Hacker Newsnew | past | comments | ask | show | jobs | submitlogin

Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time.

This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco.

Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who then logically could only work for one (at a time) how would a competitor enter the marketplace if driving for the new guy prohibited you from also working for Uber? If the new player has insufficient ride volume it’s a huge barrier to entry.

The fact that drivers themselves seemed to reject this just shows what a bad idea this is.

I mean what’s next? Overtime? Making it hard to “fire” drivers?

And as for a notion of a minimum wage for drivers, if they for 3 different companies in an hour who pays that?

Don’t follow NYC’s example of steadily recreating the taxi medallions system (eg driver quotas and tax measures to drive the cost up; Uber is essentially twice the cost it was 5 years ago).



Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care.

Otherwise it's just a huge externality being leveraged on the rest of us.


Or maybe we should stop tying healthcare to employment.


> Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care.

You mean like prop 22?


Or just have the state pay health insurance and solve the issue at the root. But that's too much work for CA apparently.




Guidelines | FAQ | Lists | API | Security | Legal | Apply to YC | Contact

Search: