Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

Post by jmilloy » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

the_mitsuhiko wrote: post #544

ianferrel wrote: post #453

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I don't think it's an anti-moonlight clause, I think it's saying that you can't do what many drivers do now, which is sign on to both apps and wait for a ride to come in, then sign out of the one you're not serving. If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time.

> If you're an employee on the clock, you can't be on the clock for two different organizations at the same time. I don't see why that would not be possible.

Post by manigandham » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

azinman2 wrote: post #306

manigandham wrote: post #230

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If operations are unprofitable then what money are they leaving? However it's likely that without changes, they will just operate in a few core urban regions rather than the widespread coverage they have today.

If it's not profitable to treat those already working 40+ hours a week as an employee, then that's not a great business in the first place. We shouldn't rely on exploiting the lower class in order to provide basic services like transportation. Personally I think the idea of being a contractor to loosely pick up some extra cash is a great thing, assuming this is effectively an extra job and way less than 40h/week. I d…

Post by jiveturkey » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:57 PM UTC

crazygringo wrote: post #464

mcguire wrote: post #437

" As employees they would have to work set schedules and shifts, would not be able to work for multiple app-based companies and would have reduced earning potential — and many jobs would actually be eliminated. " ( https://prop22facts.com/lyft/ ) Is that something mandated by California? As far as I know, everywhere else I've been, work-schedules and anti-moonlighting are restrictions placed by the employer, not the…

With employees, you can't rely on variable supply and demand pricing to ensure the most drivers are there at peak times -- instead, you have to do it through scheduling instead. And it's not so much anti-moonlighting as not being able to work for multiple companies at the same time (hour) . Right now, a driver often is waiting for both Lyft and Uber riders. If they're an hourly employee, they obviously can't do that…

Post by dumbfoundded » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

rattray wrote: post #471

dumbfoundded wrote: post #300

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If Texas had California's oil, no one would live there.

Huh? Texas and California both have high quality of life, and also both have large amounts of oil: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_oil_and_gas_industr... Not sure what you're trying to say here.

Post by jeffbee » Thu, Aug 20, 2020, 6:58 PM UTC

kelnos wrote: post #527

jeffbee wrote: post #474

Earlier quoted context omitted.

The state doesn't need to allow a business to continue just because they invented a business model that requires exploitative labor practices. Whether Lyft can exist is not an aspect that enters into labor law.

The business model doesn't require exploitative business practices; Lyft has chosen their prices, and chosen what they'll pay their drivers. If prices were to go up, sure, Lyft would have less business, but presumably there is some price point that pays drivers enough and also makes the economics work for Lyft.