Hacker News Reader

Comment by greggyb | Hacker News Reader

An analog that sprang to my mind early in the article, and briefly raised with the comparison to Craigslist, but which I feel is more apt than Craigslist: eBay.

Some points:

* eBay can ban a seller for not following the rules.

* eBay absolutely requires its sellers to earn revenue.

* eBay can set expectations and incentivize behavior with its various seller-partner programs at different levels.

* An eBay seller may depend on eBay for their livelihood.

I am not proposing this as a slam-dunk against the case, but I'd love to see some discussion on these points.

I will state clearly and unambiguously, though, that I do not believe Uber should have to treat all of its drivers as employees. This does not imply that I am opposed to discussion or hearing opposing viewpoints.

Ninja Edit: Typoes (grammar-oes?).

View on HN

The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.

My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these arrangements, although I am not sure full categorization as an employee would be the correct approach.

>The article points out some aspects that make this a not so great analogy - in particular, companies like Uber set the rates, and put the burden of costs on the workers for stuff like gas, wear and tear, etc. Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.

These are very good points and I am glad you brought them up.

I think the rates and tips are very valid concerns here, but categorically different from one another.

I think that offloading costs to drivers still fits the eBay analogy, though it is certainly weaker. A seller must store goods, prepare them for shipping, and in many cases add value to the product in some way (e.g. refurbishing is common, which includes cost for all related equipment). Again, not a perfect analogy, but offloading costs to the seller/driver seems to bear some resemblance between the two.

Setting the rates is a strong argument in favor of a relationship more toward the traditional employee end of the spectrum. I think I need to think about this more.

As to the tips, I glossed over that section so I am glad you've raised it here. I do not know the exact details of the agreement between Uber and drivers as regards tips, but this seems at first glance to be a pretty severe violation of any relationship between driver and Uber. I agree this needs to be addressed, and a class-action suit does seem appropriate here. I think this can and should be viewed independently from any classification as partner/employee.

>My only opinion on this is that the balance should probably be tilted a little more in the workers' favor for these arrangements, although I am not sure full categorization as an employee would be the correct approach.

I think you're right on this point. I am still unsure as to what I think is best to achieve this. My initial reaction is to ensure that there is an environment where competitors are likely; I believe a strict requirement on the type of relationship between company and driver will only hamper this (limit the type of relationships => limit the viable business models => limit the possible solution space).

I think the real point of challenging Uber is this: they can either set the rates or they can push the cost of materials on to drivers, but they can't do both.

That is, they must either embrace the full employee or full contractor package, and not just take the parts they like of each with none of the liabilities.

Do you think that it is really that binary?

I think that this quote from the article is apt:

>U.S. District Judge Vince Chhabria, who is overseeing the Lyft case, said that existing labor law doesn’t map well with these companies’ business models. Lyft drivers don’t seem exactly like employees or independent contractors, he wrote in his motion. “The jury in this case will be handed a square peg and asked to choose between two round holes,”

Just because we have two clearly delineated buckets to drop people into doesn't mean that these accurately describe those individuals.

Running a business that relies on questionable legal intrepretations doesn't necessarily have to be something we support.

That Uber set themselves up in such a way that they can't relate to their workers in a clearly legal way is suspicious -- which is exactly the accusation: they're dodging liabilities they should have by making up their own kind of square peg.

> Uber in particular is taking half of the tips according to the article, which sounds unethical.

I don't really understand this - I've never tipped an uber driver, their interface doesn't even support it. What are they talking about?

I was wondering the same thing -- I've tipped a few times but it's always been a couple bucks cash since I've never seen any option for it in the interface. Maybe there used to be a way to tip from the app that they've since removed due to such complaints?

When customers use Uber, they have no real choice in the drivers they are getting, unlike eBay or Craigslist, where they can comparison shop and choose based on seller ratings, product/seller descriptions, and prices. With Uber, you just press a button and Uber gives you a driver that is assigned to you, at a rate that Uber defines. The consumer is penalized for canceling the trip (you can usually get the cancellation fee waived if you have a good reason, i.e. "the driver didn't arrive for 20 minutes and seemed confused when I called them")

Rather than merely being a medium for connecting drivers and passengers, Uber the controller of these transactions, and is assuming the role as the provider of the services.

There are many other reasons that the eBay/Uber comparison is invalid, which other commenters have given. And, like the original author said, Uber drivers fail the IRS's 20 point test spectacularly.

