321–330 of 387 posts
Classifying these drivers as employees is a bad idea. Why. Because many of them drive for more than one of these companies at the same time. And I don’t mean they work sometimes for one and sometimes for another, I mean they’ll have two or more apps open at the same time. This is vastly different than say working 20 hours a week at Walmart and another 20 at Costco. Think about this: if drivers were “employees” who th…
Well maybe they should find some alternate structure where the different rideshare companies will chip in for benefits like health care. Otherwise it's just a huge externality being leveraged on the rest of us.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
In which case the state should cover their health benefits, make a vote for that, not for a private employer.
Sure. In the absence of governmental provided health insurance, this vote will mean that Uber/Lyft drivers won't get benefits.
In addition, Prop 22 also gave drivers health benefits from the employer
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Are you really comparing America of 1800s to the Western European states of today?! I lived without ANY freedoms. Taken away by the (communist) government in exchange for the promise of safety, wages and lots and lots of benefits. Of course, we got neither.
> Are you really comparing America of 1800s to the Western European states of today?! I am really replying to the statement that you made: "That "myth" is what America was built on and what made it great. " > I lived without ANY freedoms. Taken away by the (communist) government Ah yes, because there are exactly two possible modes of living in this world: communism and corporate cronyism called FREEDOM in the US. Mea…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The barrier to entry for a taxi service, in a sensible jurisdiction, is very low - put a sign on your car and start driving people around. Uber and Lyft became so popular precisely because there are so many insensibly-regulated jurisdictions that made even this start-your-own-taxi-service illegal in order to create artificial scarcity. Highly-regulated medallion taxi services suck - both independent taxis as well as…
And I’d argue the barrier to entry for taxi businesses should be higher. More cars on the road doesn’t help the environment, or speed up anyone’s commute. Allowing Uber to circumvent this is moving our state in the wrong direction. And uber’s experience while better in some ways, is only better at the cost of the environment, and workers rights. If we don’t allow artificial scarcity/restrictions on number of cars on…
Impose a revenue-neutral carbon tax and you’ll address the externalities by encouraging more carbon efficient travel. Medallion taxis are a solution to exactly nothing.
AB5 has nothing to do with climate change. It’s grubby cartel-building disguised as labour-championing policy.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> These are jobs, not hobbies, and people need to eat. The point is that this often isn't someone's primary job. They take a job at Walmart or driving a school bus, it doesn't pay very well, so they get off work and pick up some rides to supplement their income before going home. They don't need health insurance because they got it through their first job or their spouse, and imposing that cost on the second job only…
I'm gonna need a big fat "citation needed" on the idea that this isn't a job to people. It doesn't square with, again, the drivers actually in my life. It sounds exactly like uncritically re-spewing the bullshit of these employers.
If the people you know don't actually want or need those advantages, why are they doing that job instead of working at Walmart or a gas station or a hundred other jobs where you are an employee?
Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Trump Administration Announces Historic Price Transparency Requirements to Increase Competition and Lower Healthcare Costs for All Americans > President Trump Signs “Most Favored Nation Price” Executive Order on Drug Pricing Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information.
> Here are two headlines I offer without comment that can be searched with your favorite search engine for more information. Headlines are not arguments...
A special exception for a narrow set of companies with an established history of abhorrent behaviour with requires a 7/8ths vote to overturn/modify and then pretending that this is something the legislature can update. It's hard for me to not feel disappointed with the public on this one.
I also think it will not end up mattering much because the unit economics of the rideshare companies are so bad.
If they had gone along with AB5, they would’ve had cover to say to their investors “we need to make some expensive changes but it’s not our fault.”
As it stands, they’re still going to be hemorrhaging money, but now the question will be “you literally wrote your own law and you STILL can’t turn a profit?”
Most of all, it sets a very bad precedent in terms of signaling to other rich companies that amending Calif law to suit your needs is relatively easy and affordable.