was coming" is hindsight 20/20 thinking. They've been fighting it tooth and nail the whole time. If prop 22 passes (as it seems it will), then can we really say we "saw it coming"? And likewise, legislators knew about the Austin precedent, so they can't say they "didn't see it coming" either.

Uber and Lyft could have spent the last 4 months implementing the necessary changes just-in-case if they had so chosen. They are choosing to shut down rather than sink time into work that may be unneeded come November. So yes, they are making the choice to put their drivers out of jobs.

By that logic, legislators could have chosen not to put forth AB5 and none of this discussion would be happening. Also, as I said elsewhere, one does not simply ramp up an HR org (plus whatever else) w/ capacity for an extra 50k headcount "just in case".

I'm not sure how you can pin this one on legislators. Legislators make laws, private companies (and individuals) follow them. If I don't want to follow the law, that's my own choice and I bear responsibility for the consequences. As for the HR org, I'm sure Uber/Lyft could have spent some of the $100 million they've spend so far supporting Prop 22 on such a thing. If they really cared about drivers, that would have been the thing to do.

> If I don't want to follow the law, that's my own choice and I bear responsibility

Sure, but the law is supposed to be in service of the people, otherwise it's no different from a dictatorship. The fact than some 100k drivers are in the prop 22 coalition alone should say something about what _they_ want.

> I'm sure Uber/Lyft could have spent some of the $100 million

How sure? More sure than the companies actually doing the due diligence of crunching those numbers to make such a large decision? $100M may seem like a lot of money, but consider that this was a one time spend, vs the ongoing cost of things like an HR org, etc

> that would have been the thing to do

TFA says they would only realistically be able to hire a fraction of current drivers (and the drivers themselves generally prefer to be contractors), and service reliability for riders would plummet to boot.

One could put it in different ways: if a driver wants to be an employee, then why not seek employment at a taxi/transportation company that works under that model? (amazon is hiring, for example) Why not put a taxi sign on a car and go line up at the airport with a zoned price model as a sole proprietorship company? As a software developer, I have the equivalent of all these options available to me. It would be inconceivable to enter a software development contract agreement with a company and then turn around and say they are now obligated by law to hire me.

It is a lot of unfair. So gig workers need to be taken advantage of so the parent commenter’s sister can have a more convenient mode of transportation? Why should they bear the burden of a city that doesn’t provide people with disabilities appropriate options?

I'm pretty sure the people you want to help would consider having a job a better treatment than being unemployed.

If California's jobs suck, move. Yes, it's hard but it beats the alternative of destroying more jobs through misguided regulations.

> Gig work should NOT be how people make a living

There's a huge difference between 'People should not be forced to' vs. 'people should not be'. I think your case is the latter.

It's been stayed as of 10 minutes ago... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227481

The parent post (from Lyft) looks hilarious in hindsight.

Edit: Added context

Some person with a legitimate concern about how this effected their disabled sister is not "hilarious".

I was referring to the Lyft post, not the parent comment...

I have edited the parent to make this easier to understand.

Maybe relying on the exploitation of others for vital services is a bad situation to be in in the first place?

I'm sure uber and lyft drivers are also extremely upset by this, since they are only being exploited because they are vulnerable.

The fact that these drivers cannot survive without being exploited and that your sister can't be mobile with out their exploitation is not a problem with CA law makers.

Its beyond insane that so many people on HN will jump through such tremendous intellectual hoops to justify the world that they exist and temporarily thrive in. These companies might make your live easier today, but the distance from where you are to feeling that exploitation is not as far as you think.

What a surprising decision made by otherwise wise and well respected CA politicians.

Why do you assume good intentions? It's more likely that this law was the result of campaign bribes from unions.

Unions want to have fewer (unionized) people employed at higher compensation. Gig workers go against that because there is higher employment at lower compensation.

"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you."

well said.

(Quote from character Lester Freamon from The Wire)