Rideshare operations are being suspended in California - <AUTHOR> https://www.lyft.com/blog/posts/ca-operations-update <comment><USER2> I dislike Uber and Lyft's practices as much as the next guy. But I also believe AB5 is a terrible bill and will be voting in November to exempt Uber and Lyft from AB5. AB5 was written to impose a 20th century employment model to a 21st century situation. As such, the bill is distorted that it carve out hundreds of exemptions to musicians, freelancers, journalists, doctors, hair stylists and so on and so forth. A bill that has to rely primarily on exemptions is no bill at all.

A much better bill could have written that could have created a healthcare and unemployment fund of gig economy workers by taxing Gig companies, without trying box everyone into the employment model

<comment><USER3> 'Ridesharing' (Which is a hilarious term for the simple fact that the ride is not being shared, the driver is not intending to go to your favorite bar. ) isn't a 21st century situation or solution.

It's not a profitable or a good force in an economy, it does not pay a reasonable wage for anyone to live on, it is not environmentally friendly unless done in large quantities of people,(which is called a bus).

Ridesharing exists to profit Uber/Lyft investors and management and is successful due to lower pricing than is sustainable. It is built on the back of loopholes in the law to use and abuse working class people and to lie about the true costs and profits.

The bill's exceptions exist to split apart reality from this subsidized artificial market (There are exemptions in most laws, purely due tot he idea that things are complex, by nature)

I see this as an attempt to make the Gig Economy pay all workers fairly in addition to healthcare costs and to put the onus on the company rather than their taxes. This would force Uber and Lyft to limit the number of drivers in an area by cost and profits, to deny those they cannot pay fairly. Uber currently may give you 100 rides a day or 1, you don't know which and you cant depend on it nor if you cant drive can get unemployment.

The hard problem is contracting work is not a known reality for most, they don't understand the costs. Dressing it up in pretty fonts and Ads makes it much like the alcohol or tobacco industries, you don't know the danger until you are very invested and nobody is there to save you.

<comment><USER4> I agree with you on one point, "ridesharing" is a silly word. I would call it something like an "Open Car Service".

The main reason I can't get on board with the rest of this line of argument is that it ultimately just comes down to paternalistic protection of the poor disenfranchised gig workers that you clearly view as being less than capable, rational adult humans. The number of gig economy workers has been growing exponentially for years? Somebody must be tricking them into taking this shit work, and confusing them about the real costs.

Gig economy workers have overwhelmingly spoken that they like this work, by continuing to sign up for it in massive numbers. Or at least that they like it more than their alternatives at the time. If it were some massive trap, don't you think the word would have gotten out by now? The ability to entirely set their own schedule and work as much or little as they choose is appealing enough to draw people in in droves, despite all of the downsides of this type of work.

Getting rid of Uber and Lyft completely throws out the baby with the bathwater here. It won't magically create alternative full time jobs that these workers will prefer to their current situation, it'll just make it much harder for many of them to have any work. Surely there are better incremental policies that could limit the downsides for many of these workers without taking away most of the positives for them too.

As with many far-leftist beliefs these days, I can't help but conclude that the driving factor for a law like AB5 is punitive anger towards successful, wealthy organizations. Just like with the NIMBYs using socialist rhetoric to justify blocking needed middle class housing, it's much more important that the organizations they see as the bad guys suffer than it is to maximize the overall, utilitarian good for the parties they claim to care about. I sincerely hope this way of thinking dies out, almost as much as I hope the current far-right way of thinking dies out.

<comment><USER5> Rational adult humans sell themselves into modern day slavery in order to feed their families, see the Qatar World Cup Stadium for example. That doesn't mean we as a society should support or enable that. That's a ridiculously naive line of reasoning. What is rational for an individual in extreme circumstances does not and should not automatically make that valid legally.

Similarly, if a market is saturated with under-paid over-worked labor forces, then you _can 't_ end up with humane, fair alternatives. You'll get those when you eliminate the exploitative markets first. Uber & Lyft didn't make new markets. They didn't create new job opportunities. They _replaced_ existing ones - namely, taxis, and they achieved disruption via unsustainable economics & exploitative practices. There's no reason to believe that when that hole is plugged that all "order a ride" services will vanish. We'll just have taxis again. Remove some of the barriers that gave taxi services pseudo-monopolies, and there you go.

<comment><USER4> Uber & Lyft are just about as perfect an example as I can think of, of the fact that wealth isn't zero sum. You seem to be implying that it is.

How in the world could you argue that they didn't create markets or job opportunities? There are probably 10x more uber/lyft drivers in almost every city in the US than there ever were taxi drivers. People simply take more trips, or have someone else drive them when they would have previously driven themselves, now that Uber & Lyft are so prevalent. People order delivery food from restaurants more often instead of cooking for themselves. This is new money added into the economy, yes a big slice goes to the corporations, but only ~30%, the rest goes directly to drivers for whom this is a newly available source of income. Apparently 80% of drivers do it part time as an additional source of income, which they wouldn't have a way to generate otherwise.

You seem to fit very cleanly into the category I just mentioned above, you're so angry about some perceived injustice of Uber & Lyft merely existing, that you want them to be punished more than you care about any other part of this outcome. And this is not a slavery ring, nobody is being exploited, so you should take a deep breath about that too. In polls drivers overwhelmingly express a preference to remain independent contractors rather than become full-time.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER6> " _As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated._ " ([https://prop22facts.com/lyft/](https://prop22facts.com/lyft/))

Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the state.

<comment><USER7> I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to _both_ apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving.

If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

<comment><USER8> >you can't be on the clock for two different companies at the same time

I mean, I don't see why not. Would create some inefficiencies. But I don't think there is a law against that.

<comment><USER9> When I was a BOFH, we had a guy working the night shift who would always be a little slow at getting processing done in time for the rest of corporate to show up and need their data. It was odd but I don't remember anyone looking into it.

Until one time there was a problem with one of the jobs (which meant other jobs could not be run) and no one had their data in the morning. He was asked why he didn't contact one of us for help and didn't really have an answer.

The boss checked the cameras to figure out what this guy was doing. Turns out the guy came in, started as many of the jobs as could be run in parallel, then _left to work his shift at another place_ , came back on his lunch break and fired off another round of jobs, left and finished his shift at the other place, then came back and finished his shift at our place (our shifts were 10-17 hours long). He was confronted and admitted it. I don't recall if he was fired or if he quit.

<comment><USER10> Looks like his job could have been replaced with a script?

<comment><USER9> Absolutely. I wrote such a script as a proof-of-concept and was yelled at because it was considered a 'security risk' for me to use company tools to write code (as a not-hired-for-programming employee) even though I already had access to literally all the company's data and their security practices were such that exfiltrating their data without being caught would have been trivial even if I never placed any code on their systems. The place was extremely dysfunctional and there were significant trust issues that were completely irrational and inconsistent. So a script that did this job was largely out of the question.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER11> Another group caught in the collateral damage is people in wheelchairs. Paratransit sucks in most places and where wheelchair accessible Uber/Lyft is available they provide a much better service. This is an especially vulnerable population because it's not like a wheelchair user can just find a friend with an accessible vehicle to take them to appointments, etc.

<comment><USER12> A while ago — and I have no citations for this — I read it was easier to just pay for private rides for every accessible person than to make NYC and SF's public transportation accessible. Yes, in perpetuity. Considerably cheaper, too.

Why then, go through the effort? Because they should be integrated into society like all others. I firmly believe public transportation has benefits beyond efficiency.

Something about a billionaire on the 6 train next to a restaurant worker and a wheelchair-bound piano tuner[1] strikes me as poetic and noble. Whatever the costs.

[1] Headed to my place.

<comment><USER13> Well, I don't have a wheelchair-bound piano tuner handy to ask, so I'll have to model this person based on other wheelchair users I've been acquainted with over the years.

So let's ask this imaginary person: Would you rather get free rides everywhere you need to go, or have to wait in the rain/snow/heat for the bus, feeling the stress of inconveniencing others with the ramp, and having to wheel yourself the rest of the distance to your destination?

That's if the bus arrives on time, which it won't. But keep in mind! silviogutierrez will feel better about themself if you take the bus! "poetic and noble" were the exact words.

