What's the defense of a business model that loses bucketloads of money despite not treating their drivers with the dignity they deserve? Both Uber and Lyft are not going to be killed by regulation, they're going to be killed for being shitty businesses.
Update on AB5
11–20 of 343 posts
Re: Update on AB5
#12> drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.
> which is serving as a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces.
Pretty clever wording by Uber here, I'd say. Although does not make sense to me.
Re: Update on AB5
#13As someone who drives Uber on occasion when I'm a little bored and looking for something to do, I think it's great that I'm not an Uber employee. I can do 10 hours or I can do 0 hours based on nothing but my own whim. I don't have a problem with people organizing to get a better deal for themselves, but I like the way it works now. I've worked for companies that misclassify workers, and Uber isn't it as far as I unde…
Yeah, in your case it would make perfect sense to consider you an independent contractor instead of an employee.
I guess the issue arises when we got people working full-time hours but still being classified as an independent contractor.
Re: Update on AB5
#14> drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.
Uber's position here seems to be that they are a technology company that connects drivers with things that need to be driven from A to B (people, restaurant orders, etc.). Not sure I buy that but it sounds like they're willing to ask the courts to decide on that if this goes into law.
Re: Update on AB5
#15I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.
> I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business
TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.
Re: Update on AB5
#16I think the proper classification of drivers is likely an existential threat to Uber, and they are responding as such. I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business. Although you have to almost admire the sheer brazenness in their admission that they will not adhere to the law.
> I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.
That's like saying Yellow Cab is not a taxi company because the drivers are independent contractors who lease their cars from the company, and it doesn't actually drive anyone around.
And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.
Re: Update on AB5
#17I feel like it's pretty clear that gig economy jobs don't neatly fit in either of the existing categories of workers: they're not quite employees (you can clearly work or not work whenever you want) or contractors (you clearly have very little negotiating power or information in choosing your work or guaranteeing your wages). Attempts to munge them into one of those categories are just doomed; a new category is needed.
Failing that, if they are to be counted as individual contractors they should be able to negotiate like those: without one-sided deceptive deals.
Re: Update on AB5
#18Could someone knowledgeable about employment law explain what will change for Uber/Lyft drivers if the companies are forced to reclassify them as employees?
The post talks about "potential harm" and says that how many hours drivers have to work and whether they can work for competitors at the same time "would all change." Is that right?
Re: Update on AB5
#19> drivers’ work is outside the usual course of Uber’s business What... how... I don't even know where to begin with this.
i'm guessing they would claim they are an ridsharing platform, with the purpose of allowing drivers and riders to find each other and facilitate the transaction, rather than a taxi service.
the problem with that argument is that they have a lot of control of the driver side of the platform, directly through pricing and indirectly through ratings and access.
Re: Update on AB5
#20Earlier quoted context omitted.
> I find it highly unlikely that a court would find transportation to be outside the scope of Uber's business TBH considering the language of the bill, it s very plausible to say that driving people around is not "their usual course". The same way that google is not an advertiser, and airbnb is not a hotel chain.
That's like saying Yellow Cab is not a taxi company because the drivers are independent contractors who lease their cars from the company, and it doesn't actually drive anyone around. And yes, Uber does lease cars to its drivers.
Or that e-bay is not a fashion store. (I think u re referring to a probably tiny part of uber that leases cars to drivers)