[seankimdesign]

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.

[extra88]

> without providing any alternative

Taxis still exist.

Given the history of Uber and Lyft drivers denying access to riders with wheelchairs, decrying the loss of their services seems weird.

[ghshephard]

HAHAHA. OMG - as one who doesn't drive, and took taxis in the Bay area (South Bay - Sunnyvale, Mountain View, Redwood City) for 7 years (2003 - 2010) - pretty much everywhere - let me tell you that taxis on the Peninsula are the most poorly managed, poorly responsive, and incredibly bad service imaginable. Fully 30-40% of taxis just never show up when you call them. That number gets even higher after 9:00 PM if you are down near Fremont. . Taxis took an absolute minimum of 30 minutes to arrive - I never understood how that was possible given they worked on a zone reservation system, and I presumed you would check into the zone you were geographically present in. The drivers were, as a class - horrible. They wouldn't last a month on Uber - neither their vehicles, nor the drivers themselves - they'd be rated out immediately.

I think the mistake that Uber and Lyft are making here is just not charging market rates that will let their drivers make a good living. If it turns out that costs 50% more than a taxi - fine. People then have a choice of Public Transit, Taxis, or Uber/Lyft. Their race to the bottom and attempt to price each other out of the market is what led us here.

Where they erred originally is trying to build a business model that didn't provide a good living to their key employees - and lets face it, Uber/Lyft drivers are employees.

[acchow]

Uber and Lyft were made in San Francisco because the taxis here sucked so badly. Extremely unreliable. Always late. Not enough of them.

Taxis have not gotten better since then.

[Pro_bity]

Taxis, even in San Francisco, were woefully inadequate prior to Uber. Further, it not as if taxis were driver friendly. The majority of the money went the the medallion holder. The medallion holders artificially constricted service to keep rates high via a monopoly. So, there was no pre-rideshare paradise to return to.

[strbean]

Taxi drivers pay the company for a shift upfront and absorb the risk on not getting enough rides to break even. And they are independent contractors without benefits.

So yeah, what parent was talking about doesn't exist.

[fdshgaerfhe]

Where in California does your sister live that doesn't offer Paratransit services?

[seankimdesign]

I think she still uses it when there's no alternative. I don't know much about it myself, but from what she tells me it's a fine service for when she needs to go to the library on a lazy day, but meeting a friend or having to make a schedule on a certain time? It's practically a coin flip.

[tick_tock_tick]

Where in California does that service even come close to what Uber/Lyft offer?

[fred_is_fred]

Or taxis.

[PHGamer]

moral victory? this is government overreach. people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees. the government changed the rules not because they care for you but because they collect more taxes from employers than contractors.

[enumjorge]

How is enforcing worker protection government overreach? It’s what they’re supposed to do. And there’s lots of gig workers who aren’t happy with the setup. It’s not like the government took this up on their own accord.

As someone else mentioned Uber and Lyft impose restrictions on these workers that a typical contractor would not have. The litmus test isn’t simply whether you can set your number of hours.

[mike00632]

But they can't set their own rates.

[heavyset_go]

> people set their own hours. they are contractors not employees

Millions of employees in the US have flexible schedules and work part-time.

[saghm]

> 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?

There was a cheaper alternative for companies to provide up until now, so I don't think the current lack of this type of service proves that it couldn't exist. Companies will tend to provide the service that costs them the least in the absence of other incentives; that's why labor laws exist in the first place. The fact that child labor and unsafe working conditions used to be the norm wasn't due to it being impossible to make a profit without them, but due to companies having no incentive to get rid of them.

[codefreakxff]

It's called a Taxi. They will drive to your location, pick you up, and take you anywhere you want to go.

[jedberg]

You've clearly never tried to use a taxi in California.

[manfredo]

Right, except now instead of having the option of taxis and ride share companies she can only use taxis which have artificially inflated prices due to constricted supply.

[abstractbarista]

Taxis are horrible honestly. I'd rather just not go somewhere than use one instead of Uber/Lyft.

[12xo]

Most taxi's are 1099 as well... Almost 100% outside of the major cities. So no. This is going to backfire hard on the legislature. They should have done their jobs and created a new class. But nope. They went for the headlines.

[ironman1478]

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.

[bradenb]

> 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.

[lhorie]

> 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

Well, no. Prop 22 would force companies to provide benefits, and the rideshare companies themselves are behind it. What was actually chosen was to just put drivers out of work altogether until November at the earliest, because the government deemed that the current compromise was not good enough.

[hugey010]

1. If you think the public transit in California sucks, at least it exists.

2. There are many jobs available that don't allow the lifestyle freedoms of gig work (see the trucking industry, which as it turns out also has a long reputation for unfairly treating employees).

In my opinion, the US continues to punish employers, employees, and contractors by tying employment to healthcare. It's much easier to say: "Look at that company screwing their workers out of benefits!", than it is to say: "Look at our country screwing our citizens out of benefits!".

[enumjorge]

It is a lot of unfair. So gig workers need to be taken advantage of so the parent commenter’s sister can have a more convenient mode of transportation? Why should they bear the burden of a city that doesn’t provide people with disabilities appropriate options?

[OCASM]

I'm pretty sure the people you want to help would consider having a job a better treatment than being unemployed.

If California's jobs suck, move. Yes, it's hard but it beats the alternative of destroying more jobs through misguided regulations.

[Aperocky]

> Gig work should NOT be how people make a living

There's a huge difference between 'People should not be forced to' vs. 'people should not be'. I think your case is the latter.

[WrtCdEvrydy]

It's been stayed as of 10 minutes ago... https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24227481

The parent post (from Lyft) looks hilarious in hindsight.

Edit: Added context

[blhack]

Some person with a legitimate concern about how this effected their disabled sister is not "hilarious".

[baron_harkonnen]

Maybe relying on the exploitation of others for vital services is a bad situation to be in in the first place?

I'm sure uber and lyft drivers are also extremely upset by this, since they are only being exploited because they are vulnerable.

The fact that these drivers cannot survive without being exploited and that your sister can't be mobile with out their exploitation is not a problem with CA law makers.

Its beyond insane that so many people on HN will jump through such tremendous intellectual hoops to justify the world that they exist and temporarily thrive in. These companies might make your live easier today, but the distance from where you are to feeling that exploitation is not as far as you think.

[Trias11]

What a surprising decision made by otherwise wise and well respected CA politicians.

[baggy_trough]

Why do you assume good intentions? It's more likely that this law was the result of campaign bribes from unions.

Unions want to have fewer (unionized) people employed at higher compensation. Gig workers go against that because there is higher employment at lower compensation.

[sergiotapia]

"You follow drugs, you get drug addicts and drug dealers. But you start to follow the money, and you don't know where the fuck it's gonna take you."