<comment><USER12> I think that's somewhat uncharitable of a take. But fundamentally, I agree with you.

See my other comment. In this _ideal_ , the experience for the wheelchair- bound is comparable to others. Not the current embarrassment we have in New York, for example.

<comment><USER13> I'll grant you my take was a bit over-the-top.

The thing is, there are a few reasons why the able-bodied tend to prefer the experience of a ride-hailing app over public transit.

\- it comes to where you are, and drops you off exactly where you're going

\- you get a ride when you're ready to go, and not whenever the transit is running

\- higher chances of getting rides at weird hours

\- no risk of interacting with aggressive panhandlers, people high on drugs, the mentally ill, or people with bad personal hygiene

Public transit has significant advantages, as well: biggest among them, it avoids the tragedy of the commons, particularly road congestion and carbon emissions. It has salubrious effects on urban planning. Places with good public transit are nice places to live.

What I want to point out is that, every one of the advantages for the able- bodied are significantly exaggerated for wheelchair users.

I don't think it's possible to offer a comparable experience, due to the very nature of the disability. So if it's more expensive to offer the less desirable option, well, we shouldn't do that.

More expensive public transit means picking from the following buckets: less transit, more expensive tickets, less pay for workers, starving other municipal programs, or kicking the problem down the road with municipal debt. None of those are great; they can be worth it for a better experience (replacing old worn-down cars for example), but not for a worse one.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER14> I suspect that California is going to backpedal on this pretty quickly. Uber and Lyft are popular. Going back to taxis is going to be very unpopular.

IMO, if the California Republican party was smart they would make this a wedge issue in the next election. "Elect us, and we'll make it possible to use Uber again."

<comment><USER15> The State of California doesn't care about workers, they care about the tens to hundreds of millions of dollars they want from payroll and unemployment taxes, in addition to revenue from automatic withholdings for people whom would otherwise be below the reporting limit.

<comment><USER16> I think it's reasonable for a government to crack down on businesses where the entire operational structure is designed to subvert that government's tax code and regulations.

<comment><USER17> SCOTUS came to a different conclusion in Gregory v Helvering.

[https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gregory_v._Helvering)

Government doesn't exist to collect taxes. They are there to provide governance. Taxes are a necessary evil that should be kept to a minimum to provide the service of governance.

If someone can come up with a legal operational structure that gets around taxes then that the government didn't do its job.

It's only easy to get around taxes when the taxes aren't closely tied to the service the government is providing. i.e. when you taxing one individual or business for a service provided to other individuals or businesses.

<comment><USER18> Wait, the SC ruled in favor of the government in that case, overruling the district court.

<comment><USER17> "The legal right of a taxpayer to decrease the amount of what otherwise would be his taxes, or altogether avoid them, by means which the law permits, cannot be doubted."

<comment><USER18> From the ruling that the SC upheld:

"To dodge the shareholders' taxes is not one of the transactions contemplated as corporate "reorganizations."

And from the SC ruling:

"The whole undertaking, though conducted according to the terms of [the statute], was in fact an elaborate and devious form of conveyance masquerading as a corporate reorganization, and nothing else. ... [T]he transaction upon its face lies outside the plain intent of the statute. To hold otherwise would be to exalt artifice above reality and to deprive the statutory provision in question of all serious purpose."

If there's no business purpose beyond tax avoidance, the government can indeed hold you to the higher tax rate. I don't think that's what happened here, i think there are legitimate non-tax reasons for Uber/Lyft's structure, but it's not a completely unreasonable take to disagree with that.

And even if not, the government is free to change the law to fix things, which it did.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER19> Lot of my friends who work in non tech jobs use driving for Uber or Lyft as a way to either get a little extra cash, or bridge themselves across gaps in employment.

This would devastate them. Absolutely heartless move on behalf of the California government. Don't kick the little guys while they're down to make some political point. It's not the time.

<comment><USER20> The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.

The road to hell...

<comment><USER21> > The interesting thing is that this may not have been a heartless move, it > seems to have been, from what I can tell, a well-meaning move that is going > to hurt the very people politicians were trying to help. I feel like this is > a theme of the last 100 years repeating itself over and over.

There is a tendency to classify failed left-leaning policies as 'well- intentioned but failures' and right-leaning policies as 'heartless and also failures'. This is a ridiculous dichotomy.

The fact is that everyone knew this was going to happen. It was indeed a heartless policy. The leftist lawmakers that run california could have asked anyone and could have at least feigned interest in helping Uber and Lyft succeed in their state. Instead, they chose to essentially ban their business model with no input from the companies. It is especially egregious because the state has spent the last 50 years building an incredibly car-dependent society, and has failed in its duty to bring any kind of workable public transportation system. Uber and Lyft started to become their finally workable transit system, and the state can't even have that.

I'm done pretending that leftist policies are well-intentioned. We need to start calling them what they are -- evil.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER22> Kudos on that moral victory California. You robbed my mobility-impaired younger sister of her legs without providing any alternative. Fuck your sorry excuse of public transit filled with gawkers and requiring her to wonder whether there will be connected sidewalks for her to solve her last-two-mile trip on her chair.

"Oh, but Uber and Lyft were brought down by their own greed" Well, where is the non-greedy alternative in this market, employing legitimate full-benefit workers and serving their community while making earnest profits? 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?

If, on the other hand, if the math doesn't check out and there isn't a viable market, then what is being accomplished by this ruling? It's both shutting down an extremely useful service while taking jobs away from people who need it most, when they need it most.

This is a terrible decision that is so far removed from reality that it's almost laughable. While I admire the idealistic worldview of those who rule from above, this is a classic case of the road to hell being paved by good intentions.

<comment><USER23> 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.

<comment><USER24> > 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.

<comment><USER23> 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.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER25> We had this same thing happen in Austin when Uber and Lyft pulled out after having a hissy fit about fingerprinting and background checks and not parking in the bus lanes. As soon as they pulled out half a dozen alternatives sprung up that paid better (I always used Ride Austin, a not-for-profit). If you're a rider just take the bus, bike, or get any other cab service (seriously, they all have apps now and they maintain a fleet so drivers don't get stuck with repair bills). If you're a driver it's going to suck for a few weeks, you may have to find other opportunities, but more places will pop up and there will be better competition and better pay pretty quickly if the Austin example holds true.

TL;DR it's easy to flip out because Uber and Lyft are big names, but there are plenty of other good services, just use those instead.

<comment><USER26> This could not be further from the truth. As someone who was driving full-time in Austin when this happened, I can absolutely say this hurt both the drivers and the passengers.

The apps were extremely buggy for both drivers and passengers causing missed rides, multiple drivers showing up to the same rider, etc. Fasten paid the best, but it still would only be marginally better if not the exact same as I was making with Uber or Lyft.

As far as what happened in Austin, there were absolutely no good replacements and us drivers (at least the ones I talked to) were very happy when they returned.

<comment><USER27> Can you give us some anecdata and what the affect on riders pay was? Was it a significant drop in pay, or mostly poor service and inconvenience?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER28> The move seems to be specifically in response to the recent court order:

> Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday [August 10, 2020] that Lyft > and Uber's thousands of contract drivers should be given the same > protections and benefits under labor law as other employees of the ride- > hailing companies.

> The judge said Uber and Lyft have refused to comply with a California law > passed last year that was supposed to make it harder for companies in the > state to hire workers as contractors, so gig economy workers such as drivers > for the ride-hailing companies would receive health insurance, workers' > compensation and paid sick and family leave. As independent contractors, > Uber and Lyft drivers are not provided these benefits.

[https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge- or...](https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-orders-uber- and-lyft-to-consider-all-drivers-employees)

<comment><USER29> Interesting how cities are being allowed to violate the same by not holding their own taxi services into account[0] that they regulate thereby letting them skirt the law. This is likely because these companies tend to put good money into local political campaigns.

This law is impacting people outside of Uber and Lyft but those two are highlighted because it thwarted the lock down many municipalities had over cab companies and they did not want to give up the side benefits of that cash into their political coffers.

Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities and you can see the entirety of the political graft that was being upended. If you want more you just jump into that this is part of undoing decades of jobs bounded up in occupational licensing which only serves to protect vested interest who again are quick to maintain their political donations.

