341–350 of 781 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I can wait tables part time at multiple restaurants.
not at the same time, you can't, unless you're talking about a taco bell/kfc joint.
Just as a ride hailing driver can't simultaneously have an Uber and a Lyft passenger in his car. What's your point?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You've effectively spend a few paragraphs adding nothing of value to the conversation. You might want to check what you consider "adversarial" when it comes to a discussion forum. The issue is that the comment I responded to seems to be under the false notion that workers (or employers, for that matter) get to "choose" how they want to be classified, and that's what this debate is about. My point is that, when it c…
Yes and? If I owned slaves and called them unpaid indefinite interns the law would rightly disagree. You can call the relationship whatever you like, but the law is there to keep the playing field level for everyone. That it's taken Uber so long to play by the same rules as everyone else is a travesty and should take a billion dollar law suit or two for damages to sort out.
They are independent contractors in the sense that they can choose how much and when to work.
They are employees in that they cannot negotiate rates.
I don't think it's so clear cut.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit. > Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors What about the California judge?
The argument which won was not that there is some legal reason Uber can’t have both independent contractors and employees, but rather that the relationship between Uber and it’s drivers is de facto employment and should therefore be subject to employment law.
So no, they cannot have independent contractors, unless you mean for the operations side of their business, which nobody is talking about so I hope not.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The Carlifornia judge also agrees, just that the definition of a contractor is based on more than flexible hours. If Uber truly wants to have contractors, they'll have to cede more decision-making/autonomy to drivers; or alternatively have 2 classes of drivers and have them choose to be employees or honest-to-goodness contractors with full autonomy (or enough autonomy to cross the line between employee and contractor…
What autonomy would Uber need to provide?
I have a friend that drives approximately 8 hours pw for Uber.
How are drivers not choosing their own hours, exactly? That seems to be exactly what they are doing.
And when I say "Uber", I actually mean Uber/Lyft. And obviously in some parts of the US there are other apps and drivers use those too.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.
And maybe if you keep signalling to a company that you want to do contract work for them but never submit any bids for what they put out as jobs, they'll start ignoring you as not serious. Being a contractor doesn't mean you get to pick where you work, it means you get to pick where you work out of the people willing to hire you for contract work. Many companies have different criteria for what they require out of co…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why don't we legislate a new category of taxation for gig economy companies like Uber? Make them pay more taxes and support a new social safety net (especially universal healthcare) without changing their business model.
Why not just raise taxes because either way, it's the consumer paying. Not Uber. It would take much less effort
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't know where this meme started. Taxi drivers have never set their own rates and have always been contractors.
This is an interesting flavor of ad hominem. While the post isn't a personal attack, it severely degrades the argument by calling it a 'meme'. Omitting the first sentence, and leaving the second, would be far more effective. https://farm8.staticflickr.com/7512/15985103560_ed7985fc2a_o...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
>I'm afraid you're repeating Uber's favorite talking point True, but that does not mean rdgthree's argument has no merit. > Nobody disputes that Uber can have employees or contractors What about the California judge?
> What about the California judge? Nothing about the ruling prevents Uber from having contractors. It prevents them from having employees (as determined by California law) that they label as contractors in order to skirt around legal requirements for employees.