Uber Is Hurting Drivers Like Me in Its Legal Fight in California(nytimes.com)
nytimes.com
Uber Is Hurting Drivers Like Me in Its Legal Fight in California
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/opinion/uber-drivers-california-regulations.html
11 comments
It’s easy for me as a tech worker (safe) to point it out, but there’s been a gigantic shift to “woe is me” economics in the last 5-10 years. Inequality, wage gaps, slow wage growth, these statistics have spread and UBI support, etc. are accelerating.
I honestly believe the technology sector has had something to do with it. All the $8 an hour workers are tired of seeing some 20 something on the cover of Forbes after what (they imagine) was just a few hours of coding a silly flapping bird app. They also have no conception of net worth vs. liquid cash. Their obsession over the Bezos bank account leads to increasingly ignorant statements like “he could just spend the whole $100 billion and end world hunger!”.
It’s evidenced in statements like this about Uber’s cash. No mention of the fact that they lose nearly a billion, with a B, dollars every single quarter. The extremely competitive market they are in for talent leading to those pay packages. Similar to the discussions around rent control in my opinion, there’s very little substance. If you dig, it comes down to a simple truth - the prices are too high for me, I want them lower. That person has too much money, I want it.
I honestly believe the technology sector has had something to do with it. All the $8 an hour workers are tired of seeing some 20 something on the cover of Forbes after what (they imagine) was just a few hours of coding a silly flapping bird app. They also have no conception of net worth vs. liquid cash. Their obsession over the Bezos bank account leads to increasingly ignorant statements like “he could just spend the whole $100 billion and end world hunger!”.
It’s evidenced in statements like this about Uber’s cash. No mention of the fact that they lose nearly a billion, with a B, dollars every single quarter. The extremely competitive market they are in for talent leading to those pay packages. Similar to the discussions around rent control in my opinion, there’s very little substance. If you dig, it comes down to a simple truth - the prices are too high for me, I want them lower. That person has too much money, I want it.
Conversely, I feel like I keep seeing "woe is me" whining from corporations when there are calls for them to maintain even the barest pretense of responsibility to their employees. I've lived in both CA and MA and both states have rolled out gradual increases in minimum wage, with employers gnashing their teeth all the way and claiming they'll be ruined and need to start huge rounds of layoffs.
There has been a growing gap for decades now between productivity and real wages https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
It is only rational for the people being left behind - often the ones doing the labor that generates all this value - to demand their fair share
There has been a growing gap for decades now between productivity and real wages https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/
It is only rational for the people being left behind - often the ones doing the labor that generates all this value - to demand their fair share
Demand you fair share through the market and voluntary negotiation not through force.
which in the end comes down to the fact that wealth distribution is very lobsided compared to two or three decades ago.
People decry for this mainly because it is very hard, if not impossible for many people to gather more wealth.
People decry for this mainly because it is very hard, if not impossible for many people to gather more wealth.
True. My comment really doesn’t acknowledge that growing inequality is actually a problem. I guess there’s one aspect I see that I’m roasting a bit.
Things also weren't that great for drivers before Uber became ubiquitous.
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-dr...
https://www.nytimes.com/2012/05/23/nyregion/new-york-taxi-dr...
I'm sad to say, but the kind of person who chooses to be a full time Uber driver probably doesn't have a lot of better options, and math & diving into economic history beyond their personal situation is probably not their strong suite.
The thing is that I've seen this rhetoric also come from e.g. college students (about income tax from the top 1%), among others.
I mean, I get that wealth inequalities are disparate and that everyone wants more of nice things. It just makes it harder to sympathize with someone's cause when their line of argumentation boils down to "to solve the problem, just give me more money". I want more money too, get in line!
I mean, I get that wealth inequalities are disparate and that everyone wants more of nice things. It just makes it harder to sympathize with someone's cause when their line of argumentation boils down to "to solve the problem, just give me more money". I want more money too, get in line!
I'm torn on the whole gig economy topic. On one hand I sympathize with the drivers, in the precariousness of their work. And of course we all want to make more money. On the other hand, the businesses may not be sustainable both from an economic perspective and from a driver elasticity perspective if drivers are all employees (and especially if they're full time employees).
Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber / lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as "contractors" but not have people complain.
If the tradeoff are between:
1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the same time vs benefits and stability.
2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of business).
Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies both parties?
Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber / lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as "contractors" but not have people complain.
If the tradeoff are between:
1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the same time vs benefits and stability.
