Hacker News new | ask | show | jobs
by negrit 2291 days ago
How did you jump to this conclusion?
3 comments

See that little "?". It's called a question-mark, it indicates the writer is enquiring and not concluding.
I was under the impression that the only way the Uber/Lyft business model is even remotely viable (without continuous VC subsidy) is classifying drivers as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.
> as contractors, meaning they don't have to pay them minimum wage or benefits, which lets them undercut taxis.

That's not really true though. Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

No, the main thing is that Uber doesn't have to guarantee them fulltime work, or at least any kind of minimum amount of work.

i.e. Uber can say "No work today, too bad".

Uh, no, Uber doesn't have to guarantee full-time work regardless of employee or contractor classification -- hence the term "part-time employment".
> Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

Citation needed. Please include costs of owning, operating, and maintaining an automobile in your calculations.

Are you implying that millions of Uber drivers are idiots and can't do basic math to decide if it's worth working or not?
> Their pay is higher to make up the difference.

I thought part of the problem was that it isn't, in general.

People (especially California) would like you to believe that. Uber drivers are rational beings, they know exactly how much money they are making, and they are aware of their taxes.

If Uber paid their Social Security and Medicare taxes, then Uber would just lower their base pay, and the net would stay the same. Or in other words the pay is higher because the driver has to pay those taxes.

I don't know one way or the other, but I have heard the argument that if you actually do all the math, particular with the reductions in pay more recently, it doesn't all net out.

Generally people do not act as fully rational economic actors, so we can't assume that this is not true based on the fact that people still choose to do it.

Which isn't to say they shouldn't have that option.

1) Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time

2) Regular taxi companies generally also treat drivers as contractors

> 1) Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time

They also typically lose around $1 billion per quarter. Unless they figure out how to be profitable, they will eventually run out of money. So really, they are still burning cash on the roughly $20 billion of VC capital they raised, plus the money they raised during IPO.

https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20793793/uber-5-billion-qu...

>> They also typically lose around $1 billion per quarter.

What?! How on earth do you burn through $1B a quarter on a ride sharing app?

Subsidising rides, a lot of engineers required to run a massive real-time system, and big legal teams to work in so many regions.
They are reinvesting a lot.
And it has been losing tons of money for even longer. Without VCs to bail them out several times a year, how will they justify operating at a huge loss in France without a viable path to profitability?
Somehow, taxi companies in France have figured out how to operate profitably.
> Uber is a public company now, it has not been VC funded for a long time

I don’t think those two things are exclusive are they?

Is there such a thing as an employee with random hours?

Isn't the whole point of an employee that there is an expectation of regular work?

I think a certain regularity of work is not a necessity for an employer-worker relationship to be exactly that.

And at a second thought, AFAIK Uber does even expect drivers to perform "regular" work - not "regular" as in "we write 9-to-5 every day into the contract", but "regular" as in "of course you can work as much as you like, BUT if we see you driving too little time for Uber, below a certain threshold that we set at our discretion, don't tell anyone and change as often as we want, our magic algorithm will start disadvantaging you when it comes to handing out rides, oh and actually we aren't acknowledging that this mechanism exists at all, so let's just say this sentence really ended at 'as much as you like'".

That seems like it is fair. They are preferring to handout rides to drivers using Uber as their primary income.
I'd only call that "fair" if they assume the position of an actual employer at the same time, offering all the usual benefits of an employment to their employee drivers, especially including a minimum income. If they did, they were free to distribute work as they like, by any crude criteria imaginable, because it's not at all illegal to fully pay an employee for essentially doing nothing. But that's exactly what they don't want to do.

They want to have their cake and eat it, too.

We have what is called "ekstravakt" job positions in Norway which could be called "call in only" positions. You get sick leave based on when you would normally work and you get pension, vacation money etc based on how much you earn.

It's not a problem to implement at all, I was the manager for many youths hired as such in a company I worked for 20 years ago.

The hourly wage for the 16-18 year old crowd was about $12-13 before tax and benefits (+12ish% employer tax that the worker never see).

> Is there such a thing as an employee with random hours?

As any junior employee in retail or the service industry will tell you, yes.

Their hours are random, unpredictable, up to the caprice of their manager and are assigned with very little notice. They also rarely add up to 40h/week.

During a labour shortage, this goes the other way, where managers end up scrambling to staff their store/restaurant, because their less-reliable employees decided to not show up to work, with very little notice.

Not for a lot of minimum wage and service industry jobs. Millions of adults in the western economic world work these kinds of jobs, and shifts can be moved around, shortened, lengthened, or disappeared altogether (via being given to someone else, or because business is expected to be slower). This isn't at all OK, but it's the reality for lots of people.
Those are called zero hour contracts. It seems like they exist in France also:

https://theculturetrip.com/europe/france/articles/what-to-kn...

No they don't exist in France.
Here is what seems to be a better link. Looks like it is outlawed in France but some other EU countries still allow it.

https://fullfact.org/law/zero-hours-contracts-uk-europe/

Sure, how about people who work for Amazon warehouses? They don't have regular shifts or hours... They have to answer a notification on an app in order to secure a shift for the following day.
I know plenty of people who are on-call or have jobs with random hours (think bartenders who need random breaks for auditions)
You're clearly not from a place that has tourists… ;-)

Service industry in general of course, but tourists vary even more depending on the weather and whatnot.