If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.

[0][https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s- gi...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gig-work-law- targets-Uber-and-14565001.php)

<comment><USER30> > Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to > unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities

No they weren't. It's called "mass transit" for a reason - replacing trains and buses with masses of individuals riding in separate cars is not an effective alternative. While Uber and Lyft are more convenient for certain trips, mass transit still has a place due to capacity constraints.

> If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it.

Such as what? Strengthening collective bargaining rights? Oh wait, you don't like unions either.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER31> Maybe we should have actually listened to the the uber and Lyft drivers (most of whom did not support this change, and I don't think it's because they are stupid and duped) and see why they wanted to stay part-time, work-as-you-want contractors, rather than just decide for them. Yes Uber and Lyft share some of the blame for cutting services completely rather than giving it a try with higher prices. But it's also yet another example of CA attempting to "help" people in a totally self defeating way (and more cynically, a huge handout to taxi companies, and a kick in the ribs of Uber and Lyft while they're struggling). Nobody wanted this except a vocal group of self righteous individuals and taxi companies

</comment><comment><USER32> Why can't we have a new worker classification that allows gig workers to have both the flexibility the job entails + better benefits/protections?

<comment><USER33> Better yet would be to have universal healthcare to decouple access to healthcare from being employed.

<comment><USER32> 100% this. This wouldn't be a political fight if people weren't worried about not being taken care of when they or a family member gets sick or hurt.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER34> I used to drive for Uber, a few hours a week during my downtime when I was bored and had nothing better to do.

The earnings weren't great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage.

I've met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders.

This extra income helped me buy more stocks and make just a little bit more progress towards my financial goals. These stocks are still compounding away.

I'm a bit sad that this opportunity is now taken away from Californians.

<comment><USER35> This is where the gig economy shines, when people want to use it to make extra money on the side or push to achieve financial goals. However, by your own admission you did it because you were "bored" and wanted to make some money.

Unfortunately many gig workers don't have the privilege. I'm assuming here but you probably had another job and benefits. There are many workers who don't, and are turning to Uber or Lyft just to put food on the table and are being forced into working without paid vacation, sick leave, or benefits simply because they have no other options.

I think corporations taking advantages of the imbalances is a race to the bottom. I believe we should find a 21st century approach to fixing these imbalances so that we don't take opportunities like yours away, but also work to protect labor rights/power that has been much eroded in the last decades.

<comment><USER36> What were these people doing before Uber and Lyft came around?

<comment><USER37> Taking similar gig in other industries, such as gardening, constructions, telemarketing and support, pet care, beauty industry, etc.

The gig economy did not start with Uber or AirBnB.

<comment><USER38> Except now with AB5, those populations are at risk too.

<comment><USER39> Nah, they're not. In the undocumented economy, there are lots of things you do that don't show up. It's not like you're filing taxes when you drive up to Lowe's and ask the guys waiting in the parking lot to help you with some construction. That shit is going straight cash-to-cash.

Those jobs are shittier (that's why people drive instead of doing them) but they will still exist.

<comment><USER38> Just go to upwork or similar sites and see how people are refusing to hire workers (including programmers) in CA because of AB5. This affected way more people than just drivers.

<comment><USER37> Let me rephrase that:

So they are refusing to hire workers because they are not allowed to misuse contractors to circumvent giving fair wages and benefits?

<comment><USER39> The funny thing is that he's replying to me, one of the people who has stopped using California contractors except among trusted relationships (which is non- Upwork).

I don't know what your experience is with contractors (I use Upwork - which is an awesome platform - extensively) but that's not it. The savings come from the fact that you don't need 100% of their time, you don't need to recruit, and you can slide easily along the performance vs. price on the scale.

One is when you want an expert: for instance, we don't retain in-house counsel. We don't need it 100% of the time, but for the short periods we need it, we need the 99th percentile guy. And we can't afford the 99th percentile guy 100% of the time.

And then it's when you want drudge work but it's spiky: like you need things labelled or whatever. Upwork is like AWS for people and it's _really_ , _really_ good for all the reasons AWS is good.

If I suddenly have to work out payroll and benefits and all that shit, that's instantly non-viable. It's all right, the world is a big place, and things I can contract out I can just as well contract out outside of California and eventually outside the US. 90% of the time I'm doing Anglophone-adjacent nations anyway. Americans are too expensive for this work and they're equivalent performance anyway.

And for the stuff like law? Well, there I'll go with the 99th percentile guy. I know he's powerful enough to get his carve-out (as he has).

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER40> Looks like they just got a temporary stay on the court decision: [https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1296520163441831936](https://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1296520163441831936)

</comment><comment><USER32> I'm not wholly convinced drivers were ever really contractors, but by what measure are drivers employees? We really need a third classification

<comment><USER41> You could read the new law, or a summary. It's not super hard to understand.

</comment></comment><comment><USER42> > Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that > 4 out of 5 drivers don't support.

Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?

<comment><USER43> 100% of the thousands of Uber drivers I've talked to over the past 8 years have said work flexibility is their greatest advantage. Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. If they wanted a FT driving job, they would've gotten one.

<comment><USER44> Thinking through this more. I've noticed that a lot of drivers work both Uber and Lyft (flexibility allows this). Would that go away in the employee model?

<comment><USER45> I would think so, no more running multiple apps as a driver if you're employed.

Because the pool of drivers for a particular company would be massively reduced as well, driver down-time between rides on their platform may be expected to significantly decrease, which was a major reason for running multiple apps in the first place. Basically the remaining drivers will essentially partition themselves into two pools, driving exclusively for either Uber or Lyft. I'm not saying anything about whether that's good or bad, but it seems a likely outcome.

<comment><USER44> Thanks for taking it a step further. I didn't think about that perspective but I could see it playing out that way.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER46> When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority.

So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and it looks like it will continue to be that way for the foreseeable futuere. I understand the Uber/Lyft may have had this a long time coming but it really is inconvenient for this to happen during COVID.

<comment><USER47> The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.

<comment><USER48> There are tons of people who could have replaced their car with rideshare and maybe some public transit, and still come out cheaper.

Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.

If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.

Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.

On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.

<comment><USER47> An unlimited use trolley/bus pass is $150/month in my city. Suppose I spend $200/month on gas/insurance/maintenance. The marginal cost of having commutes that take half as much time, to me, is worth it. Otherwise, you could be spending 30 more hours a month commuting to save $50.

<comment><USER4> Now add $300/month for a parking space in an apartment building, $10/day for parking in a garage downtown near your office, plus your car payment/depreciation of the car you're driving.

Also not all public transit trips take twice as long as a car. In many urban places (which is where any of this scenario makes sense) at rush hour a trip on public transit is often about equivalent to driving if not shorter.

<comment><USER49> Also, don't forget that you've actually got to drive.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER50> Pathetic... why not take the ~20% of drivers who put in 35h+ a week and make them employees to keep their service running and help their customers? ... Oh right because they can instead inflict pain 75 days before the carveout ballot measure they wrote.

They aren't the innocent victims of gov't overreach for us to venerate. They stonewalled participation in writing a better AB5, because they want no rules but their own.

IMHO This would be a great time for TESLA to spin up a 100% employee based human driving service in California and gobble up the demand.

<comment><USER51> I don't see how the TESLA model could work with human employee drivers. Uber is already not making a profit with their current lower cost structure. TESLA with more expensive cars and more expensive employee costs, will almost certainly also lose money unless they substantially increase prices. And at the higher price level, demand is likely to be lower as well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER52> Behold California! master of the Pyrrhic victory. Now we have more unemployment claims for CA to process. I'm sure they'll get right on that.

<comment><USER53> They weren't employees, so AFAIK they don't qualify for unemployment.

<comment><USER52> That was kind of my point. CA just took the work away and replaced it with nothing.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER54> This is why healthcare benefits shouldn't be tied with employment. IMO, that's the biggest thing contractors are missing out on by not being traditional employees. It's not like being an employee in the US gives you much more legal protection than being a contractor due to "at-will" employment laws. Universal healthcare decouples this critical service from employment, making _everyone_ more able to work flexibly.

</comment><comment><USER43> California (govt) is fantastic at making California worse.

<comment><USER55> Genuine question: what state government would you look to for a better model?