2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of business).
Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies both parties?
A setup that is better than the 2 above (I'm not claiming optimal setup):
1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status
2) Keep the drivers contractors, allowing them to work multiple jobs if they like.
3) Tax the income over 5mil a year more aggressively.
In the end:
1) Everyone gets healthcare. All the drivers have flexible working hours, and work as hard as they like. They gain healthcare,but they don't get better pay.
3) Companies like Uber can keep operating well. Only their rich executives get more tax.
4) Decouple healthcare from the job, lowering the barrier for people to abandon bad jobs and move to the next one. It has a healthy benefit for the economy as a whole, allowing the employees to vote with their feet on whether the business is good.
In the situation, both side asks for all the cake and eat it too. The setup above is IMHO a better compromise.
Opinions are my owns.
1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status
2) Keep the drivers contractors, allowing them to work multiple jobs if they like.
3) Tax the income over 5mil a year more aggressively.
In the end:
1) Everyone gets healthcare. All the drivers have flexible working hours, and work as hard as they like. They gain healthcare,but they don't get better pay.
3) Companies like Uber can keep operating well. Only their rich executives get more tax.
4) Decouple healthcare from the job, lowering the barrier for people to abandon bad jobs and move to the next one. It has a healthy benefit for the economy as a whole, allowing the employees to vote with their feet on whether the business is good.
In the situation, both side asks for all the cake and eat it too. The setup above is IMHO a better compromise.
Opinions are my owns.
To be frank, the healthcare thing is a US problem (admittedly this is about California).
But in countries where that's a solved problem then the problem becomes Uber/Lyft have no duty of care for sickness or holidays, they're doging other labor laws.
So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
Then again, most American companies are coming off as extremely parasitic in the EU, doging taxes, etc.
But in countries where that's a solved problem then the problem becomes Uber/Lyft have no duty of care for sickness or holidays, they're doging other labor laws.
So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
Then again, most American companies are coming off as extremely parasitic in the EU, doging taxes, etc.
>So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending up broke if a long-term illness hits.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
This is the major pain point. Uber and Lyft see their employees as contracters and thus do not pay their fair dues in maintaining the healthcare and social system (while still getting the majority of the benefits from it).
It might be more beneficial from a finanicial perspective for uber's shareholders, but it ruins the social prospect of the community as a whole in the longterm.
There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
This is the major pain point. Uber and Lyft see their employees as contracters and thus do not pay their fair dues in maintaining the healthcare and social system (while still getting the majority of the benefits from it).
It might be more beneficial from a finanicial perspective for uber's shareholders, but it ruins the social prospect of the community as a whole in the longterm.
> Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.
I found the social contract, but could not find anyone who actually signed it: https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ritherz/the-social-contract
I found the social contract, but could not find anyone who actually signed it: https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ritherz/the-social-contract
Well, I'm personally happy for you to not invest in the social contract if you're happy to not use any infrastructure or services in our country, including our power, water, internet, etc. and including our legal system after I stab you in the eye and steal all your shit, while I'm happily being protected by Her Majesty's Army, Navy, Airforce and our Policemen, Firemen and NHS.
That sounds totally fair to me, be free little anarchist! Wallow in your shit without sewers or water. Sounds delightfully rustic, but not for me.
That sounds totally fair to me, be free little anarchist! Wallow in your shit without sewers or water. Sounds delightfully rustic, but not for me.
Yeah and we see other parasitic anti-social behaviour like zero-hour contracts. The idea that basic protections are adequate is sadly not true and people with little choice in employer need to make a living that sustains them.
Shouldn't long term illness be covered by disability insurance then?
These are all insurance problems that eventually end up with the government being the most efficient end point, where the tax for them should collected for any kind of personal income, no matter if it is capital gains, W2 or independent contractor work.
These are all insurance problems that eventually end up with the government being the most efficient end point, where the tax for them should collected for any kind of personal income, no matter if it is capital gains, W2 or independent contractor work.
> 1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status
But this isn't a problem that Uber can fix. I too wold love to decouple healthcare from employment, and it doesn't have to be single payer: Something where people buy their own insurance from healthcare.gov would be fine for me. (Obviously employers would have to increase salary to account for the healthcare costs they are no longer paying.)
But right now we need to solve this within the constraints of what is available. Decoupling healthcare isn't something that's going to happen any time soon, although California could just go and do it, same as Massachusetts, they don't have to wait for the Federal government.
