81–90 of 887 posts
Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement
Seems like a fair outcome to me. If they can't operate within the law, they shouldn't operate.
I'm conflicted about this because i believe drivers deserve benefits but also uber should not be forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. Where is the line of hours driven until you get benefits? I dont know, but I think that is the wrong question. The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare. If we offered national…
40 hours according to the California Department of Industrial Relations and 30 hours according to the Affordable Care Act.
> The right question is -- why is this forced onto Uber rather than being a question of national healthcare.
It's not just healthcare. It's also about unemployment insurance, paid time off, 401k contributions/matching, how the tax burden is split, and on and on.
Since when are we reasoning about workers starting from what they want? If we go by that reasoning, "What worker does not want to be paid 3 trillion dollars per year?". Work only exists in a narrow space between a consumer and a service. Increase the costs of running the service, and you don't have work anymore. That's not very hard to understand.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The drivers (and customers) are the hostages. Uber should've been spending the last few months preparing for the possibility of this ruling being enforced. (I suspect they have been, and "oh we'll have to shut down!" is a negotiating tactic.)
Yeah, I’m totally with the drivers on this. Far too often “disruption” actually is a very predatory undertaking, with far too little benefit to society. The organizations behind this are typically very low on FTE, and maximizing shareholder value and profits and “democratizing” the suppliers (ie a race to the bottom for the drivers). You see it all over the place, and I for one hope that this trend is reversed in the…
Are they better off having no income?
Why would they bank on voters? Do they really think people are going to vote against driver protections in california?
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.
If a ridesharing platform can't classify drivers as contractors for legal reason, and if they can't classify drivers as employees for business reasons[1], can they classify drivers as owners? It's certainly legal for small businesses not to pay reasonable wages or benefits to their owners. This ruling may give a substantial advantage to a ride-sharing service structured as a worker's co-operative. That'd be awesome,…
https://www.yesmagazine.org/economy/2018/01/04/the-platform-...
The problem is that the co-operative model is not successfully funded in the initial phases. There is little infrastructure for worker-owned businesses in this country. There is little guidance for getting investment and start-up capital when the overall aim is to primarily put profits into owners' hands and not investors'.
We need a government that supports these efforts first. A good first step would be to pass first-right-of-refusal laws.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yeah, I’m totally with the drivers on this. Far too often “disruption” actually is a very predatory undertaking, with far too little benefit to society. The organizations behind this are typically very low on FTE, and maximizing shareholder value and profits and “democratizing” the suppliers (ie a race to the bottom for the drivers). You see it all over the place, and I for one hope that this trend is reversed in the…
Ok. Uber closes down because it's not lucrative anymore. Drivers are out of a job. Are they better off having no income?
They may have a case in developing nations, I am not very familiar with the systems over there pre-Uber so I can’t comment on that.
Maybe I'm cynical but "temporarily shut down" sounds like a formula to: - Inconvenience a certain class of urbanites who have grown accustomed to being driven around in the hopes that they - Complain loudly to their representatives and other governmental officials in the hope that - The state will reverse this judgement
That would also be an opportunity for a competitor to get a foothold.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The corruption here is incredible - the taxi cab industry had insurance of like $20K per accident (talk to the women who got brain damage), would never pickup in bad areas AND paid their workers as.... independent contractors!! 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 writ…
What are the taxis doing with AB 5 then?