131–140 of 781 posts
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
Uber drivers invest $20k for opportunity to earn $15/hr. How much do your contracting friends invest? What's their compensation?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[ ] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [ ] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.
Could both companies require employees to be full time? Thereby restricting employees to one company? Although, if everyone did prefer driving for uber over driving for lyft, I’m sure lyft would sweeten the pot to the point that they were competitive.
The only reason Uber couldn't dominate was because there was a factor of "choice". Now that the drivers are classified as effectively taxi drivers belonging to a taxi company, there is no choice. And the funny thing is, the drivers will actually prefer this.
Uber wants you to believe that the cost of paying drivers as employees is that you won’t be able to get a car in most places. This can’t be true. Uber replaced a poorly run system that actually covered most places and employed it’s labor force. If Uber and other car services were forced to recognize their workforce as employees, there would be market incentives to support doing so. American taxpayers pay for Uber and…
https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Is it still voluntary if it happens out of economic desperation?
If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.
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.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>They certainly can offer flexible hours to full time employees They can't guarantee flexibility and full-time employment. That's the point. >"Americans shalt work from nine until five so sayeth we the founders". If there is no demand or there is over-supply at some particular time in some particular area, you can't will a job into existence. >They're just griping that they need to start paying benefits. Are they gri…
They are both just placeholders until we have robotaxi networks. 5-10 years max.
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.
But Uber and Lyft are direct competitors. I have a clause in my contract that forbids me working for a direct competitor, but I'm a software engineer and I have knowledge of trade secrets. A driver? Not so much.
So I think that a court would find a restriction that you couldn't work for both to be an unreasonable exclusion... but I don't know.
But let's say it was legal. Uber still might not be able to do it. They need onboarding to be as frictionless as possible. Tying their hands by saying they can't also drive for Lyft might make people think twice.
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?