But this isn't a problem that Uber can fix. I too wold love to decouple healthcare from employment, and it doesn't have to be single payer: Something where people buy their own insurance from healthcare.gov would be fine for me. (Obviously employers would have to increase salary to account for the healthcare costs they are no longer paying.)
But right now we need to solve this within the constraints of what is available. Decoupling healthcare isn't something that's going to happen any time soon, although California could just go and do it, same as Massachusetts, they don't have to wait for the Federal government.
- Agree completely on decoupling healthcare from employment.
- But don't agree on universal healthcare and taxing more aggressively over x. Aren't people already being taxed about 50%, if not more. Instead of higher taxes to withstand astronomical costs of healthcare, won't it be better to work towards that problem by reducing healthcare costs and let people decide how to spend their money. Often seems the conversation is who pays the high costs of healthcare - govt, employer, insurance etc. but not about why is it that high and how can that be lowered. For e.g. I'd rather tax sale of processed sugar foods more to support healthcare for the impact they have on the healthcare system than taxing everyone who makes more money than x
- But don't agree on universal healthcare and taxing more aggressively over x. Aren't people already being taxed about 50%, if not more. Instead of higher taxes to withstand astronomical costs of healthcare, won't it be better to work towards that problem by reducing healthcare costs and let people decide how to spend their money. Often seems the conversation is who pays the high costs of healthcare - govt, employer, insurance etc. but not about why is it that high and how can that be lowered. For e.g. I'd rather tax sale of processed sugar foods more to support healthcare for the impact they have on the healthcare system than taxing everyone who makes more money than x
I agree. This shifts the curve so that the burden becomes lower all around. I just don't think this is realistically achievable any time soon.
If a business doesn't make economic sense without exploiting workers, maybe hat business just shouldn't exist.
Thats pretty dismissive to the problem at hand. Uber could run an operation with full time employees and benefits. The downside is that they would have to hire less people, those people would have to work set hours, and there would be a good chance they pull out of rural markets.
For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job.
Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.
For many Uber drivers, the flexibility is the selling point. You could work 60 hours, or you could work 3. You can work only during the weekends or during the summer and still maintain your regular job.
Like many things in life, this problem is more nuanced. I'm curious where it will go.
There's a lot of nuance at play here. To what degree are the drivers being "exploited"? There's no doubt that there exist some that rely almost entirely on app-based gig work for their livelihood, but is that true for the majority of them?
Finally, if an ideology can be quoted in a single pithy quote, maybe it isn't sophisticated enough to stand up to scrutiny.
Finally, if an ideology can be quoted in a single pithy quote, maybe it isn't sophisticated enough to stand up to scrutiny.
While that's true, where does that leave the workers? If we consider the benefits of the drivers, does Uber and Lyft going out of business help them? Seems like what they (or at least the driver in the article) wants is for Uber to keep paying him, but just pay more.
We could say the same thing about unprofitable startups that aren’t forced to worry about profits.
If a healthcare system is based on you having to get benefits through your job, maybe we need a better health care system.
If a healthcare system is based on you having to get benefits through your job, maybe we need a better health care system.
If the business is not profitable when following regulations and laws on employee rights then it will dissolve unless some group is willing to fund the red ink.
In this case, that long term may be self driving cars or the value of the ecosystem and install base.
But most American companies operate in ways that are extremely anti-employee and concentrate wealth at the top, if successful. Many of them could not operate in other first world nations. Could you image some employers you've had planning for team members to have an $11 hour minimum wage, up to 6 weeks of paid sick leave or up to 70% for more time, 24 days of vacation to start, 6 weeks off before giving birth and up to 8 weeks after (paid) for maternal and paternal leave, and more strictly followed regulations on worker protected classes/benefits/hours.
EX: https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/employee-rights.html
My employer could because they offer benefits close to much of the EU benefits package from the start, with relatively good medical/etc and minimal premiums. Could yours? Could McDonalds? Could Uber?
In this case, that long term may be self driving cars or the value of the ecosystem and install base.
But most American companies operate in ways that are extremely anti-employee and concentrate wealth at the top, if successful. Many of them could not operate in other first world nations. Could you image some employers you've had planning for team members to have an $11 hour minimum wage, up to 6 weeks of paid sick leave or up to 70% for more time, 24 days of vacation to start, 6 weeks off before giving birth and up to 8 weeks after (paid) for maternal and paternal leave, and more strictly followed regulations on worker protected classes/benefits/hours.
