271–280 of 1001 posts
What people are not talking about is how much congestion these services bring to city streets. For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1] and Lyft/Uber contributed to half of that. That is very bad as more traffic leads to more traffic accidents, more fatalities and pedestrians getting hit. In addition lets not forget the heavy toll on the environment with air pollution and its myriad…
I'm always perplexed when people bring this issue up but never discuss the contribution to congestion by people driving their own cars. Yes, you can say that increased congestion from single occupancy vehicles leads to a tragedy of the commons for those on buses. This can be addressed by making bus only lanes (and they should be bus only lanes, not bus and taxi lanes) For the rest of the congestion, there's not much…
[1] - https://sf.curbed.com/2019/1/23/18194612/lyft-uber-tnc-sfmta...
I suspect that California is going to backpedal on this pretty quickly. Uber and Lyft are popular. Going back to taxis is going to be very unpopular. IMO, if the California Republican party was smart they would make this a wedge issue in the next election. "Elect us, and we'll make it possible to use Uber again."
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?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
AB5 left that flexibility in place. It allows for flexible hours and the ability to pick and choose the rides they accept. Nothing about this legislation or the court case before it took that flexibility away. Nothing about it requires people to be "full time" either.
True but the problem is that it mandates presence-based earnings (by the hour) and not output-based. That is the reason it does not work with the model Uber & Lyft built. Obviously, Lyft and Uber could've anticipated this and could've decided months ago to work on an alternative. Instead they let it come to a head and now they are trying to a dramatic PR push to get the law changed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
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)
Personally I don’t think Uber drivers are as stupid as you think they are. They legitimately want to be able to drive flexibly. Also they keep about 75% of receipts for their driving (average gross margin for Uber is under 25%).
That's good because that way they can pay for their car insurance, health insurance, pension, gas, car maintenance, self employment taxes, frequent car cleaning, &c.
I'm not saying the drivers are stupid, I'm saying Uber &co are very smart.
What people are not talking about is how much congestion these services bring to city streets. For San Francisco traffic congestion increased by 60% between 2010-2016[1] and Lyft/Uber contributed to half of that. That is very bad as more traffic leads to more traffic accidents, more fatalities and pedestrians getting hit. In addition lets not forget the heavy toll on the environment with air pollution and its myriad…
I'm always perplexed when people bring this issue up but never discuss the contribution to congestion by people driving their own cars. Yes, you can say that increased congestion from single occupancy vehicles leads to a tragedy of the commons for those on buses. This can be addressed by making bus only lanes (and they should be bus only lanes, not bus and taxi lanes) For the rest of the congestion, there's not much…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Yes people can freely work for Lyft/Uber, but they can't work free. As in, the designation "independent contractor" means they should have a lot more freedom in how they conduct their personal business than they do at the moment. Lyft/Uber keep their drivers on a leash while saying they're independent contractors. And that is exploitation.
I disagree with what you claim is a "leash". Have you ever driven for Uber? They have already made tweaks to give drivers more control over their fares and you always had control over when and where you work, along with which ride you accept. More importantly these definitions are decades old and need updating for the modern era. The better solution would be to create a new classification between employee and freelan…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I don't think the third pillar is a problem. You can claim you customarily engaging in driving as a work. The primary problem Uber and Lyft are running into is #2. The courts think that drivers perform work within the company's normal line of business, while Uber and Lyft believe they are a technology marketplace and not a transportation company.
Well, on #2 I agreed with the court's analysis -- at least in how Lyft/Uber are operating now. These companies would not exist if not for being in the transportation business. It is a real stretch to divorce them from the aspect of cars driving -- that is their very business. On #3, so companies would just ask the people driving whether "this is your customary line of work" and if you don't answer right, you're not a…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Have they tried it to confirm it 'doesn't work'? Maybe rideshare companies need to reduce their cut, and start putting more of that money into the driver's pocket. Doesn't mean it can't be a profitable business, though possibly low-margin. Have they tried paring back development costs, marketing costs, etc?
Converting someone to an employee means a lot more than just paying them more. There is entirely new infrastructure that has to exist now.