161–170 of 1001 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea, but in the meantime these workers need healthcare.
And when Uber and Lyft shut down they get neither healthcare nor this income. 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?
I don't know if you're genuine or not but the way you wrote this post sounds so utterly inauthentic[0]. 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. [0]edit: unauthentic->inauthentic
He is giving his point of view based on past experience. A lot of drivers see Uber as helpful side money, and that seems quite genuine. Those who see Uber this away are indeed seeing this opportunity taken away.
[1] - https://www.theverge.com/2019/5/8/18535627/uber-lyft-sf-traf...
[2] - https://www.chicagotribune.com/business/ct-biz-uber-driver-w...
Earlier quoted context omitted.
People freely working is not exploitation. Full time driving jobs already exist if you wanted that instead of freelance rideshare driving.
At that point it's full blown Stockholm syndrome, they somehow managed to make people believe it's in their own interest to be denied basic worker rights. Make them believe they are "their own boss" and they'll accept everything, even if they're just a tiny cog in the giant money printing machine (money they'll never see the color of)
People who have no idea or experience of others but want to remove their freedom and tell them what's best for them is far more insidious and dangerous.
> 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?
This seems lazy by CA. We either have "full time = forty hours of work and tons of benefits that have been shoehorned into employment because our government doesn't provide it" or "part time = less than forty hours and you get abused" I'm not privy so I won't pretend to have the right idea, but it seems like there should be a middle ground.
It's not lazy, it's _greedy_. The state is only interesting in getting a share of the Uber/Lyft pie via payroll and unemployment taxes. They would also get automatic deduction of taxes from peoples' paychecks who would otherwise be under the reporting limit.
Unemployment is a different case, but here, it would actually make the state liable for more money—it would be a pretty weird greed situation.
> the rest would have scheduled shifts, and capped hourly earnings. I don't really understand why this is necessary. Can't there still be flexible arrangements with drivers simply clocking their work and then getting some kind of salary derived from that? Can't they still get paid bonuses for driving in particularly unwanted hours? Sure, this would be a complex contract, but I don't see how this is impossible. But I'…
No one would work when you wanted them to work unless you make them. Would you work a busy Friday night dealing with drunk people and missing your friends when you could get the same money for doing nothing on a Tuesday morning?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Great idea, but in the meantime these workers need healthcare.
And when Uber and Lyft shut down they get neither healthcare nor this income. 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?
Am I nuts, or is the heart of this issue really the fact that our healthcare system is built on tying benefits to full time jobs?
The heart of the issue is big labor unions want more power, and independent contractor status is a threat to their power.
If unions were truly invested in the best interest of workers instead of the best interest of the union, they would value the desires of the 4/5 of drivers that want independent work as much as the 1/5 of drivers that want to be employees with benefits.
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…
I’d think a good ole fashioned taxi would work. Is there a reason you couldn’t or wouldn’t use one?