
Uber Is Hurting Drivers Like Me in Its Legal Fight in California - gkop
https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/opinion/uber-drivers-california-regulations.html
======
lhorie
I have a hard time coming to terms with the dichotomy between drivers saying
they used to be able to make a lot of money before Uber and riders saying that
getting a cab then was a nightmare if they even managed to get one.

Another thing that bugs me is quotes like this:

> While Uber cries out that having to follow the law would hurt its business
> model, Uber’s leadership curiously neglects to mention the billions of
> dollars in cash reserves it has told investors it has available or the
> generous compensation packages offered to its executives

Do people not bother to do math anymore? How much do they think these
"billions of dollars" would yield in terms of ongoing driver income, had it
somehow been distributed evenly (even at the cost of feasibility)?

~~~
sjtindell
It’s easy for me as a tech worker (safe) to point it out, but there’s been a
gigantic shift to “woe is me” economics in the last 5-10 years. Inequality,
wage gaps, slow wage growth, these statistics have spread and UBI support,
etc. are accelerating.

I honestly believe the technology sector has had something to do with it. All
the $8 an hour workers are tired of seeing some 20 something on the cover of
Forbes after what (they imagine) was just a few hours of coding a silly
flapping bird app. They also have no conception of net worth vs. liquid cash.
Their obsession over the Bezos bank account leads to increasingly ignorant
statements like “he could just spend the whole $100 billion and end world
hunger!”.

It’s evidenced in statements like this about Uber’s cash. No mention of the
fact that they lose nearly a billion, with a B, dollars every single quarter.
The extremely competitive market they are in for talent leading to those pay
packages. Similar to the discussions around rent control in my opinion,
there’s very little substance. If you dig, it comes down to a simple truth -
the prices are too high for me, I want them lower. That person has too much
money, I want it.

~~~
content_sesh
Conversely, I feel like I keep seeing "woe is me" whining from corporations
when there are calls for them to maintain even the barest pretense of
responsibility to their employees. I've lived in both CA and MA and both
states have rolled out gradual increases in minimum wage, with employers
gnashing their teeth all the way and claiming they'll be ruined and need to
start huge rounds of layoffs.

There has been a growing gap for decades now between productivity and real
wages [https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-
gap/](https://www.epi.org/productivity-pay-gap/)

It is only rational for the people being left behind - often the ones doing
the labor that generates all this value - to demand their fair share

~~~
dantheman
Demand you fair share through the market and voluntary negotiation not through
force.

------
yibg
I'm torn on the whole gig economy topic. On one hand I sympathize with the
drivers, in the precariousness of their work. And of course we all want to
make more money. On the other hand, the businesses may not be sustainable both
from an economic perspective and from a driver elasticity perspective if
drivers are all employees (and especially if they're full time employees).

Both sides seems to want their cake and eat it too. Drivers want benefits and
better pay, but also the flexibility to pick their own hours and have uber /
lyft be in business long term. Uber and Lyft want to keep drivers as
"contractors" but not have people complain.

If the tradeoff are between:

1) flexible schedule and being able to work for multiple gig companies at the
same time vs benefits and stability.

2) Making more money vs leaving uber / lyft in a position where they can be a
sustainable business (I assume most drivers don't want them to go out of
business).

Then where is the balance point? And is there another setup that satisfies
both parties?

~~~
thanhhaimai
A setup that is better than the 2 above (I'm not claiming optimal setup):

1) Universal Healthcare, regardless of employment status

2) Keep the drivers contractors, allowing them to work multiple jobs if they
like.

3) Tax the income over 5mil a year more aggressively.

In the end:

1) Everyone gets healthcare. All the drivers have flexible working hours, and
work as hard as they like. They gain healthcare,but they don't get better pay.

3) Companies like Uber can keep operating well. Only their rich executives get
more tax.

4) Decouple healthcare from the job, lowering the barrier for people to
abandon bad jobs and move to the next one. It has a healthy benefit for the
economy as a whole, allowing the employees to vote with their feet on whether
the business is good.

In the situation, both side asks for all the cake and eat it too. The setup
above is IMHO a better compromise.

Opinions are my owns.

~~~
mattmanser
To be frank, the healthcare thing is a US problem (admittedly this is about
California).

But in countries where that's a solved problem then the problem becomes
Uber/Lyft have no duty of care for sickness or holidays, they're doging other
labor laws.

So in the UK, the gig economy argument is focused on that instead, no
sickness/holiday pay means drivers are working when they shouldn't, or ending
up broke if a long-term illness hits.

There's even been contractors being fined for being sick because they're
unable to do deliveries. Which fundamentally goes against the social contract
companies are supposed to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.

Then again, most American companies are coming off as extremely parasitic in
the EU, doging taxes, etc.

