261–270 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
If you have a job at McDonalds, you can’t take 6 months off (without even notifying anyone!) and come back like nothing has happened. You can’t switch your schedule to a morning shift at Burger King and an evening shift at McDonald’s at will. Being an employee comes with certain benefits, but also certain responsibilities . Not everyone wants to be saddled with those obligations. Some of us want to be able to earn ca…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ridiculous that it takes a legal battle for Uber to offer these customer and driver friendly features
In what world is enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip, or removing requirements for Uber Pro, or removing features from the loyalty program, or removing upfront pricing, or removing the ability for customers to have favorite drivers "customer friendly"?
I work at Uber outside of the rides/eats business and observed many feature releases to adjust the business after AB5. What I saw released: - Enabling drivers to see where a rider is going before accepting the trip [0] [2] - Removed a main penalty for declining rides, “No More 85% Acceptance Rate Requirement For Uber Pro” [2] - Drivers get set their own fare with a multiplier [1] (the article details screenshots and…
i was unaware of these changes, its interesting to see the changes that were made. it will be interesting to see how they effect riders/drivers over time. thank you for the post.
At the current rate, the gig industry will be regulated out of california and other regions that follow suit (this surely sets regulatory precedence for others). The product won't be at a mass market compelling price point without a better legal framework for gig workers until self driving technology catches up. Its best hope to make it work (and what Uber is lobbying for) is a third 'worker' classification between contractor and employee like what the UK has.
Decoupling “benefits” like healthcare and retirement from employment is the real issue. Should be a government responsibility, given out equally, paid for by taxes.
They just want to take, and take, and take, and take. They never want to give.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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…
Oh cmon, in every country uber operated/operates in they are against the law. Just because you make a new app and don't follow the rules in the hope you get to big to fail doesn't mean it works. Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper. They borrow money, set low prices and don't follow the law and then lobby to change them. Uber is a taxi ser…
Wrong
> Uber specifically displays the current problem with new startups, they don't make things more effective, or cheaper.
Wrong (https://www.businessinsider.com/uber-vs-taxi-pricing-by-city... and even more since then with Uber X expansion)
The court proceedings have been going on for a very long time, and now, only on practically the eve of the ruling becoming effective, do they start making plans for it?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Do Californians get a lot of benefit for the high taxes they currently pay? Californians seem to be voting with their feet, moving to lower tax states: https://www.ocregister.com/2019/10/31/190122-more-people-lef... Do you feel strongly that one more tax would solve all of California's problems?
Most of the people leaving CA were of the far-right political persuasion, so good riddance to them. And generally, CA is already overpopulated for the amount of housing currently available (or constructable within the near future), so having fewer people actually relieves a lot of the overusage issues currently plaguing many of the public services in CA. With specific respect to the tax issue, the flipside of "one mo…
Ha! Yeah, CA is known for it’s multitude of far-right groups.
And if they are so far right, why are they leaving and voting for left wing policies in other states?
Suffice to say CA has some of the highest taxes of any state, yet it also has some of the worst social problems - poverty, homelessness, etc.
I’d say it CA inability to run a tight ship despite all the taxes that is causing people to leave.
If drivers are employees they can only work for one service, which for most of them will be Uber since they'll have the most demand. This law should be really good for Uber, terrible for its smaller competitors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Aren't they deciding what fare to charge by accepting the job? If I offer someone $10 to mow my lawn and that's the only price I'm willing to pay, are they now an employee because they can't decide what fare to charge? Do I now owe the kid down the street and all of her friends a 401k if they rotate through who mows my lawn for that price? I guess I'm not following here.
It's more complicated than that. The kid down the street can say I'll do it for $15 and you can decline. There's no negotiating with Uber. If the kid down the street says no to $10 you're not going to ban him from ever cutting your grass. With Uber if you decline too many offers you will be effectively booted off the platform. More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 mult…
There's also no negotiating with me. It's $10, take it or leave it! (If they leave it, like they don't accept the fare, then so be it my grass doesn't get cut and Uber doesn't make money).
> More broadly, you can't compare 1 person trying to contract with 1 other person with 1 multi-billion dollar company contracting with 10s of thousands of people.
Why? The foundational principles seem to be the same to me here.
I think too many people want Uber to be this company that meets these certain expectations and they want that because the government has failed them and so they've turned to corporations to save people via jobs and paid benefits because they want the illusion that someone is paying their fair share. Instead you need to change the laws in your state/country/area to represent your values. If people don't have healthcare, pay money and give them healthcare. Making Uber do it simply isn't going to work here. Especially for them in particular.
To me there is no fundamental difference between me picking up an app and then getting $10 to go pick someone up and someone coming to mow my grass for $10, or someone paying me $20 to move a couch for them. I'm doing some work for some money. That's it. There's nothing more to it.