Hacker News Reader

Comment by toma_caliente | Hacker News Reader

The internet back and forth on this topic is interesting because I find it completely removed from how Uber drivers feel. Speaking from an American perspective, I take Uber and Lyft pretty frequently and I ask every single driver I ride with how they feel and almost unaminously they say they prefer being contract because they can just take rides whenever they please.

Most people, including myself, seem to be under the impression that if they are employees then Uber dictates how much they have to drive which drivers seem to not want. At least drivers I've spoken to in the states.

View on HN

> they say they prefer being contract because they can just take rides whenever they please.

But this has nothing to do with any statutory relationship, beyond possible overtime rules. Employees could also be structured as such.

For example, in 2000 I worked as a census worker, I was able to work whenever I wanted and do as much as I wanted for the day.

Contracting rules are very much on your side, being able to work the hours you want. Being an employee would give the employer more control over you. I don't understand why people don't get this. Contractors really valuable this flexibility.

> I take Uber and Lyft pretty frequently and I ask every single driver I ride with how they feel and almost unaminously they say they prefer being contract because they can just take rides whenever they please.

You're...really naive. They're telling you that because they need as close to a perfect rating as they can get or they risk being booted. Or they fear you're a 'mystery shopper.'

Do you ask service workers "So, your boss a good boss?" or "Is this a good place to work?"? If so, please don't. It was easily the most infuriating thing customers did when I was working a service job.

Edit: just to add on:

One, every person answers the same, which should be a warning sign on its own. It just so happens to be Uber's line. Warning sign.

Two, the nicest thing they can find to say is "flexible hours." Another warning sign.

Three (related): guess what is the hallmark of a shitty job listing? "Flexible hours."

My two cents. Got injured. I couldn't work a 9-5. Uber Eats and AirBNB paid the bills until I was able to work again.

Constant doctor appointments, pain, and medication side effects made a normal schedule impossible. Family would have gone homeless without the flexibility.

Whatever else can be said about them. I am grateful.

Pro tip. If you get injured. Get a lawyer right away to deal with disability companies. They will lie and screw you over.

My two cents: Drove for Lyft. Got T-boned by a red-light runner while on my way to pick up a passenger. Lyft wouldn't cover my repair bill.

Companies have been fighting since time immemorial to push risk and costs onto their workers — it's why hard-won employment law exists in the first place. The gig economy is in large part fueled by employer backlash to employment law.

In fairness, should they? It was your vehicle, insured by the carrier of your choice, with the coverage and cost tradeoffs of your choice. I would certainly expect Lyft to pay enough to make it worthwhile after all costs, including fuel and insurance. But should they be on the hook for the actual repair costs? If so, for how much? Should they repair a brand new Mercedes the same as a 20 year old Honda?

I get some of the drawbacks to gig-based work, but I think you have to realize that it does enable options that wouldn't exist in traditional employment scenarios, and SOME of the risk does remain with the contractor. No, I'm not saying Lyft has no responsibility in any situation, but getting into a garden-variety accident while on the road definitely sounds like a situation that's within the envelope of known risks when you decide to do this kind of thing on a gig basis.

I don't understand why Lyft has to do anything here. The red light runner is the responsible party.

Some states are no fault. Your insurance pays your car repair bill. Regardless of fault.

And the workers get flexible hours. You're only telling part of the story, making it seem as if there are no benefits whatsoever to being a contractor.

> Got injured. I couldn't work a 9-5. Uber Eats and AirBNB paid the bills until I was able to work again.

That sounds terrible, I'm sorry you had to go through this. In normal countries ( like the ones saying Uber should treat their employees as employees) you'd get sick leave/disability to leave you focusing on getting better, not worrying about putting food on the table.

I had excellent disability insurance. They lied to me until various deadlines passed. Refused to return my calls etc.

Lesson learned, get a lawyer at the start.

the idea that flexibility of employment is a binary is a tool Uber are using to shape the perception of the issue. Nothing stops Uber from offering security and flexibility, except the economics — which is Ubers burden to carry, not drivers.

Do you have any examples of companies currently structured like this? Employee contracted but work whenever they please?

Isn't it common in the transcription industry?

Nursing is one. Per diem staff pick up shifts whenever they want.

This is not one of economics. There are plenty of drivers willing to drive for Uber under the current arrangement.

This is a legal issue, a burden which falls to legislators and their constituents.

I’m not sure what you mean. Uber could immediately offer flexible employment in almost all jurisdictions within which they operate, the reason they don’t is because it’s substantially more expensive to have employees than it is to have contractors. There’s no legal reasons why Uber don’t have drivers as employees (with flexible schedules): they don’t because it would be too expensive, benefits are expensive, guaranteed earnings are expensive.

There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.

> There are plenty of drivers willing to drive under the current arrangement because they don’t have a choice: if you offered them the same flexibility but with the benefits of employment, they would of course take it.

This is of course absurd. Every driver has a choice to work for Uber, or to do something else. And they chose to work for Uber.

It’s not economic because these people are willing to work for Uber under this arrangement, despite having alternatives, and Uber is willing to pay them for services rendered under this arrangement. The economic problem is solved. The government has decided to step in and say that two consenting parties should not be able to engage in this.

It would have to be codified into law. It's funny that on the one hand they're vilified for taking advantage of drivers, yet are to be entrusted with offering a flexible work schedule for employees.

I don't think being an employee means in any way that the employer can dictate how much and when you work. It all depends of the employment contract.

>The internet back and forth on this topic is interesting because I find it completely removed from how Uber drivers feel. Speaking from an American perspective, I take Uber and Lyft pretty frequently and I ask every single driver I ride with how they feel and almost unaminously they say they prefer being contract because they can just take rides whenever they please.

It's similar to the role of tips in the US. According to everyone on Reddit, tips are evil and a way for restaurants to get away with underpaying servers. Everyone says this ... except the actual servers themselves, who prefer the current system because they end up making more than they would from a straight salary.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com