EX: https://www.howtogermany.com/pages/employee-rights.html
My employer could because they offer benefits close to much of the EU benefits package from the start, with relatively good medical/etc and minimal premiums. Could yours? Could McDonalds? Could Uber?
If you add enough conditions and move the hurdle higher you can always force some business to be no longer viable. If you make minimum wage $30 an hour most retail business are no longer viable. Doesn't really speak to what should happen or where the line is though. In fact having a higher burden probably benefits more established businesses over upstarts and SMBs.
If we had universal healthcare, it would be easier for companies like Uber to hire people on a full time basis, while also making full-time status less important to workers; a win-win as I see it.
> Drivers want benefits and better pay
Are you sure? California seems to be speaking for these people. I would like to see a middle ground where drivers can explicitly mark Uber as their job and get benefits.
Either way, as an Englishman this just strikes me as a negative side-effect of the terrible US system without single payer healthcare.
Are you sure? California seems to be speaking for these people. I would like to see a middle ground where drivers can explicitly mark Uber as their job and get benefits.
Either way, as an Englishman this just strikes me as a negative side-effect of the terrible US system without single payer healthcare.
Why not let the markets decide? If Uber/Lyft win this fight over "gig" workers versus employees, then it becomes a question of how much the gig workers will tolerate. If ride sharing is just not a sustainable income, people will find other work, and the number of gig workers competing for riders will drop. If there aren't enough drivers, Uber/Lyft will be forced to raise the pay to attract people. Good old fashioned free market economics.
Market forces are imperfect. Market forces decided child labor and unsafe working conditions were just fine. You can argue that you don't like some specific regulation or that its failing to meet the moment but there's plenty of examples of why "let the market decide" wasn't good enough in the past (as well as plenty of examples it was the perfect solution).
Markets should be considered a tool. Frequently a powerful and useful tool, but I don't think there has ever been a tool that's the right tool for every purpose. There are a lot of problems that markets just aren't a good tool for solving. If a problem calls for screws, put down the hammer.
Not to mention slavery. In fact a large part of what happened world wide in the past few centuries revolved around the slave trade. That's one example of what happens when market forces are allowed free rein.
Yes that's one view of it. That if drivers aren't happy with driving for uber as it is well then don't drive for uber. On the other hand that's true for the general labor market too, yet we do have minimum wage in place for a reason. I don't have a strong opinion either way, but I don't think it's quite as simple as let the market sort it out.
[deleted]
The real answer is that cars are incredibly expensive in many ways - vehicle maintenance, infrastructure maintenance, pollution, etc.
Taxis are often 2-3x more expensive than ridesharing because that's what the cost is to pay someone to drive you around, and maintain a private vehicle.
The solution should involve reducing the need of private vehicles. But that's a much bigger conversation.
Taxis are often 2-3x more expensive than ridesharing because that's what the cost is to pay someone to drive you around, and maintain a private vehicle.
The solution should involve reducing the need of private vehicles. But that's a much bigger conversation.
They're expensive because supply is explicitly limited by a license limit and the taxi license holders extract monopoly rents. On top of that they are often in cahoots with local politicians and form a symbolic relationships where politicians limit their competition in exchange for political support, with organized crime connections that are too petty for most federal investigators to take notice.
Actual taxi drivers are paid shit too. Often have to pay something like $3000/month to rent the license & car from the actual license owner as independent contractors, at the end of the month you end up with Uber-esque pay anyway.
Talk to a taxi driver and ask them how it actually works, it might surprise you.
Actual taxi drivers are paid shit too. Often have to pay something like $3000/month to rent the license & car from the actual license owner as independent contractors, at the end of the month you end up with Uber-esque pay anyway.
Talk to a taxi driver and ask them how it actually works, it might surprise you.
But at least for black car drivers, there was a sustainable business in place before Uber. Why does Uber get to destroy that?
Black car as a niche possibly, but it was also a very narrow niche. Taxis as a whole I'm not sure how sustainable it was. Taxi drivers weren't exactly rolling in cash. A lot of the ones I've spoken too were also exploited drivers that rents a medallion from rent seekers and they don't make much more than minimum wage if even minimum wage. Seems to be Uber just opened up the market so that it's more accessible and arguable better quality. So the incentives of hiring a black car is greatly diminished.
If uber and lyft disappears, some of the drivers may go drive black cars sure, but I think most will be driving taxis or looking for work else where.