<comment><USER32> Not many states are in the position California is. No matter how poorly run the state might be, people are unlikely to leave due to existing business and weather. Hard to compare.

<comment><USER17> This. It's basically a hostage situation. With the exception of not enforcing non-competes, I can't think of a single thing that makes California great that is the result of government.

Hollywood is there because of the weather. The central valley is there because of the weather and the soil. The tech industry is there because of the defense industry in WWII and the importance of the west coast to the war effort in the Pacific. There almost 1000 miles of beautiful coast and some of the best National Parks and National Forests in the country are in California.

The geography and the weather is the root of why California is successful. That has attracted and kept talent and created a positive feedback loop between talent and natural resources.

The California government has the luxury of being able to be the most mismanaged because they don't even have to try. Tax money is abundant from all the economic activity and they have captive industries that would have a hard time relocating elsewhere.

<comment><USER56> I could not disagree more. I work for a film company and believe me Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years. Very little is actually shot on location in Los Angeles, yet it remains a center.

Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?

Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively welcoming to people from all around the world. Places like San Francisco (in particular) and Los Angeles have a very long history of being accepting of new ideas, religions, different ethnicity. Not completely, just more than a lot of other places in the US. So it has been a place where people with new ideas come.

As far as the state government-- yeah it could be better. But so could a lot of states. It is not clear to me that California is a worse run state than many others. Still we all should expect improvement.

<comment><USER17> > Hollywood has had nothing to do with the weather for fifty years.

It simply wouldn't be there in the first place had the weather not been as good as it was.

Part of the reason you're now seeing other cities blossom in importance in film has to do with weather no longer being as important. What continues to be important that preserves Hollywood is the concentration of talent, which itself still has as its root the great weather that helped the industry establish itself there in the first place.

While the weather may no longer be as important, it's the "natural resource" that made the region the epicenter of film in the first place.

> Silicon Valley is because of the defense industry in WW2? OK sure, but then > why not Detroit, Boston, Philadelphia etc. The aerospace industry was in Los > Angeles, but that moved, so why couldn't tech move?

I mentioned this exactly in the comment you're replying to and you ignored it. There was exactly one thing California got right and that is not enforcing non-compete agreements. This is why Fairchild Semiconductor spawned an entire industry and why companies like DEC around Route 128 did not.

> Here is my alternate hypothesis: California has always been relatively > welcoming to people from all around the world.

Agree. But government has absolutely nothing to do with that.

The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.

<comment><USER56> Sorry about missing your point about non-competes. You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it.

>> The California government is no different than a trust fund kid failing upwards.

The Government is a reflection of the people. California has a more liberal government than some states because the voters are more liberal-- in general-- particularly socially. I am fifth generation, and lots of my relatives are very conservative but still pretty accepting of different beliefs and lifestyles.

There's clearly some downside to that liberalism. You can see how countries in Europe struggle with having the taxes, the protections, and a healthy economy. But California tends to pull toward that model and other states pull to other models. Those other models also have downsides.

<comment><USER17> > You are right that is a big part of it. But I don't think all of it.

Completely agree that that's not all of it. Not enforcing non-competes is just the only piece of it that I can identify that can be credited to the California government.

I'm not arguing that California isn't successful. It's very successful. I'm arguing that California is successful despite its government and that most policies passed by the government are well intentioned but counterproductive.

We shouldn't compare California to other states because every state has different circumstances. We should compare California as it is to what it could be. You could get rid of most of California's governance and the state would do be even more successful because politicians wouldn't be messing things up. For example, there are reasons why California has the highest poverty rate when adjusting for cost of living and a lot has to do with well- meaning but counterproductive policies.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER57> When the monopolistic rideshare titans were banned in Austin there were local competitors within weeks. They kinda sucked for a few months, but by the time Lyft and Uber returned they worked quite well. They also paid the drivers FAR better, I heard on driver forums that it was easy to make over 20 an hour. Most drivers I talked to were very upset when Lyft/Uber returned, because they took over 50% pay cut.

With the technical might that is Silicon Valley, California only needs to hold their ground for a few months, then Lyft/Uber will become an afterthought

<comment><USER58> This really needs to be the top post. The fact of the matter is that there isn't anything special about Uber and Lyft, and the competitors that popped up in Austin during their absence proved that it is possible to have a viable business and treat your workers with respect and dignity by paying them well.

</comment></comment><comment><USER59> Am I nuts, or is the heart of this issue really the fact that our healthcare system is built on tying benefits to full time jobs?

<comment><USER60> I keep paying my health insurance premium at my home country just because the health insurance in the US is completely broken. I feel that if you get seriously sick in the US you're in an almost sure path to financial insolvency.

My employer pays probably a shit ton of money for my health insurance and what I get is the most subpar, confusing, broken and sometimes blatantly extortive service ever.

I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it would be just simpler to drive to Mexico and get it done there. In fact, that's what many people in South Texas do, so there's your benchmark for how broken is healthcare in the US.

<comment><USER61> > I live in Austin and sometimes I think if I really need a major procedure it > would be just simpler to drive to Mexico and get it done there.

This even has a name: Medical Tourism.

<comment><USER62> I wonder if medical tourism provides a capitalist solution to the healthcare problem in the US. Could it be cheaper for a health insurance company to pay for flights to and from other countries along with procedures in those countries? There are a lot of non-emergency medical issues which can be serviced this way. In the long run, such insurance would drive down the price of traditional health insurance as well as the price of the procedures themselves locally.

<comment><USER63> This employer is already doing that (and pays some of the savings out to the employee/patient)...

[https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/business/medical- tourism-...](https://www.nytimes.com/2019/08/09/business/medical-tourism- mexico.html)

Though, I'm not convinced that's the "correct" solution from a broad societal perspective.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER64> > the rest would have scheduled shifts, and capped hourly earnings.

I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements with drivers simply clocking their work and then getting some kind of salary derived from that? Can't they still get paid bonuses for driving in particularly unwanted hours?

Sure, this would be a complex contract, but I don't see how this is impossible. But I'm not a USA citizen so maybe there is something I'm missing.

<comment><USER65> Without scheduled shifts, drivers will purposefully all sign up for the same shift to induce supply overflow. In this situation, drivers can game the flexibility of the system to collect a paycheck while sitting in their cars doing nothing.

Even if drivers don't game the system, there will always be natural imbalance between supply and demand. Surge bonuses can mitigate this imbalance, but scheduling shifts is the more economically efficient way to solve the imbalance problem (hence why they say schedule flexibility will no longer be a feature in a driver employment model).

<comment><USER64> Then put some kind of system in place to have on-call duty, where you get a small share of the normal payment for being available and then getting the normal rate while you are driving to the customer and driving them to their destination.

All of this is already practiced in some place in the world. Sure, it's not as easy as creating an account on the app and off you go, but the driver flexibility of choosing when to drive doesn't seem to be so hard to me.

<comment><USER65> Drivers will still take advantage of such a system. Whenever a market is over- supplied, drivers will sign in to collect their free "on-call duty" checks for doing nothing.

<comment><USER64> That's what contracts are for. Let's say that you can only pass on some small amount of rides or your on-call duty is terminated. Or go further and state in your contract that you have to take rides if you're on on-call duty. If you have too many drivers, don't 'hire' more. If you have too few riders on the important times, increase the bonus.

There are all kinds of adjustments you can make.

Another thing: you don't get paid for "doing nothing", you are getting paid for dropping everything when needed. On these conditions you're limited in all kinds of ways, e.g.

Taking care of a small kid alone? - not possible. Going shopping? - not really possible.

<comment><USER65> Ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost efficient than what you're suggesting. Uber has a good idea of how many drivers they need at any given time. This ideal distribution of supply will never align perfectly with the supply pool's natural scheduling preferences. You can try to use economic incentives to force these two distributions to overlap, or you can just exert control (that you rightfully have over employees) and force your employees to work when you need them.

<comment><USER64> Yeah, I was a bit optimistic or even idealistic in thinking that Uber&Lyft are then treating their employees like independent contractors simply because they did before. I just want to stress that no one is really preventing them from doing so. It's "just" expensive and would need them to trust their employees to an extent.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER66> So you all want to turn them back into taxi drivers? Do you remember how crappy and expensive taxi service was? Ride sharing is not a career. It's sharing a ride to make extra cash. Yes, we are runnning out of actual careers, I get that. But turning gigs into careers is not the answer. UBI + gig work+ universal healthcare is the answer you were looking for.

