181–190 of 781 posts
It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders patte…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
They are both just placeholders until we have robotaxi networks. 5-10 years max.
Yes, and when a robotaxi crashes and kills people they’ll just write it off as a business expense.
Ok?
We already do that when human driven taxis do that, so I don't see the problem.
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.
That is total BS in california then - if an employer is paying you by the hour for your time, while you are collecting that money they HAVE to be able to expect you are working for them (only). This idea that uber / lyft drivers (both phones are always running) can work for BOTH companies at the same time seems ridiculous to me.
Yes, I agree, and I did not mean to imply that. What I meant is that a company has limited ability of restricting employee behavior during the time they are NOT paying them.
The relevant statute:[0] 2750.3. (a) (1) For purposes of the provisions of this code and the Unemployment Insurance Code, and for the wage orders of the Industrial Welfare Commission, a person providing labor or services for remuneration shall be considered an employee rather than an independent contractor unless the hiring entity demonstrates that all of the following conditions are satisfied: (A) The person is free…
Other than the spirt of the law being drafted to explicitly target Uber/Lyft the letter explicitly clears them.
Edit:
I don't see how you think the letter of the law clears Uber, Uber sea to fail every part of the test.
A) Uber does exert control over many aspects of how the work is performed, e.g. acceptable car models, acceptable ride acceptance rates.
B) The rides provided by drivers are central to Uber's business. Uber has no business model without its drivers.
C) Many drivers do drive for other companies and would pass this critiwia but some do completely different work and have not done any driving work independently from Uber. These drivers would not pass this criteria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Uber drivers invest $20k for opportunity to earn $15/hr. How much do your contracting friends invest? What's their compensation?
Do uber drivers really not want or need cars for anything other than uber? Some of the places I get uber - there are no sidewalks. One irony, all the gig economy workers do make a car a LOT less necessary if you are in an area well served by them.
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…
Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors (or both), or that drivers should, in principle, be able to choose what status they hold.
The problem is that Uber currently exerts so much control over its "independent contractor" relationships that they have become, as a matter of law, employment relationships.
Moreover, in practical terms drivers don't end up with the choice they ought to. If they want any working relationship with Uber, they have to accept a mash-up of all the burdens of employment minus many of the benefits of being a contractor.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Having no input into the rate is meaningless. If they can decline work below a given rate then that's equivalent to setting their own rate -- the rate is set at the point where they start declining work. Obviously that may mean they don't get as much work, but setting your own rate doesn't grant immunity from supply and demand. What would make this a lot easier is if the apps would just allow you to set a rate below…
> If they can decline work below a given rate then that's equivalent to setting their own rate It is clearly not equivalent since uber literally determines the rate. Yes, they can refuse to work below a certain threshold but they aren't in-fact "setting the rate".
A software contract offers $50 an hour. I can either take it or leave it.
Uber offers $x an hour (or mile, or however it works.) Drivers can either take it or leave it.
What do you think is the essential difference here?
Do you think software contractors can somehow force clients to accept any rate they want? No. If they client doesn't want to pay above $x then there's nothing you can do but decline the job. Just like Uber driver can do nothing but decline the job, surely?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Imagine the fun metagames this would cause. If the government took Uber's stick away, the company would be forced to find a rate at which they'd have enough drivers to allow for reasonably short pickup time. Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, thus forcing Uber to raise their rates to $X (+ Uber's cut). (While dropping drivers from the plat…
There is no stick; they already have to do that. If the drivers don’t like the rates and think they earn too little, they quit. Uber has to ensure that drivers make attractive rates if it wants retain them. And indeed, it offers lots of bonus pay, special deals etc precisely for that reason. > Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, This is, of…
>This is, of course, illegal.
What law does this break?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Gig platforms take that power away. Pretty sure drivers have to "accept" a ride, isn't that agreeing to a rate?
Agreeing to a rate != setting your rate, and having the counter-party agree or disagree to your rate.
They don't just let you go in demanding whatever you want. There's a limit to what they want to pay. Just like Uber.