~~~
rs999gti
> Which fundamentally goes against the social contract companies are supposed
> to have in the EU, making them very parasitic.

I found the social contract, but could not find anyone who actually signed it:
[https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ritherz/the-social-
contract](https://steemit.com/anarchism/@ritherz/the-social-contract)

~~~
mattmanser
Well, I'm personally happy for you to not invest in the social contract if
you're happy to not use any infrastructure or services in our country,
including our power, water, internet, etc. and including our legal system
after I stab you in the eye and steal all your shit, while I'm happily being
protected by Her Majesty's Army, Navy, Airforce and our Policemen, Firemen and
NHS.

That sounds totally fair to me, be free little anarchist! Wallow in your shit
without sewers or water. Sounds delightfully rustic, but not for me.

------
bhupy
A reminder that one driver's story, while important and valuable, needs to be
contextualized against the aggregate polling data (as imperfect as it is).

[https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...](https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_1b6e5bdc853e466398779c53540ada0c.pdf)

Unfortunately, until we actually have the election, this is all just anecdotes
fighting against potentially flawed data.

~~~
henryfjordan
That poll is an exercise in false-dichotomy. They didn't ask "What percentage
of drivers would like to earn at least minimum wage after expenses?". I bet
you 80%+ of respondents would have said yes to that too.

Given the choice between "Let us be ICs" and "Uber/Lyft leave CA" or "Half of
drivers will lose their jobs", of course the data is going to show people want
to be ICs. That choice ignores the third option, which is Uber/Lyft treat
people with dignity.

~~~
bhupy
Did you read the poll?

The questions were fairly straightforward:

"Thinking about your work driving or delivering with app-based rideshare and
food delivery companies, do you prefer to be an independent contractor or an
employee?"

"Even though you are not sure, if you had to choose would you prefer to be
an... Independent contractor 58 Employee 42"

"Thinking about your own income, for you is rideshare driving/delivery: Your
only personal source of income 19 Your biggest source of personal income, but
not the only source 17 A significant source of personal income, but not the
biggest 25 Just supplemental income, not a significant source of personal
income 38"

I recommend reading through the entire thing:
[https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ug...](https://ac32b1ba-8f5b-411f-91ab-b7ae9a046606.usrfiles.com/ugd/ac32b1_63f0f776a70a4cc5b532f4521ebab453.pdf)

To reiterate, there is no substitute for a full election, and the design of
polling questions will be litigated forever. But it's still better than a
single heartfelt anecdote.

~~~
henryfjordan
You cannot take a poll in isolation like that. It's not like the drivers don't
understand the implications involved in the questions. Uber and Lyft have
spent a ton of money making it seem as though they have no choice in the
matter and will have to fire half the drivers and put the other half on rigid
schedules if they become employees. That context will affect the answers.

The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third
class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with
AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate
the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.

~~~
bhupy
> You cannot take a poll in isolation like that.

No more than you can take a single driver's anecdote in a NYT Op-Ed in
isolation. The argument is that the aggregate poll is _better_ than the
anecdote, not that it's the platonic ideal.

> The real nugget of gold in that study is Q13. 83% of drivers support a third
> class of worker (between employee and IC). CA's Congress failed drivers with
> AB5. They should have defined that third class. Now Uber/Lyft get to dictate
> the terms we will vote on instead and drivers lose either way.

I'm not sure how that refutes anything, it's strictly additive. One question
asks about the status quo, the next question asks about how they feel about a
future proposal. Both provide pretty valuable data in analyzing the political
popularity. And of course Uber/Lyft get to dictate the terms, until now the
legislators dictated it by passing AB5 (the current status quo). From the
first set of questions, it's pretty clear that drivers polled feel differently
about the status quo. Now Uber/Lyft are proposing an alternative.

~~~
henryfjordan
A flawed poll is not necessarily better or worse than an anecdote. I believe
the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating (including
most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they didn't get
their way in court). Of course someone who wants to work will say they prefer
the option that seems more safe/stable, and that's being an IC right now.

~~~
bhupy
> I believe the poll is polluted by the FUD Uber/Lyft have been propagating
> (including most recently threatening to shut down with little notice if they
> didn't get their way in court)

Honest question: what would convince you that a poll isn't "polluted by FUD"?

------
Justsignedup
Mirror:
[https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytim...](https://web.archive.org/web/20200904091002/https://www.nytimes.com/2020/09/04/opinion/uber-
drivers-california-regulations.html)

Accurately describes every single conversation I had with every Uber/Lyft
driver.

------
formercoder
All good points. But is it really better from a returns standpoint for Uber to
cease California ops or was that just a ploy? If that move will make them the
most money under the new regulatory regime, no one can compel them to operate.

