They didn't have to buy anything, obviously people want cheaper rides. We all remember how it was before uber.
Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
241–250 of 401 posts
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#242Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. Does the app give him the contact info for each of his passengers after every ride so that he can own the business relationship with them? If not then he's an employee, not an independent contractor. The number of hours worked per month is a complete red herring.
Don't you think Uber giving out peoples contact information like that would be a gross violation of riders privacy? If the driver wants they can ask the rider for their contact info (although I would find that kinda creepy).
That's their point. It would be creepy because the rider is not actually contracting with the driver.
The driver is an employee of Uber, so it would be creepy for them to have your info. If they were someone you hired, that's not weird.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#243Earlier quoted context omitted.
I think you’re misreading our situation. We run phone and computer repair shops as our primary business. Uber is his part-time side gig. We do pay into unemployment, as we are both salaried workers of our own business. He did not take unemployment during Covid. Our stores were considered essential, so they stayed open. That is pretty much the point of part-time driving. You have a full-time job or business that pays…
Could you address the insurance and workers compensation issue? Does your husbands auto insurance have a maximum payout? Otherwise we as a society will end up picking up the unpaid medical bills over that amount. There are many others, but these two are the most egregious.
Bro, I'm picking up the bill for your kids (or if you're childless then someone's kids) to go to school. So maybe stop with this nonsensical view of society where you have to cover all your costs.
Obviously some of us net positive into the government. That's how society works.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#244Earlier quoted context omitted.
> Maybe I'm too left-leaning, but doesn't it feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor, calling in sick if they don't feel good or earning enough money to afford more than Ramen at the end of the month, no matter their line of work? It does feel wrong to deny people the possibility of seeing a doctor. It does feel wrong that some people can't afford basic necessities. Why do you insist on drawing a…
I fully agree with you. In a society where people would not have any existential fears, employed or not, Uber would not get away with what they're doing anyway. But I think the argument is orthogonal to what I meant. In context of the system that Uber drivers are living in right now, Prop22 is a step in the wrong direction: it gives affirmation to companies that actively deprives gig workers of the rights we talk abo…
My understanding was that both yes and no on prop 22 are net positives compared to the status quo ("yes" providing 120% minimum wage guarantees and some benefits, vs no obligations currently), and I recall reading Uber saying these will indeed incur extra costs that will get passed onto consumers.
I feel that prop 22 is often incorrectly characterized as either an attempt at maintaining the status quo or a step backwards, but it's neither.
It's easy to say "well I support everyone making more money", but that is an idealistic position that ignores the basic fact that there's a limited amount of money that needs to be distributed among a lot of people. If you were in charge, you might be of the opinion that only some stakeholders should get that money and others get nothing in order to allow at least some people to meet some arbitrary minimum threshold (the "no" in prop 22), or you could choose to distribute evenly across all existing stakeholder even if it doesn't meet the threshold for anyone (the "yes").
I don't think there's necessarily a right/wrong stance here; they're just different philosophies, and it makes sense to then vote on which people prefer. The people voted, and I imagine they did so with understanding of the propositions.
I think it's dangerous to insinuate that people can easily be manipulated to vote one way or another. If that were indeed the case, then what exactly is the merit of a democracy over a dictatorship? I'd rather believe that people do indeed take their civic responsibility seriously and vote in an informed manner.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#245Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”
Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.
I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option.
Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#246My husband drives for Uber, and I’m glad the proposition passed as it is. He drives the way Uber was originally envisioned. He goes out some nights if there’s a surge, and in the morning on the way to work he points the app toward our stores and grabs a person (pre-pandemic) or a food delivery (today) on his way in. It pays for gas money, car maintenance, and then some. Some months he makes a few hundred dollars. Som…
> I feel strongly like this law was pushed by people who want Uber to be a full-time job. It’s not. I understand that some people want it to be full-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make Uber something it’s not. And this is the case… why? I could just as easily say “I understand that some people want Uber to be part-time, but I wish they would stop trying to make it something it’s not.”
Because part-time has been the main description of the job since the company started.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#247One element of Prop 22 which seems extreme to me are the voting requirements to one-day overturn the law: "A change to the law would require a seven-eighths majority in the California legislature." I realize that we don't want laws on the books that are continually changed, but that's an extremely steep climb, should the majority of the legislature feel that this law is problematic. They need virtual total agreement.
It's kind of obvious why ballot initiatives prevent the legislature from modifying them. Often they are to overrule the legislature. So if you let the legislature instantly rewrite them then they're useless.
Also, the level of civics knowledge among Californians is near rock bottom and this thing has revealed that. 7/8ths in the legislature cannot 'overturn' this law. That's not how it works.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#248Earlier quoted context omitted.
Well there are tons of companies for people who want full time employment (it's basically the default). It's good for people to have another option.
I want the option for my 12 year old to work in a coal mine. It's good for people to have another option. Lots of labor laws exist that prevent people from working jobs they could work without those laws. This individuals will likely be against those laws. It doesn't mean those laws are bad for society.
I don't follow. Are you arguing that the very concept of part-time labor is or could be exploitative?
If not, then the problem with Uber isn't the part-time-ness, and forcing the job to be full time is a very awkward way to try to fix the exploitation.
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#249When software companies switch to on-demand flex labor at below minimum wage everyone on this site who supports Prop 22 will be singing a different tune.
It's already 100% legal to pay software engineers minimum wage, why don't the FAANGs of the world do it?
Is it possible that the market forces set the floor on engineer wages, not the legal system?
Re: Gig economy companies spent more than $200M to bankroll Proposition 22
#250Earlier quoted context omitted.
Why? I broke my leg. Why can't I work with my hands?
you really don't see how weak this counterpoint is? e.g. if you break your hands what exactly are you going to do with your legs?
Wear a board on your front and back, with a message about worker protections, universal healthcare and walk around town spreading that message and hope it has an effect.