271–280 of 688 posts
Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not just seek some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Which is a one-off "world is burning down" case which no one planned for or expected. Hardy a long term plan by the VCs to take advantage of everyone else. I'm guessing unemployment insurance didn't cover a lot of the rest of the unemployed either for COVID (as it ran out due to never being designed for this situation) so it came from taxes. In which case no one paid into the social safety net except through taxes (w…
Any remotely competent student of history can foresee occasional economic crises with high unemployment. That’s why we have a national unemployment insurance scheme. Maybe you don’t foresee a pandemic, but only in the same way that you don’t foresee getting side-swiped when a car passes you while blowing its tire. Or having your house’s roof ripped off by a tornado. Totally unforeseeable events , but somewhat predica…
Please list the historical unemployment insurance bailouts that covered contractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
What would such a contract look like? How would Uber or Lyft hold up their end of a N-ride contract if they don't end up having enough riders that day?
> What would such a contract look like? The obvious answer: perhaps more similar to the way it looks like right now? I just don't see why IC implies "let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform".
Earlier quoted context omitted.
We make choices within contexts other people create.
And your solution is to take away more choices from people?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for whatever job that can get that will help them eat and provide for their families.
I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how replacing a "bad" option with no option helps anyone, especially the people that were willing to take the "bad" option.
If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified as contractors.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and these companies aren't paying into it, even though everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the consequences.
> Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic effects How do you know the personal situation of each of Uber's/Lyft's drivers? How do we measure risk for each person in an objective way? Some people might be at no risk, some higher. We can't know! What right is there in taking away options that benefit some people because it might possibly not work well for someone who voluntarily signed a contract? This i…
All rideshare drivers are (by definition) participating in the most dangerous activity (western) humans do on a daily basis. Every non-utilized minute they spend on the road adds risk to them as well as to other members of society.
Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly efficient market. From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs that go into driving s…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background.
> but rather they have limited choices available to them given their resources and background. So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person looking to make some money is looking for something with as much commitment as employment. Not every business needs people to work according to their schedule at a specific place. While you think you're giving full-time employment and benefits to all of these people what…
This is some of the most phenomenal bullshit I've ever read.
There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing people to work their own hours and also giving them benefits if they meet hourly qualifications.
You're talking about people making <$30k a year while shouldering most of the risk and using their own cars as if they're shopping around for the best FAANG salary.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
There's lots of ways to lie with surveys, I wonder what the exact wording was and what the responses would be to variants such as: 1. Do you want to be CEO of your own company or a peon employee? 2. Do you want uber to set your hours? 3. Do you want medical, vacation days, or unemployment insurance? For some people these are all basically the same questions. For most folks, I don't think they are.
> When we polled drivers about their preference between remaining an independent contractor or becoming an employee, an overwhelming number of drivers wanted to remain independent. > "What type of employment relationship would you like to have with rideshare companies" > (A) I don't know the difference: 3.3% > (B) I'd like to be an employee: 20.8% > (C) I'd like to be an independent contractor: 75.9% https://therides…
Not saying they aren't, but I... just don't know.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
If the people affected are against the law then how did it make it to a vote, let alone pass? that blows me away.
California is a single party state with a supermajority of delegates. This means that Democrats can pass pretty much any law that they want without any real opposition. The unions in California are unhappy with Uber/Lyft employees not being union members since their presence is an alternative (read danger) to some of the unions (teamsters/taxis). Unions have a lot more power with Democrats since they are some of thei…