~~~
dodobirdlord
I think ceasing operations was due to not having the infrastructure in place
to operate legally under the new requirements. Uber is a big business and
these are significant changes to how they can run their business, so they may
need a long time to get things in order to operate within the new mandate.

~~~
colejohnson66
They had over a year to comply since the law was enacted. And even more since
_Dynamax_ was ruled on.

~~~
dodobirdlord
They made the changes that they thought were necessarily for their drivers to
not qualify as employees under the new law. Then on short notice a court
ruling determined that they hadn’t done enough and the drivers would still
count as employees. That’s the “short notice” aspect.

------
jedberg
Prop 22 is the ballot initiative in California that will overturn AB5, the law
that Uber is fighting against.

They have a huge uphill marketing battle ahead of them. Every time I see an ad
for prop 22, almost all the comments say roughly: "I'm voting no because
drivers deserve health care and sick leave!"

These folks don't realize (because the prop 22 people are doing a terrible job
at marketing) that prop 22 actually requires those things to be provided. I
think a lot more people would favor prop 22 if they actually read it.

~~~
content_sesh
Most of what it provides are far less than existing state law. It counts
"engaged time" only as the time a driver is actually carrying a fare. They're
suggesting a 30 cents/mile reimbursement rate; the IRS 2020 rate is 57.5
cents/mile. CA worker compensation laws also provide much stronger protection
for workers, crucially on a no-fault basis.

The pro-22 companies have contributed $110 million to the campaign. That's
plenty to hire some good PR, and two orders of magnitude more than the groups
opposed. So one could hypothesize their terrible marketing on 22's employee
protections is because it has poor protections compared to the alternative

~~~
jedberg
It certainly doesn't provide as many protections as being an employee. Hence
the compromise part. The reason they don't want to classify them as employees
is because of the onerous cost of doing so. At the same time, the people doing
the work want the flexibility of being a contractor while getting some of the
important benefits of being an employee.

So yes, it's a compromise, but it seems like a pretty fair compromise.

------
namesbc
Uber functions as a payday loan company. They take advantage of desperation to
survive the next month to leave workers in a worse place than if they didn't
use them at all.

As a contracted driver, you may be able to pay your next bill by driving, but
once car maintenance and taxes come due you will have earned less than minimum
wage, and would have made more money working at Starbucks.

This is why most drivers leave after less than 6 months when they have
discovered they have been scammed.

------
anonAndOn
Why not do what they did in SF for restaurant workers?[0] Add a CA Health Tax
to your fare and give the drivers a public health benefit. If it means I have
to pay an extra $1 on that $10 fare, so be it. They get health insurance and I
still have access to a valuable service.

[0][https://healthysanfrancisco.org/](https://healthysanfrancisco.org/)

------
scarface74
_That’s why I and my fellow drivers were relieved when California legislators
last year passed a law effectively requiring Uber, Lyft and similar companies
to extend workplace benefits and protections to drivers, including a minimum
wage and paid sick leave. But this is something the companies have refused to
do, arguing that we are independent contractors._

The elephant in the room is that the only reason this is an issue is because
we as a country have an ass backwards system where your health care is tied to
your employer.

If we as a country think that there everyone deserves a “livable income” (and
I agree), make corporations pay the taxes necessary and increase the amount,
availability and access to the Earned Income Tax Credit.

------
simonblack
Uber is a scam, designed to cream off lots of cash from drivers and investors
alike.

If you're an investor or a driver, you won't make money, and you'll be out of
pocket.

The only people who gain from Uber are the Uber Administration.

------
dshep
These discussions always remind me of this MMM blog about his experience being
an Uber driver:

[https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-
mustache...](https://www.mrmoneymustache.com/2017/11/22/mr-money-mustache-
uber-driver/)

This is one of my favorite quotes:

"Imagine developing a company specifically to take advantage of people’s
ignorance of how expensive it really is to drive their own car. What would
this company look like?" (the answer is of course that it would look like very
much like Uber or any other ridesharing company)

~~~
paxys
Good post, but I'm inclined to take all the stated numbers with a grain of
salt. Not because he is lying, but because so many drivers have so many
different experiences. Some are paying off their car, some aren't. Some of
their cars get 15 MPG, some 35. Some drive in rush-hour traffic, others on
airport or suburban trips. Some drive a few hours a week during surge pricing
and if they get lucky can make more than what they do in their day jobs. Even
the standard IRS vehicle deprecation rate is wildly inaccurate in most cases.

To me that highlights a more important problem - Uber/Lyft are enjoying the
benefits of a massive data asymmetry. Neither customers nor drivers can make
the right economic decision because we have a very, very tiny slice of the
whole picture.

Maybe one quick way to start solving the rideshare problem is force them to
publish this data publicly?