> The consumer is penalized for canceling the trip (you can usually get the cancellation fee waived if you have a good reason, i.e. "the driver didn't arrive for 20 minutes and seemed confused when I called them")

As somebody who has only used Lyft, this is yet another reason why I won't even touch Uber. I've cancelled many times because a driver accepted a request while sitting in their house and then wasted my time while they (presumably) sat on their ass and watched TV. I've also had drivers call me and ask me to cancel because their car broke down or the app on their phone locked up. I don't want to have to call support and argue with them to waive a fee every time this happens.

(oh, and your whole comment was spot on... I was just so shocked when you wrote that Uber operates like that that I had to say something)

> they have no real choice in the drivers they are getting

Have you used Uber? That's a feature. I don't want to comparison shop on Uber; I'm performing a quick action in real-time, often on a busy street or at an airport after a long flight. Plus it's not like you have this huge pool of drivers to compare--at least the times I've used it. People don't want to put huge amounts of effort into a transient experience that gets them from A to B. Now shopping for that antique armoire, of course.

> Uber drivers fail the IRS's 20 point test spectacularly

Interestingly removing drivers for bad ratings and customer complaints were reasons they gave for failing the IRS test, so I guess no one will ever be satisfied. If Uber is so awful, don't use the service. I mean, barring ISPs, I generally don't use products & services I hate.

eBay doesn't require any mandatory training, nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings. However, the biggest difference is this: eBay doesn't set prices. It charges fees to sellers for the use of its service, but doesn't dictate the price of the items you sell.

I agree on the pricing issue and I am still thinking about that (see reply to sibling for more thoughts there).

>nor are eBay sellers compelled to make a minimum amount of listings.

It is my understanding that an Uber driver can choose when and how often to drive for Uber. Looking through the other comments on this article, that seems to be a common understanding. If this is incorrect I'd love to know and see a source for it.

From the article (EDIT: emphasis mine):

"Uber screened and trained its drivers, and drivers could get deactivated by Uber for having their rating dip below what local managers set as a cut-off, for not accepting a certain percentage of trip requests, or for customer complaints.

Trip requests only come in when the driver has marked themselves as available. Uber will often offer a guaranteed minimum for a given night if you mark yourself as available. The cut-off is to remove folks from the pool who sit at home declining rides while claiming to be available.

This was my understanding (not to mention how the article reads). Thank you for clarifying.

Not to be pedantic, but do you have a source handy that indicates this? I would just like to have one for reference.

Unfortunately I'm not able to find a public source to confirm that. My information comes purely from knowing and hanging out with drivers.

See sibling. The highlighted section would be equivalent (using my analogy from above), to eBay banning a seller who repeatedly offers items, but does not deliver them upon sale.

You don't defraud eBay/customers by saying you have a good when you don't actually have it, and you don't defraud Uber/customers by saying you are available to drive when you actually aren't.

You can choose when to offer an item for sale, and when you choose to be available to give rides for Uber.

eBay has other restrictions, though. For example, there are caps to how much you can sell when you start out. I think these companies should be allowed to set these types of restrictions to protect consumers.

eBay doesn't set prices because it would be too onerous with the variation of items. It's more economical for them to have the market dictate pricing. Also, when I was a contractor using an agency to find work, I wasn't able to set my price for their clients. I'm fine with that because I traded my ability to set pricing for someone to find work for me.

>I do not believe Uber should have to treat all of its drivers as employees.

I think they should, because currently it's very hard to live a life as an uninsured contract worker unless you are married to someone with health insurance.

I think the ultimate solution to this is to do away with distinctions between W-2 and 1099-MISC income, and really only have investment income vs. wage income.

Not all of Uber's drivers are "full time." UberX and its similar offerings are open to anyone with a car who wants to give a ride.

The incredible value of Uber and similar is not that they are a better way to hail a traditional cab. That is not disruptive, and doesn't create huge value. At most a better way to hail traditional taxis smooths the process a little bit.

The huge value that Uber and similar create is in allowing a very low friction means to utilize the millions of private cars that otherwise carry few people and sit idle >90% of the time. This provides value to drivers (defray an expensive and largely fixed cost) and to riders (higher availability than traditional taxis). This value-add is primarily due to the low friction to providing marginal rides.

If every driver is an employee, then you destroy the marginal ride benefit and turn Uber and its ilk into just another traditional taxi service, just with a better hailing app.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com