211–220 of 887 posts
Just make the whole service distributed. Cut out Uber. Connect me directly to a driver through open source software. Person A exists who is willing to drive from point a to point b for x price. I am willing to pay x price. An open source software exists to connect us both in real time. Who will the government regulate in this scenario?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
AB5 has not achieved its intended effect and has had a number of unintended consequences, including collateral damage in industries such as freelance journalism and other contract jobs where "full-time" employment results in the employer going bankrupt. Being familiar with some of these industries, I estimate that AB5 has led to a net loss of jobs, economic activity, and civic engagement in CA, again without achievin…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm sure there's part of that, and there's nothing wrong with that. This is a bad law. The other part are the logistics of creating a set of new policies, and systems to adhere to this law - which takes time.
It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.
No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
EDIT: To a reply saying I don’t understand how fast food restaurants operate, I certainly do, I’ve worked fast food in my life. While they certainly try to be flexible, you can’t just decide to show up approximately “whenever you feel like it.” The closest approximation to that is to only have 4 hours a week regularly scheduled (otherwise they can’t call you an employee), and then you call in whenever you feel like working to see if they need help (often they will say “yes” but sometimes they will say “no”). However, this arrangement only works once you have enough experience that you can come in and basically work any position in the restaurant, and it’s not something that can be scaled to every worker at the restaurant.
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’s not cynical, that sounds wholesome. That’s exactly how democracy should work. I expect you are one of those urbanites because you haven’t mentioned the drivers being the loudest voice for changing this judgement. They are the ones suffering from this faux-compassion via authoritarian judges who think marketplaces aren’t legitimate businesses (someone tell NASDAQ, the App Store and play store, Steam, malls, etc…
Nope. Live in an exurban town on the other side of the country and don't think I have ever taken an Uber/Lyft that wasn't associated with travel to another city. And rarely take them even then.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Totally agree on the root cause here. Curious though - can California deal with this by offering some a state-level single-payer benefit and charging employers? That would be a broader solution that would address many things in one swoop.
They have tried, but the aforementioned political party blocked such efforts at the state level in the past, and currently federal law (again, due to that same political party) requires the state to get permission from the federal government to implement a single-payer healthcare system. However, as currently envisioned, the single-payer system would not charge employers; it would be part of the taxes levied on all t…
Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
I applaud the CEO for this decision. It forces at least a glimpse of understanding on the local voters that one cannot combine ideological utopia and a functional economy.
And still we should try. It's not like California didn't have a functional economy before Uber. Sometimes it's right to make sacrifices in order to uphold our ideas.
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
To play devil's advocate, even if they wanted to follow the law in good faith, they'd need to completely restructure their business. Until they can do so, they'd need to be shut down.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> ...forced to pay full benefits for someone who drives just a bit on a weekend night. And for their competitor. Dara Khosrowshahi is right that there needs to be a "third way." Uber would obviously prefer contractors, and maybe the "third way" talk is just them realizing that's not politically viable, but however they reached the conclusion, they're right that this is a different category of work.
No he's not. This is no different than someone working the morning shift at McDonald's and working the evening shift at Burger King. It should work exactly the same as that.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
It's not a bad law - if Uber can't operate in compliance with it, it has a bad business model.
Really, is there no such thing as over-regulation, in your mind? No red tape too sticky? No hoop too high to jump through?