If uber and lyft disappears, some of the drivers may go drive black cars sure, but I think most will be driving taxis or looking for work else where.
Yeah, from what I have read in most cities the taxi regulator had been captured by non-drivers and was pretty exploitative, and provided really bad service.
But I used black cars before Uber, and after. Uber made it more convenient, but at a big cost to the drivers. While breaking the law.
But I used black cars before Uber, and after. Uber made it more convenient, but at a big cost to the drivers. While breaking the law.
Not just more convenient, but also much more accessible. How many people had access to black cars pre Uber and how long did it take for a car to arrive? But besides that, most uber drives won't become black car drivers if uber disappears. Most probably won't even be taxi drivers. They'll go look for some other work (which is presumably worse, otherwise they'd already be doing it) or just become unemployed.
A reminder that one driver's story, while important and valuable, needs to be contextualized against the aggregate polling data (as imperfect as it is).
https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...
Unfortunately, until we actually have the election, this is all just anecdotes fighting against potentially flawed data.
https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...
Unfortunately, until we actually have the election, this is all just anecdotes fighting against potentially flawed data.
That poll is an exercise in false-dichotomy. They didn't ask "What percentage of drivers would like to earn at least minimum wage after expenses?". I bet you 80%+ of respondents would have said yes to that too.
Given the choice between "Let us be ICs" and "Uber/Lyft leave CA" or "Half of drivers will lose their jobs", of course the data is going to show people want to be ICs. That choice ignores the third option, which is Uber/Lyft treat people with dignity.
Given the choice between "Let us be ICs" and "Uber/Lyft leave CA" or "Half of drivers will lose their jobs", of course the data is going to show people want to be ICs. That choice ignores the third option, which is Uber/Lyft treat people with dignity.
Did you read the poll?
The questions were fairly straightforward:
"Thinking about your work driving or delivering with app-based rideshare and food delivery companies, do you prefer to be an independent contractor or an employee?"
"Even though you are not sure, if you had to choose would you prefer to be an... Independent contractor 58 Employee 42"
"Thinking about your own income, for you is rideshare driving/delivery: Your only personal source of income 19 Your biggest source of personal income, but not the only source 17 A significant source of personal income, but not the biggest 25 Just supplemental income, not a significant source of personal income 38"
I recommend reading through the entire thing: https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...
To reiterate, there is no substitute for a full election, and the design of polling questions will be litigated forever. But it's still better than a single heartfelt anecdote.
The questions were fairly straightforward:
"Thinking about your work driving or delivering with app-based rideshare and food delivery companies, do you prefer to be an independent contractor or an employee?"
"Even though you are not sure, if you had to choose would you prefer to be an... Independent contractor 58 Employee 42"
"Thinking about your own income, for you is rideshare driving/delivery: Your only personal source of income 19 Your biggest source of personal income, but not the only source 17 A significant source of personal income, but not the biggest 25 Just supplemental income, not a significant source of personal income 38"
I recommend reading through the entire thing: https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...
To reiterate, there is no substitute for a full election, and the design of polling questions will be litigated forever. But it's still better than a single heartfelt anecdote.
You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. It's not like the drivers don't understand the implications involved in the questions. Uber and Lyft have spent a ton of money making it seem as though they have no choice in the matter and will have to fire half the drivers and put the other half on rigid schedules if they become employees. That context will affect the answers.
The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
> You cannot take a poll in isolation like that.
No more than you can take a single driver's anecdote in a NYT Op-Ed in isolation. The argument is that the aggregate poll is better than the anecdote, not that it's the platonic ideal.
> The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
I'm not sure how that refutes anything, it's strictly additive. One question asks about the status quo, the next question asks about how they feel about a future proposal. Both provide pretty valuable data in analyzing the political popularity. And of course Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms, until now the legislators dictated it by passing AB5 (the current status quo). From the first set of questions, it's pretty clear that drivers polled feel differently about the status quo. Now Uber/Lyft are proposing an alternative.
No more than you can take a single driver's anecdote in a NYT Op-Ed in isolation. The argument is that the aggregate poll is better than the anecdote, not that it's the platonic ideal.
> The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.
I'm not sure how that refutes anything, it's strictly additive. One question asks about the status quo, the next question asks about how they feel about a future proposal. Both provide pretty valuable data in analyzing the political popularity. And of course Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms, until now the legislators dictated it by passing AB5 (the current status quo). From the first set of questions, it's pretty clear that drivers polled feel differently about the status quo. Now Uber/Lyft are proposing an alternative.