</comment><comment><USER67> Not being from the US the only thing I don't understand is why does CA expect taxi drivers to be employees?

Here in Slovakia even regular taxi drivers can be independent contractors and it's perfectly OK with the law, a lot of taxi drivers here even ride for multiple companies (regular taxi dispatchers, uber, bolt, their own prices for longer trips)

<comment><USER68> Drivers are allowed to be independent contractors in California. But the law requires that the drivers be truly independent in ways that Uber and Lyft do not allow.

<comment><USER67> from what I've just read about the AB5 the one thing that doesn't make sense to me is the clause that defines an independent contractor when "the service is performed outside the usual course of business of the employer".

This seems that it can also force software devs to become employed if they just want to do a short-term contract for a software company and potentially affect other businesses as well.

In our country, we instead require independent contractors to use their own resources/equipment to perform the job while allowing companies to hire them even if it's their main course of business.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER69> Will be interesting to see how this plays out. Doesn't seem like it would be feasible to maintain all drivers as employees.

<comment><USER70> Definitely not feasible to keep drivers on as employees legally. Some issues that come to mind that seem incredibly hard for uber/lyft to enforce but are mandatory for California employees:

* Meal & rest breaks

* Callback pay

* Split Shift premiums

* Reporting premium (if you show up to work, but less work to do than half your scheduled shift)

The only way I see this working is somebody started some "Driver Pool" company that employed drivers fulltime and then Uber/Lyft/Doordash/Grubhub/etc all use that company.

<comment><USER71> AB5 explicitly allowed for flexible hours- it did not require "shifts" like you're talking about. It made allowances to give drivers the flexibility they want, but Uber and Lyft are upset that it also requires them to provide the option for insurance and that they'd have to pay into the unemployment pool.

<comment><USER38> They cannot be classified as employees to begin with. AB5 also harmed non- Uber/Lyft drivers, I came across several posts for programming gigs that said that they would not be able to accept offers from programmers in CA due to AB5. It's broken.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER72> _We don't want to suspend operations._

So don't.

Either give the drivers what the California politicians are saying all Californians should have as a minimum benefit, and then go to court to argue why Lyft drivers should get something else, or let Lyft drivers set their own prices as they should be able to as independent contractors.

<comment><USER73> Are they not able to set their own prices/minimums? I just had a notification pop up this week at the airport that the nearby drivers were charging more and I'd need to accept a surge price or wait longer. I'm not sure if this is just a clever rewording of the surge pricing policy or an actual change on the driver side. For what it's worth, it was after 16 hours of travel, so I wasn't paying super close attention.

<comment><USER74> That's Lyft setting the prices, not individual drivers.

<comment><USER73> Ah at least for Uber (unclear on Lyft) it is able to be set by the drivers: [https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your- fares/](https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/)

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER75> Thoughts on speculation that this will cause drunk driving deaths to increase?

<comment><USER76> It absolutely will increase. But this is tempered by the current coronavirus situation

</comment></comment><comment><USER77> This law looks like a hack to try to smooth over negative effects from the root issue.

The root issue is that health insurance is tied to employment, which reduces human freedom and distorts the economy in diverse ways.

Solve the root issue and many things become less complicated.

</comment><comment><USER78> Maybe some of the drivers can come together to create a driver owned ride sharing app. A good example of this is [http://www.rideaustin.com/](http://www.rideaustin.com/)

<comment><USER79> I haven't used that one since Uber and Lyft were briefly shut down in Austin. Didn't realize it was still a thing.

How does it compare?

</comment></comment><comment><USER80> Lyft and Uber work great for what they are: gig jobs. The problem is people trying to turn them into something completely different. If these companies don't offer the terms you want, maybe seek employment elsewhere?

</comment><comment><USER81> Just when the World is in dire need for alternative and innovative ways to create jobs, politicians find a way to stop them with tired and failed arguments.

</comment><comment><USER82> Along with the bipartisan trend toward authoritarianism is a bipartisan trend away from economic freedom.

Some want to hinder our ability to trade with Chinese firms or hire foreign workers, others want to hinder our ability to take gig economy jobs or operate our home as an Airbnb.

The idea that these authoritarians have is that economic freedom is bad.

Why not just make laws that very specifically protect the most vulnerable and foist the tax burden fairly on everyone else? It's a historical accident that employee provided healthcare is tax deductible and that workers comp and social security/medicare are funded by payroll taxes.

All of the quirky rules and perverse incentives exist because at some point in the past they benefited some established interest group.

There is a very disappointing lack of creativity and willingness to look at the simple issue at the core of all of these problems. We can't let the most vulnerable workers be victimized, but we must do everything possible to preserve their economic freedom.

I think UBI is the closest we are seeing to a meaningful rethink of how we handle entitlement spending. We need the equivalent creativity to help manage the funding side.

</comment><comment><USER83> I was really surprised by the 3rd requirement of the law to qualify as a contractor. Recall, the new law says that you can be counted as a contractor (instead of an employee) only if all 3 conditions are met [1]:

\-- Are free from control of the company in how the job is executed

\-- Perform work outside the company's normal line of business

\-- Are customarily engaged in this work anyway as an independent worker

This last condition is really unreasonable I think. Basically someone can only be counted as a contractor if they already do that kind of work as their primary employment. This basically forecloses anyone from casually offering their time as a driver, even if that's a perfectly efficient and reasonable thing for people to do.

If I were cynical, I would say that this is a concession to taxi / labor lobbies to protect their wages. Which I do not support.

Strange how Sacramento representatives, in trying to fix certain failings of current laws, always try to insert something extra like this while they do it.

[1] [https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm](https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm)

<comment><USER2> I don't think the third pillar is a problem. You can claim you customarily engaging in driving as a work. The primary problem Uber and Lyft are running into is #2. The courts think that drivers perform work within the company's normal line of business, while Uber and Lyft believe they are a technology marketplace and not a transportation company.

<comment><USER83> Well, on #2 I agreed with the court's analysis -- at least in how Lyft/Uber are operating now. These companies would not exist if not for being in the transportation business. It is a real stretch to divorce them from the aspect of cars driving -- that is their very business.

On #3, so companies would just ask the people driving whether "this is your customary line of work" and if you don't answer right, you're not allowed to drive? Or would there be some independent way this would be verified? Or is it up to the company to test how much risk they're willing to look the other way on?

<comment><USER2> I not 100% sure, but I am wondering if #3 the burden of proof is with the contractor

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER84> We also have a similar problems with taxi (and short-distance private mass transport) licences here in Turkey. However, we have learned a lesson from our history and solved medium-distance bus licensing problem, with a very thorough regulation (taxis and short-distance privately owned buses still are a problem, though):

      *Suburban and rural passenger transport on a route, within the same province regardless of distance, or shorter than 100 kilometres without regards of provincial boundaries, count as medium-distance mass transportation.
      *Those medium-distance bus licences are tied to vehicle and non-transferable.
      *Medium-distance bus owners have to get a licence called D4, which is similar in shape to a European intercity bus company licence, however, subject to a more stringent regime. I am going to explain that below.
      *A D4 licence is primarily intended for end-to-end and end-to-mid transportation. Up to 12 such vehicles is allowed to be registered to each such licence.
      *In case that there are multiple overlapping such routes, shorter route takes the precedence of transporting inside the common section. For example, if you want to go from B to C, and there is a medium-distance bus covering B-C route, and one covering A-B-C-D route, the latter cannot accept you (you could also think of this as a mandatory gentleman's agreement). However, if you want to go from B to D, you can take the latter without requiring a transfer in C.
      *D4 licences have their passenger capacity strictly regulated, such that you cannot have more vehicles than that, 100% demand at least one week's worth of trips each year, and 80% demand in average throughout the validity of the licence.
      *D4 licences are reviewed thoroughly during renewals as if you get afresh. It takes approximately two weeks to process a D4 licence application (one week in the provincial transportation coordination centre, one week in the national D4 coordination centre).
      *Those medium distance buses are usually operated by private operators, and allowed to enter the city centers more freely than long distance buses, subject to the restrictions above.

