561–570 of 887 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the part of the city is unsafe (as some parts of some major cities are frequently nowdays) to the point the driver risks being assaulted by a mob, dragged out and beaten or shot, and their vehicle destroyed - I see no reason why they shouldn't be able to refuse such ride. No ride worth your life, and unless you're paying 1000x the Uber rates, no ride is worth your car ruined.
I didn’t know Uber is live in Syria.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A ride is more like a task. I've been a contractor and I couldn't refuse jira tasks. You've signed a contract with the company, you should do all the jira tasks they throw at you.
But you could have refused the customer in the first place. Nobody forced you to make a contract with him. Of course, once you did, you are compelled to keep up your end of the bargain, and that probably included you doing those jira tasks (you could have probably refused to do entirely different work, like walking the dog of the manager, when you were originally contracted for doing IT development work). A true cont…
When the driver activates uber driver mode, they are initiating a contract which states they will work within the bounds of the app. The driver is able to terminate that contract at will and at any time, and reactivate it at will and at his leisure. When the contract is active, the driver has committed to operate within the pricing, pickup and dropoff structure of the platform - as in the driver has committed to minimize discrimination of their rides and accept the platform's rider oriented pricing structure.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If it wasn't targeted, then why are there so many exceptions written into the law? Lawmakers added exemptions for dozens of different types of businesses. If this was intended to be a generic law about worker classification they wouldn't have needed to do that. They really had Uber and similar companies in their crosshairs, and they intended to apply this law narrowly to them.
Thanks for the clarification! (I am definitely not an expert on this law.) Just reading up on it, I see exemptions for (simplifying a bit) a) highly-paid professions and b) commercial fishers, repo agencies, and people who drive for driving clubs(?). The first category absolutely makes sense if the aim is something like "companies shouldn't abuse the 'contractor' classification to take advantage of low-paid workers".…
> A repossession agency licensed pursuant to Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, for whom the determination of employee or independent contractor status shall be governed by Section 7500.2 of the Business and Professions Code, if the repossession agency is free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact. (nonitalic emphasis mine)
IANAL but that's not an exception - that's the bill saying that if the primary part of the ABC test does not apply, then the existing regulations for that licensed business take over from AB5.
From my quick glance, all of the exceptions I could find boiled down to this FAQ from the CA state website or older legislation explicitly mentioned right next to the exceptions in AB5 [2]:
> 4) Do AB 5 and Labor Code section 2750.3 require use of the ABC test in all situations? > ... > Additionally, where a court determines the ABC test cannot apply for a reason other than an express exception, the Borello test, described in Question 5 below, will apply. For example, if a court were to determine in a particular case that the ABC test is preempted by an applicable federal law, the Borello test would be used.
Note that the "express exception" in the case of the repo agencies is due to existing CA state law governing that profession which supersedes AB5 as long as the "repossession agency is free from the control and direction of the hiring person or entity in connection with the performance of the work, both under the contract for the performance of the work and in fact."
In the case of other licensed professions like doctors, veterinarians, and yes, commercial fishermen (who must have a commercial fishing license) they are all covered by existing, more specific, legislation and federal laws that by definition require exceptions in the State law - otherwise it'd be even more bogged down in the courts. That's why there's the Borello test and explicit exception: in order to fit in with other existing laws.
This is all just seems like self serving FUD from our industry but again, IANAL.
[1] https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billCompareClient.x...
[2] https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm
Earlier quoted context omitted.
OK, if that's true, then what's the problem with them stopping business in California? According to your logic, everyone wins.
In my view, that's exactly right. They should either treat their drivers like FT employees, pivot to a new (legal) service, or shut down entirely (and disband the company). If they can't treat their drivers decently and follow the law, they shouldn't exist.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A "dependent contractor" is literally what an employee is, except that in your scenario it would just be an employee without the decades of hard-fought labor protections like bathroom breaks.
I disagree. Every Uber driver, also drives for Lyft and some format of gig on-demand services (like Postmates, Uber eats) during the same hours. If there is a ride from Uber they pick up that ride, if not they switch to Lyft and pick up their rides. I'm yet to see an employer who will be okay with their employee doing it.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Safe and maybe fairer for consumers yes, not so much for the employees. That's why they are getting ruled against with employment law. I can think of quite a few other businesses who would love to toss out all employee protections and benefits. I'm sure it would slightly lower prices and improve efficiency here and there. Is that worth the cost though?...
Nobody is forced to drive for Uber. If they are, presumably they feel Uber’s existence is better than Uber’s nonexistence, otherwise they would be doing something else. The fact that Uber was their #1 choice means Uber driving was an upgrade for their options.
There is a reason that 60% of their drivers leave after 6 months.
https://www.businessofapps.com/data/uber-statistics/
More likely people don't find out the true costs of being an Uber driver until they wear out their cars, and have to start paying for repairs and maintenance. When your car is in the shop for 3 days, you can't make any money, so you're getting a double hit.
If Uber was so great, people would be sticking around.
Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.
Yes, a terrible solution for drivers and riders both. Back to the taxi monopolies.
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…
Them shutting down is a perfectly acceptable outcome. California has essentially told them "You're doing an illegal thing". They're response is essentially "Oh yeah? Well then, we'll stop doing the illegal thing!" Thank you? That's what you were asked to do in the first place? If they aren't interested in operating legally, then pivot or disband the company.
Doesn't Uber still work elsewhere?
By my calculations, the world is 57,510,000 sq miles of land, california is 163,696 sq miles, and that leaves 57,346,304 (99.715%) of the world available to uber.