A flawed poll is not necessarily better or worse than an anecdote. I believe the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating (including most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they didn't get their way in court). Of course someone who wants to work will say they prefer the option that seems more safe/stable, and that's being an IC right now.
> I believe the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating (including most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they didn't get their way in court)
Honest question: what would convince you that a poll isn't "polluted by FUD"?
Honest question: what would convince you that a poll isn't "polluted by FUD"?
Mirror: https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytim...
Accurately describes every single conversation I had with every Uber/Lyft driver.
Accurately describes every single conversation I had with every Uber/Lyft driver.
All good points. But is it really better from a returns standpoint for Uber to cease California ops or was that just a ploy? If that move will make them the most money under the new regulatory regime, no one can compel them to operate.
I think ceasing operations was due to not having the infrastructure in place to operate legally under the new requirements. Uber is a big business and these are significant changes to how they can run their business, so they may need a long time to get things in order to operate within the new mandate.
They had over a year to comply since the law was enacted. And even more since Dynamax was ruled on.
They made the changes that they thought were necessarily for their drivers to not qualify as employees under the new law. Then on short notice a court ruling determined that they hadn’t done enough and the drivers would still count as employees. That’s the “short notice” aspect.
It could hurt their margins big time. They’re public now - investors want cash flow.
Prop 22 is the ballot initiative in California that will overturn AB5, the law that Uber is fighting against.
They have a huge uphill marketing battle ahead of them. Every time I see an ad for prop 22, almost all the comments say roughly: "I'm voting no because drivers deserve health care and sick leave!"
These folks don't realize (because the prop 22 people are doing a terrible job at marketing) that prop 22 actually requires those things to be provided. I think a lot more people would favor prop 22 if they actually read it.
They have a huge uphill marketing battle ahead of them. Every time I see an ad for prop 22, almost all the comments say roughly: "I'm voting no because drivers deserve health care and sick leave!"
These folks don't realize (because the prop 22 people are doing a terrible job at marketing) that prop 22 actually requires those things to be provided. I think a lot more people would favor prop 22 if they actually read it.
Most of what it provides are far less than existing state law. It counts "engaged time" only as the time a driver is actually carrying a fare. They're suggesting a 30 cents/mile reimbursement rate; the IRS 2020 rate is 57.5 cents/mile. CA worker compensation laws also provide much stronger protection for workers, crucially on a no-fault basis.
The pro-22 companies have contributed $110 million to the campaign. That's plenty to hire some good PR, and two orders of magnitude more than the groups opposed. So one could hypothesize their terrible marketing on 22's employee protections is because it has poor protections compared to the alternative
The pro-22 companies have contributed $110 million to the campaign. That's plenty to hire some good PR, and two orders of magnitude more than the groups opposed. So one could hypothesize their terrible marketing on 22's employee protections is because it has poor protections compared to the alternative
It certainly doesn't provide as many protections as being an employee. Hence the compromise part. The reason they don't want to classify them as employees is because of the onerous cost of doing so. At the same time, the people doing the work want the flexibility of being a contractor while getting some of the important benefits of being an employee.
So yes, it's a compromise, but it seems like a pretty fair compromise.
So yes, it's a compromise, but it seems like a pretty fair compromise.
I just read it. It sounds like the proposition is treating the drivers as employees via a big compromise, where the companies cover people falling through the cracks. Do companies typically offer contractors such protections? It sounds like employment to me.
Right now employment law says that if you offer benefits then you have to call them an employee. But if you call them an employee, the expense is so high for the employer it isn't worth it unless they work many hours a week.
This basically fixes that hole and creates a middle ground -- a person who has the flexibility of a contractor but the benefits of an employee if the work enough hours, without getting classified as an employee.
This basically fixes that hole and creates a middle ground -- a person who has the flexibility of a contractor but the benefits of an employee if the work enough hours, without getting classified as an employee.
[deleted]
I always wonder what % of people actually read them compared to those who just see a slogan and decide based on that.
Probably similar to "read headline" vs "read article"?
Probably similar to "read headline" vs "read article"?
Based on my experience, almost no one reads them. Every two years I put together a California voters guide and post it on Facebook for my friends. Many of my friends are very politically engaged, and even they have told me that they appreciate my effort because the don't have the time to do the research. I read the full text, I "follow the money", and I read the editorials from all the major papers in the state, if available, and then summarize that. Obviously I have a personal bias which shows through, but I try to use as much objective fact as possible.