</comment><comment><USER85> Great, if this business is not feasible without workers rights, then it's not feasible business.

<comment><USER86> Funny how ridesharing companies have been successfully operating all over the world in countries that have _very strong_ workers rights (like Finland, Sweden, Australia, France, and about 10-15 others).

So the issue is clearly not the ridesharing business. But sure, I'll bite. Let's follow this to its logical conclusion.

So you kill Uber and Lyft in California. Great. The California elite can pat themselves on the back for protecting all those workers from choosing to take "bad" jobs.

But wait. Now what? How are you going to ensure all those unemployed drivers get healthcare benefits now?

Will you go after all the fast food restaurants where they'll be forced to work part-time now (also with no benefits) to feed their children? And then after that, the next set of low wage jobs? I guess nobody thought that far.

My hunch is, the people who cared most about passing this law don't actually care about the workers. They just care about the narrative, and the self satisfied feeling of hurting the "evil capitalist" boogeyman. Once the boogeyman is killed, they will move on and leave the workers behind to fend for themselves. Because the goal wasn't to give workers healthcare. That would've been a healthcare bill.

</comment></comment><comment><USER87> They had months to prepare for this, but choose not to.

</comment><comment><USER88> Stay order is here :| IDK what will that mean [https://finance.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-grants-stay- giv...](https://finance.yahoo.com/news/appeals-court-grants-stay- giving-190629802.html)

</comment><comment><USER89> Aren't taxis inherently an on-demand business model? Uber/Lyft just made the whole model online.

Wouldn't it have been sensible to enforce and regulate minimum fare thresholds based on ride and distance which can be even applied on taxis?

</comment><comment><USER90> A lot of people have condemned Uber and Lyft for violating the new law, but I'm wondering whether there is any correct way to apply the law. Does anyone know how AB5 has affected taxi drivers (who typically cannot set their rates), particularly those who use hailing apps (flywheel.com)? Are taxi drivers guaranteed minimum wage, and if so is it on waiting time or only driving time (like in the proposed Proposition 22)? Do taxi drivers get health insurance coverage? If Uber and Lyft instituted a driver cap (medallion), would this bring them into compliance with AB5, or is AB5 compliance impossible even with a driver cap?

</comment><comment><USER91> Update: [https://twitter.com/redboxwire/status/1296521405010386944?s=...](https://twitter.com/redboxwire/status/1296521405010386944?s=21)

</comment><comment><USER92> They spent ton of money to get me to install their app and consider it as an option. There is really no reason for me to use one over the other. Lyft, uber, some random taxi app.. Same drives are coming in the same cars.

Now they are motivating me to look for alternatives and actually give 'some random taxi app' a name.

this combined with "dont attribute to malice what can be attributed to stupidity" leads me to doubt their professionalism. I think this is a huge mistake. and if it's not a mistake but inability of the company to execute, then that's on executives.

<comment><USER93> I remember what it was like to get a taxi in California, even in San Francisco, before Uber and Lyft.

You called some taxi company, might get put on hold, told them where to pick you up, and they would show up anywhere between 30 and 60 minutes later. Sometimes they would never show up. Many smaller cities in California had no taxi service of any kind. And good luck getting a taxi home from a bar after midnight!

Uber and Lyft made it realistic for people to expect that they could actually get a taxi in California in a reasonable amount of time, pretty much any time of day or night. That's why people used them so much. This is not something the older taxi companies or "some random taxi app" will be able to pull off.

<comment><USER94> Back in 2010 I regularly used the TaxiMagic app and had more or less the same experience as calling an Uber or Lyft today, just a little pricier.

<comment><USER95> Where are you located? In Houston before Uber or Lyft I'd routinely get taxi's that wouldn't show up or would show up 6 hrs late. I've had a problem several times with taxi's being rude to my wife. And I've had several female friends who despite riding an Uber 100x more than Taxi's in their life have several times felt unsafe in a Taxi and never felt unsafe in an Uber.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER96> Shutdown has been averted by judge: [https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227340](https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227340)

</comment><comment><USER97> Is there a member/driver owned rideshare app?

If so, would there be an equity-based loophole that would allow it to continue operating in California under these rules?

</comment><comment><USER98> They got a reprieve until the election. [https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/20/app...](https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cnbc.com/amp/2020/08/20/appeals- court-grants-uber-and-lyft-a-temporary-reprieve-in-case-over-driver- classification.html)

</comment><comment><USER99> A sad state of affairs. Population loves the service. People lining up in droves to be paid to provide it. Government stomps it cause reasons.

</comment><comment><USER100> I wonder if this will mean a bunch of new car buyers in CA...which would ironically be good for the economy/recovery effort.

</comment><comment><USER101> I've met a few drivers in Seattle who offered their own rates via text pickup. I used this to get to the airport once. I wonder how many drivers in California were doing the same thing knowing this was on the way- get your local clients and build trust and start their own mini ride service- assuming you know how to use Venmo and the like.

<comment><USER102> I've encountered something similar here, where a driver with a minivan equipped with carseats picks up direct work (courtesy of "word-of-mouth" promotion through the highly powerful local working moms group on Facebook).

[note: I'm not being sarcastic about calling the Facebook moms group "highly powerful"—they have significant civic clout in local politics/business/activism.]

</comment></comment><comment><USER103> Imagine a distributed, open-source, bit-coin like version of Uber. There's no company, drivers get 100%, set their prices, and somehow a distributed protocol allows people to broadcast a bid for a ride, and nearby drivers could accept it.

It would

1) workaround the law, there's no employer, no company, and no one to sanction 2) be impossible to regulate or shutdown

<comment><USER68> That would actually be more in line with the law than Uber and Lyft's practices.

Currently drivers don't get to set their own prices and have to abide by other such things that don't make them independent contractors in the eyes on the law.

</comment></comment><comment><USER104> This seems lazy by CA.

We either have "full time = forty hours of work and tons of benefits that have been shoehorned into employment because our government doesn't provide it" or "part time = less than forty hours and you get abused"

I'm not privy so I won't pretend to have the right idea, but it seems like there should be a middle ground.

<comment><USER15> It's not lazy, it's _greedy_. The state is only interesting in getting a share of the Uber/Lyft pie via payroll and unemployment taxes. They would also get automatic deduction of taxes from peoples' paychecks who would otherwise be under the reporting limit.

<comment><USER105> Independent contractors pay both sides of the payroll tax, don't they? So there's no greed there.

Unemployment is a different case, but here, it would actually make the state liable for more money—it would be a pretty weird greed situation.

<comment><USER15> > Independent contractors pay both sides of the payroll tax, don't they? So > there's no greed there.

Not if they are under the reporting limit, which many drivers are.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER106> So, if Prop 22 is the solution to this mess, then it's natural to ask:

1) What do services like Uber/Lyft/Doordash (who are proposing Prop 22) currently offer in terms of benefits?

2) How do current benefits compare to what will be mandated by Prop 22?

3) If there is any difference, why? Is a state law required to treat your contractors better than the bare minimum?

</comment><comment><USER107> What's stopping someone from running a Lyft-like service "dry" (without payment processing) and just matching riders with drivers, with the expectation of paying cash or Zelle

I mean other than the fact that it would make no money.

What could California do to the developers of such an app?

<comment><USER108> Maybe an alternative model would be too charge the drivers a subscription fee. Could be a typical SAAS model where first 10 rides/month are free and the ability to work unlimited hours costs ~$1k. I don't think you could do this for free as the support costs are likely really high and support is super important when people are putting their lives in the drivers' hands.

</comment></comment><comment><USER109> California is liberal, but California is very conservative. It shooting itself into its leg.

<comment><USER110> Indeed, Lyft is shooting itself in the leg with this decision.

</comment></comment><comment><USER111> [https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft- win-l...](https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-win-last- minute-reprieve-Service-to-15499317.php)

</comment><comment><USER112> I'm curious if this issue would be as contentious if we had a single payer health care system? It strikes me that one of the major issues with this kind of employment is little access to health care.

</comment><comment><USER113> It would be better for society if the billions of dollars of capital invested in ride share platforms was invested in high productivity labor technologies instead of low labor productivity technologies.

