71–80 of 1001 posts
Why can't we have a new worker classification that allows gig workers to have both the flexibility the job entails + better benefits/protections?
Voters in the US also don’t want to pay for any of this.
Hence, the politicians that get elected are ones that give people education via student loans, and healthcare/unemployment benefits tied to employer/employment status. Those politicians get to claim they helped people, and they get to claim they kept taxes low.
The game is to try to reduce your tax burden as much as possible, and don’t slip up and end up in the bottom 3, maybe even 4 income quintiles.
When Tesla/Waymo/Uber/Lyft roll out actual self-driving technology in the future and people complain "robots are taking our jobs!" we can point to this legislation and say "actually, no, it was the politicians"
When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority. So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and…
The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.
Insurance, parking, fuel, depreciation, maintenance, and random events add up. If you don't need it for commuting, most of the recurring rideshare costs vanish.
If you need to make an extra long occasional trip, car rental for a day or two outweighs ownership.
Edit: To be clear, anything other than a car is cheaper for many (not all) people. (e)Bike, shared scooter, walking, trolley, Uber/Lyft, taxi, carpooling, etc. Cities are expensive and small towns are small.
On average, ~50% of car trips are under 2 miles. A car is not required for most of those in most locations.
So this is basically an admission that the ridesharing business model is not viable without worker exploitation?
People freely working is not exploitation. Full time driving jobs already exist if you wanted that instead of freelance rideshare driving.
Just because someone freely accepts work, doesn't mean its automatically free of exploitation. Exploitation just means one party is taking advantage of another parties weakness.
Rideshare specifically - I don't think this exploitation is unilateral, but it does exist.
Example - UAE commercial builders freely attracting Pakistan/India laborers and then holding their passports hostage when they realize it's not worth it. https://www.rt.com/news/353432-uae-migrant-workers-slavery/
EDIT: I should clarify - there are degrees of exploitation, the UAE example is an extreme (but used as an example because its so clear cut). My overall point has more to do with people "freely choosing to work" as an idea that people can't be exploited as a result.
When I moved to CA, I put off getting a CA license for years. I always told myself I'd go to the DMV and do the paperwork, then I waited long enough to find out I would have to retake the test, until finally I just resigned to using Uber and Lyft all the time. I never thought I would need it and so I never made it a priority. So this news really sucks, as you haven't been able to schedule DMV appointments at all and…
The average person's response to being told they'd have to take another driver's test isn't to replace driving with Uber/Lyft. You're in a unique position to be able to afford to replace all driving with ridesharing, since gas+insurance+maintenance costs are much lower than say, a month of commuting to an office via rideshare.
> Instead, what Sacramento politicians are pushing is an employment model that 4 out of 5 drivers don’t support. Is that stat accurate? If so, what is the argument for imposing a model that the vast majority of drivers don't support?
100% of the thousands of Uber drivers I've talked to over the past 8 years have said work flexibility is their greatest advantage. Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. If they wanted a FT driving job, they would've gotten one.
Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
100% of the thousands of Uber drivers I've talked to over the past 8 years have said work flexibility is their greatest advantage. Many of them already have other commitments and drive for extra income. If they wanted a FT driving job, they would've gotten one.
Thinking through this more. I've noticed that a lot of drivers work both Uber and Lyft (flexibility allows this). Would that go away in the employee model?
I used to drive for Uber, a few hours a week during my downtime when I was bored and had nothing better to do. The earnings weren’t great, but it was very helpful as an extra. I had a fuel efficient car and kept track of all my expenses for deductions and made above minimum wage. I’ve met plenty of lovely and fascinating people and had great, enjoyable conversations. I barely had any issues with riders. This extra in…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> You're whimsically sad you can't get more fun money to invest in stock, while the reason that ride sharing is being shut down is because it takes advantage of the lower class it depends on. The American people take advantage of the lower class by tying healthcare to employment, and in an extra-cruel way where less lucrative jobs also provide insurance that is both more expensive day-to-day to the employee AND less…
Great idea, but in the meantime these workers need healthcare.
Unless they find another job. Which they were free to do anyway. But that's not always so simple...
So what problem did we just solve?