21–30 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
And also sounds great for those that now have to wait for an hour+ for a taxi or maybe not have a ride at all.
Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
I'm sure they are fine, but we must now ensure this scenario can not ever repeat.
Golden opportunity for the taxicab industry to get its act together and compete on a semi-level playing field.
You think your taxi driver is a W2 employee - please think again.
The number of carve outs in this new "principled" rule is incredible, and more industries keep asking for them (freelance writers, gig musicians etc). Laws should ideally be broadly and equally applied, not this here is the rule except for a, then b, then c,d,e depending on who can lobby in their exceptions.
Pathetic.
Could this be posturing to get the state to back down on the enforcement of its decision? And does anyone have a guess if Uber is making money in California right now? Given the state is still in lock down.
As for people here who invoke "freedom of work". Most people doing these jobs don't have much choice at first place, in order to survive. But eventually Uber will backstab them, one way or another.
Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
They’re arguably neither contractors nor employees, and shoe horning them into either category will inevitably lead to some absurdities.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Uber hasn't been preparing internally for the possibility of losing this suit, they've been irresponsible in the hopes that California would go "oh shit, they're gonna shoot the hostage".
Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healt…
I suspect they will if Lyft does, regardless of public statements intended to pressure the politicians.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Uber hasn't been preparing internally for the possibility of losing this suit, they've been irresponsible in the hopes that California would go "oh shit, they're gonna shoot the hostage".
Well, I'm sure they have. They fundamentally disagree with the outcome, and so they will just not operate in California. Nobody will because the business model won't allow you to pay people enough money without charging too much. I also fundamentally agree with Uber and others here. They created a platform for someone to make a few bucks. If I sell something on Etsy they don't have to all of a sudden pay for my healt…
This just isn't about Uber and Lyft but they were targets because some very big money was getting hurt by their existence.