</comment><comment><USER114> I wish all the energy spent on introducing business-have-to-provide-this and business-have-to-provide-that laws were invested in getting public healthcare and more affordable housing.

</comment><comment><USER115> This is the time to release the open source version of these services that let individuals set their own rate and communicate with openness.

Wasn't this a proposed example application of ethereum?

</comment><comment><USER116> Would Lyft/Uber stop operations in CA in the long term? Or is this just a ploy to get people to vote for their proposition? It seems silly to leave money on the table.

<comment><USER43> If operations are unprofitable then what money are they leaving?

However it's likely that without changes, they will just operate in a few core urban regions rather than the widespread coverage they have today.

<comment><USER116> If it's not profitable to treat those already working 40+ hours a week as an employee, then that's not a great business in the first place. We shouldn't rely on exploiting the lower class in order to provide basic services like transportation.

Personally I think the idea of being a contractor to loosely pick up some extra cash is a great thing, assuming this is effectively an extra job and way less than 40h/week. I don't know how common that actually is -- almost every Lyft/Uber driver I've asked are working 8+ hours, and driving into SF/NYC/DC/LA from a far away location.

<comment><USER43> That's your subjective opinion. Millions of riders and drivers think it's a great business, and full-time driving jobs already exist for those who want them.

Why should drivers not have a choice? What if flexibility is important to them? Why do hours matter they're a contractor? Should they not set their own time? Do you also oppose freelance writers or artists that work 40+ hours?

<comment><USER116> Should kids have a choice if they want to engage in child labor? Should people be able to sell their organs or children for money? Opt into slavery?

The reason why we have legislation that creates regulation is because there's a body of people trying to look out for the larger common good, particularly when existing labor laws are being skirted around. If there wasn't a problem of exploitation of this entire business model (not just Lyft, but also Postmates, Instacart, task rabbit, etc), then CA wouldn't be intervening.

If NYTimes and all other news publishers had people working full time for only them, but only classified them as contractors (so much flexibility! except when you need to make a full time living), then yes I would have a problem with it. In fact, I believe that would be breaking the law.

<comment><USER43> These aren't kids, they're adults. Some countries do allow voluntary organ donation for kidneys, pieces of liver, etc and it works fine (so yes that should be a choice). Slavery is clearly not free exchange of value.

Who's looking out for drivers? Do they have any experience of driving? Why do most drivers want flexibility and say they're against these changes then? Why don't the existing unfilled driving jobs suffice for those who want jobs? If drivers are clearly choosing to be rideshare contractors instead of other open jobs, why should they no longer have that choice?

If you're going to remove people's freedom then you better have an absolutely perfect explanation of what they're supposedly suffering from. If the best you can think of is that some people don't make as much as you want then that's just not good enough.

If CA wanted real change, a new 3rd classification should've been created, or offer public health and benefits pools that all contractors can pay into. Instead this is the same state that fines tax-paying citizens for not having health insurance but offers it for free to illegal immigrants. So no, I don't see how CA govt represents the people or has any idea about the common good.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER117> Everyone calm down, this called negotiating at scale. Lyft just got their stay. As usual, the effect of all lawmaking will be subtle and slow, so the average person will not notice.

Sigh.

</comment><comment><USER118> [https://github.com/Mayank0255/Resume- Bot](https://github.com/Mayank0255/Resume-Bot)

</comment><comment><USER119> How is it that taxi drivers can be independent contractors, but Uber & Lyft drivers can't? Or am I wrong and all taxi drivers are employees?

</comment><comment><USER120> So this is basically an admission that the ridesharing business model is not viable without worker exploitation?

<comment><USER43> People freely working is not exploitation. Full time driving jobs already exist if you wanted that instead of freelance rideshare driving.

<comment><USER121> > People freely working is not exploitation.

Just because someone freely accepts work, doesn't mean its automatically free of exploitation. Exploitation just means one party is taking advantage of another parties weakness.

Rideshare specifically - I don't think this exploitation is unilateral, but it does exist.

Example - UAE commercial builders freely attracting Pakistan/India laborers and then holding their passports hostage when they realize it's not worth it. [https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers- slavery/](https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers-slavery/)

EDIT: I should clarify - there are degrees of exploitation, the UAE example is an extreme (but used as an example because its so clear cut). My overall point has more to do with people "freely choosing to work" as an idea that people can't be exploited as a result.

<comment><USER43> You're comparing this to poor laborers held hostage?

Drivers are not forced into anything. They apply and can quit anytime. Earnings and fares are completely transparent. Their schedule is determined by them. Where's the exploitation?

Have you ever driven for Uber? I find it odd that so many people claim to know better for others without any experience of the situation.

<comment><USER122> GP isn't comparing anything. They're pointing out how laughable a maxim like "People freely working is not exploitation." is.

<comment><USER43> It's laughable to think that having your passport taken is considered "freely" working.

You should explain exactly how these drivers are not free before arguing to take their freedom of work away.

<comment><USER122> Your central error is in assuming that people work because they want to ("freely"), rather than because they have to.

If you can't understand why people have to work, I don't think I can help explain that.

<comment><USER43> That's so vague as to be meaninglessness. Everyone has to work to provide for themselves.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER123> When Uber tried that in Austin, competitors appeared quickly. When Uber started up again, some of them closed and some stayed.

</comment><comment><USER124> There are rights in the United States: life, liberty, safe working environments.

But there is no right to a business model.

Lyft is a business model that found a loophole in a previously regulated business and was able to combine a technology upgrade with a way to pay substandard compensation. That legislators closed this loophole is not a surprise. The exact legislation will never be perfect, and will probably not be changed if it is "good enough".

</comment><comment><USER125> If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors.

If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers.

The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have existed.

<comment><USER126> > If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then > they aren't independent contractors.

This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc.

And yes, the business absolutely can operate without _any given_ independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all.

Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time.

So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.

<comment><USER127> "Depend heavily" is different then, "can't operate without". Uber and Lyft would have zero revenue if you took away their "independent contractors". Literally zero.

Uber and Lyft have always lied about the nature of their business.

The first lie was that the passenger was, "sharing a ride". This lie was necessary to support the second lie which was that, "were not a Taxi service" but a "technology platform".

Your Uber or Lyft driver was not planning on going to your destination until you "hailed" them to do so. So it's not "ride sharing". It's a livery service.

But by lying both companies could ignore existing laws.

If it's ok for people to lie about what it is they do so they can skirt existing laws than I guess robbing banks could be classified as "undeclared venture capital opportunities".

Also why aren't predatory business laws ever used against VC backed businesses? Why is it ok for ultra wealthy people to destroy businesses by offering products and services at below what it costs to provide them? And to do this not for short periods of time but for over a decade?

In international trade this would be called, "dumping" and the US complains and files trade disputes about it constantly. Why? Because it destroys good paying jobs. But apparently if your a VC backed Unicorn and just so damn hip and sexy then everyone is supposed to just look the other way and praise you for "your genius".

I hope whatever you do for a living gets undermined in the same way, perhaps then you'll reevaluate what's actually legal, just and sustainable for a nation of people

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER128> Uber will benefit from this, since the demand will go to Uber and they could see surge pricing.

</comment><comment><USER129> DUI arrests and deaths will go up.

</comment><comment><USER130> Are they still going to run their global operations from California?

</comment><comment><USER131> Is there a recommended on-demand chauffeur service in the Bay Area?

</comment><comment><USER132> Not sure who wins here? It seems bad for both drivers and riders.

</comment><comment><USER133> [https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike](https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Capital_strike)

</comment><comment><USER134> Now would be a good time to launch the Tesla Network

</comment><comment><USER135> Why are Uber and Lyft stocks now down on this news?

</comment><comment><USER47> I wonder what new app will spring up in place of Uber and Lyft. This is a huge opportunity for some aspiring entrepreneur. Of course, they're probably bluffing and will be back soon.

<comment><USER107> Would an app that defies this order even be allowed on the App Store?

<comment><USER47> Who said the competitor has to defy the order? Lyft is choosing not to abide by it. Whether Apple would permit it or not, who knows, they tend to apply policy unevenly. On Android, apps can be side-loaded so no need to get App Store approval.

