101–110 of 781 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are both just placeholders until we have robotaxi networks. 5-10 years max.
Do you really believe those aren't decades away for door-to-door?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation... If by innovation you mean the abuse of people forced to work in the "gig" economy, then sure.
Abuse?? Nobody is forced to work anywhere in the U.S. If they can find a better situation they should. Why hurt their situation with regulation?
Starvation and rent suggest otherwise. We're not so sufficiently advanced that anyone can choose not to work and expect meals and a roof over their head.
If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa. If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.
[] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.
I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company’s business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving? Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.
>Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business. Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".
Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.
This is certainly the (fairly robust) legal argument. My hesitation is that I think a significant amount of drivers prefer and would benefit from the arrangement that Uber and Lyft have set up, and it's a shame that we aren't discussing how to write legislation to fit those people in. It just feels like forcing everyone to be an employee will box out a large number of happy part-time drivers who weren't too concerned…
This is an example of regulation getting in the way of innovation again. It’s like they want the medallion taxi system again.
Regulation, in general, exists primarily as a response to exploitation. If drivers felt they were getting paid equitably, had fair dispute resolution, had access to benefits, etc., there wouldn't be a need for this.
Nobody is forcing these workers to do ANYTHING.
Regulation would force action.
I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company’s business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving? Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.
Here, a Superior Court judge found that the State of California is likely to prevail on the merits in the end. The reason being that Uber/Lyft failed to satisfy the prong "(B) The person performs work that is outside the usual course of the hiring entity’s business." Basically, the judge thought that Uber/Lyft is in the transportation business, not some "multi-sided platforms" as they claim to be.
Can this injunction be overturned by a higher California court? Absolutely. Does it look bad for Uber/Lyft in the court of public opinion? Yup, very much so. That's why three's an Opinion piece in the Times today by the CEO of Uber.[0] He knew this was coming.
[0] https://www.nytimes.com/2020/08/10/opinion/uber-ceo-dara-kho...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Why not? They currently do just that... Right now they do that for contractors. After the drivers are reclassified as employees, things might change.
Things might also stay the same. There's inertia in the current system and the drivers clearly value their flexibility. Why would things change?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.
This is certainly the (fairly robust) legal argument. My hesitation is that I think a significant amount of drivers prefer and would benefit from the arrangement that Uber and Lyft have set up, and it's a shame that we aren't discussing how to write legislation to fit those people in. It just feels like forcing everyone to be an employee will box out a large number of happy part-time drivers who weren't too concerned…