It seems like most people don't get much further than the legislative analysis, if they even get past the headline. And the headlines have been getting worse every cycle. It's obvious that the people writing the propositions know that most people vote based on the title alone.
I'm the only person I know who reads the full text of every proposition.
It seems like most people don't get much further than the legislative analysis, if they even get past the headline. And the headlines have been getting worse every cycle. It's obvious that the people writing the propositions know that most people vote based on the title alone.
I'm the only person I know who reads the full text of every proposition.
Uber functions as a payday loan company. They take advantage of desperation to survive the next month to leave workers in a worse place than if they didn't use them at all.
As a contracted driver, you may be able to pay your next bill by driving, but once car maintenance and taxes come due you will have earned less than minimum wage, and would have made more money working at Starbucks.
This is why most drivers leave after less than 6 months when they have discovered they have been scammed.
As a contracted driver, you may be able to pay your next bill by driving, but once car maintenance and taxes come due you will have earned less than minimum wage, and would have made more money working at Starbucks.
This is why most drivers leave after less than 6 months when they have discovered they have been scammed.
Why not do what they did in SF for restaurant workers?[0] Add a CA Health Tax to your fare and give the drivers a public health benefit. If it means I have to pay an extra $1 on that $10 fare, so be it. They get health insurance and I still have access to a valuable service.
[0]https://healthysanfrancisco.org/
[0]https://healthysanfrancisco.org/
That’s why I and my fellow drivers were relieved when California legislators last year passed a law effectively requiring Uber, Lyft and similar companies to extend workplace benefits and protections to drivers, including a minimum wage and paid sick leave. But this is something the companies have refused to do, arguing that we are independent contractors.
The elephant in the room is that the only reason this is an issue is because we as a country have an ass backwards system where your health care is tied to your employer.
If we as a country think that there everyone deserves a “livable income” (and I agree), make corporations pay the taxes necessary and increase the amount, availability and access to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
The elephant in the room is that the only reason this is an issue is because we as a country have an ass backwards system where your health care is tied to your employer.
If we as a country think that there everyone deserves a “livable income” (and I agree), make corporations pay the taxes necessary and increase the amount, availability and access to the Earned Income Tax Credit.
Uber is a scam, designed to cream off lots of cash from drivers and investors alike.
If you're an investor or a driver, you won't make money, and you'll be out of pocket.
The only people who gain from Uber are the Uber Administration.
If you're an investor or a driver, you won't make money, and you'll be out of pocket.
The only people who gain from Uber are the Uber Administration.
These discussions always remind me of this MMM blog about his experience being an Uber driver:
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache...
This is one of my favorite quotes:
"Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would this company look like?" (the answer is of course that it would look like very much like Uber or any other ridesharing company)
https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache...
This is one of my favorite quotes:
"Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would this company look like?" (the answer is of course that it would look like very much like Uber or any other ridesharing company)
Good post, but I'm inclined to take all the stated numbers with a grain of salt. Not because he is lying, but because so many drivers have so many different experiences. Some are paying off their car, some aren't. Some of their cars get 15 MPG, some 35. Some drive in rush-hour traffic, others on airport or suburban trips. Some drive a few hours a week during surge pricing and if they get lucky can make more than what they do in their day jobs. Even the standard IRS vehicle deprecation rate is wildly inaccurate in most cases.
To me that highlights a more important problem - Uber/Lyft are enjoying the benefits of a massive data asymmetry. Neither customers nor drivers can make the right economic decision because we have a very, very tiny slice of the whole picture.
Maybe one quick way to start solving the rideshare problem is force them to publish this data publicly?
To me that highlights a more important problem - Uber/Lyft are enjoying the benefits of a massive data asymmetry. Neither customers nor drivers can make the right economic decision because we have a very, very tiny slice of the whole picture.
Maybe one quick way to start solving the rideshare problem is force them to publish this data publicly?
Another thing that bugs me is quotes like this:
> While Uber cries out that having to follow the law would hurt its business model, Uber’s leadership curiously neglects to mention the billions of dollars in cash reserves it has told investors it has available or the generous compensation packages offered to its executives
Do people not bother to do math anymore? How much do they think these "billions of dollars" would yield in terms of ongoing driver income, had it somehow been distributed evenly (even at the cost of feasibility)?