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER136> What a great example of a capital strike

</comment><comment><USER137> Hopefully lyft and uber will decide to move their companies out of CA to a more business friendly climate.

</comment><comment><USER138> Terrible overreach. So sad.

</comment><comment><USER139> Is uber still running?

</comment><comment><USER140> California has proven itself again and again to be really good at centrally planning the economic activities of individuals so I think this will work out pretty well in the end.

<comment><USER56> That is why the California economy is collapsing. /s

Everybody likes to complain about California. When I was born here it was about 15m people. Now its 40m. If you are unhappy, please leave to a lower cost, lower tax state. People have been predicting California's decline my entire life and the real problem is it can't handle the growth. Also, California has been sucking up employing the young and of mid-west and south for a century. Now those states get mad when "Californians" move to places like Austin. Where do you think they came from originally?

<comment><USER140> If California had the weather of South Dakota no one would live there. California is the state version of being born on third base and thinking you hit a triple.

<comment><USER141> If Texas had California's oil, no one would live there.

<comment><USER56> I think we should not talk about regions of the country like they are sports teams that we root for or against. Texas is very nice with lots of nice people California is very nice with lots of nice people.

<comment><USER141> I wish it could be cordial but that time is over. The very nice people of Texas are supporting a traitor inviting Russian interference, destroying a constitutionally provisioned mail service, and actively overseeing one of the largest wealth transfers from poor to rich in the history of the US. 58K Americans died in Vietnam. More than twice that have died unnecessarily due to Covid-19 due to purely political reasons. Situations of this gravity force us to dispose of the niceties.

<comment><USER142> I find it hard to blame Trump solely for the fact that capitalism has gloriously failed to provide anything in way of an adequate response to a global pandemic. And our government for longer than trump has been captured by our economy. A statement like "more than twice have died unnecessarily due to covid" is rather hard to take seriously. As if there was something reactionary anybody could have done to prevent _all_ the covid deaths.

</comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER85> Great

</comment><comment><USER143> What people are not talking about is how much congestion these services bring to city streets. For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1] and Lyft/Uber contributed to half of that. That is very bad as more traffic leads to more traffic accidents, more fatalities and pedestrians getting hit. In addition lets not forget the heavy toll on the environment with air pollution and its myriad effects on the area. All of this for workers making barely minimum wage[2]. Given the air quality in the bay area right now due to the fires this couldn't have come at a better time.

[1] - [https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf- traf...](https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf-traffic- congestion-increase-study)

[2] - [https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber- driver-w...](https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver- wages-20180518-story.html)

<comment><USER93> If Muni was any good, people wouldn't have used ridesharing. Ridesharing costs a bit more. This just shows that public transit in SF is so bad that people would rather pay more money for a taxi.

<comment><USER143> I agree about muni being bad, having took it for a while ago its really horrible. But in general people complain about SF and all of its public services, but do nothing about the clowns running the city/transit systems. Public transportation can work and work well, look to Europe for a blueprint. If you don't like the way the city and its services are run, vote!

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER144> If your business model is built upon skirting labor laws to employ workers, then perhaps you shouldn't be in business.

</comment><comment><USER145> It's fascinating how the subsistence wage is simultaneously too low for workers and too high corporations.

<comment><USER146> Imagine creating an app called "Clean Streets" \- basically people can put bounties on streets, other people can collect the bounty by picking up the litter. Sounds like a great little idea right? The app takes a 1% fee for server upkeep. Win/win, bored teenagers make some extra money and your neighborhood gets cleaned up... right?

Wrong. Turns out, people aren't willing to pay that much for people to clean up their streets - only $1-5 on average per job. Yet it takes an hour to clean the street sometimes. That is an abysmal hourly wage, how can you expect desperate impoverished single mothers trying to work 3 jobs to live off of this?? Clean Streets ought to give a living wage and full health benefits to anyone who signs up. Oh, except... just one problem... the 1% transaction fee isn't enough to fund that, and jacking up pricing just means people stop using the app altogether.

So yes, in theory this app is great - if you can restrict its use to only non- desperate people. But desperate people would nevertheless try to make a living on it, and you would get lambasted by human rights activists for exploiting the poor. Sigh, I wish there were a way for things like this to exist.

<comment><USER147> In this particular, specific case - there are. They are called taxes, and in most urban areas, they fund regular street sweeping.

<comment><USER80> Or fines for people who litter. An improvement that actually punishes the people who caused the problem and not those who did nothing wrong.

</comment></comment></comment></comment><comment><USER148> When Tesla/Waymo/Uber/Lyft roll out actual self-driving technology in the future and people complain "robots are taking our jobs!" we can point to this legislation and say "actually, no, it was the politicians"

<comment><USER149> Well, actually it was the margins that did it, but finance can be a little abstract when you're populist.

<comment><USER148> That's interesting since Craigslist has operated a rideshare marketplace for 20+ years and runs at an 80% profit margin. They've also never ran afoul of contractor vs. employee scrutiny.

Could it be that perhaps Uber and Lyft are simply poorly ran organizations who only excel at burning VC money?

</comment></comment></comment><comment><USER150> Yes, voters in the US want to give people education, healthcare, and unemployment (or basic income-ish) benefits.

Voters in the US also don't want to pay for any of this.

Hence, the politicians that get elected are ones that give people education via student loans, and healthcare/unemployment benefits tied to employer/employment status. Those politicians get to claim they helped people, and they get to claim they kept taxes low.

The game is to try to reduce your tax burden as much as possible, and don't slip up and end up in the bottom 3, maybe even 4 income quintiles.

<comment><USER45> In the US we pay hundreds of dollars in monthly medical premiums, thousands in deductibles per year, and still need to live in fear of surprise bankruptcy- level bills arriving if god forbid you collapse and need an emergency procedure at the closest out-of-network facility.

Absolute insanity. Yet changing this at a fundamental level is somehow considered radical, nothing we can do etc., except what every other western country has already done. We keep telling ourselves we have the best medical care in the world, which anyone who has lived outside the US for some time can attest is complete bullshit.

<comment><USER151> Don't forget how much higher your car insurance is because if you get in an accident it needs to cover someone else's $200,000 medical bills

</comment></comment></comment><comment> ur-whale When a good thing comes around, you can always trust a leftist governments to ruin everyone's day at some point.

</comment><comment><USER152> Glad to see Lyft taking this stance, hopefully Uber follows up. California shouldn't be outlawing independent contractors.

</comment><comment><USER153> if they can't afford to pay benefits and a decent wage to their drivers then they're just an unsustainable business! glad they "disrupted" transit and made it harder to build good public transit by giving tax-shy politicians an excuse.

And despite the low wages both Uber and Lyft continue to operate at a loss! The business model just doesn't work and no amount of softbank cash can change that.

</comment><comment><USER154> Good riddance. Hopefully this leads to companies that are less vampiric in their exploitation of labour. Congratulations on California for being courageous in this aspect.

</comment><comment><USER155> Lyft is being petty here. I understand that they cannot make all drivers employees, but they could have some drivers on the road and not pulled the rug on users.

This goes to say that you cannot trust private companies like Lyft for critical services. The government actually has been transparent about this change and Lyft is acting like a spoilt child, not even willing to try the employee route.

Lyft pulling the rug overnight is in bad faith.

<comment><USER156> The judge's order literally came last week.

It is not that lyft is striking, their product and process is not ready yet to do full time employees yet.

The folks I spoke to were all doing hectic work trying to build it out , my understanding is they originally planned to do this by November.

Even if the tech is ready , converting 1000's to folks full time is ton of government paperwork that is going to take time .

They first have to figure out who wants to be full time and who they want to be retain full time .

It is not like they were given a reasonable 6-12 months to comply and they screwed up . Uber is also in the same boat.

</comment></comment><comment><USER157> California needs to become a purple state again. Ever since 1 party supermajority has taken over, monumentally idiotic laws have come into play and there is 0 checks and balances. The media is completely biased as well so other systems of checks are failing.

</comment><comment> ur-whale What is needed is a decentralized, p2p, version of the Uber / Lyft app based on crypto.

If anyone builds this, there will be no way central planners (I use these two word to remain polite) can stick their nose in the free exchange of money and services between drivers and driven.</comment>