231–240 of 343 posts
Are they really trying to claim that Uber is not a transportation company but instead "a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces"? I guess we do live in a post-truth era.
(C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Are they really trying to claim that Uber is not a transportation company but instead "a technology platform for several different types of digital marketplaces"? I guess we do live in a post-truth era.
I have no idea how they're going to get past the 3rd part of Dynamex. Was it not encoded into AB5? (C) that the worker is customarily engaged in an independently established trade, occupation, or business of the same nature as the work performed.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The thing is, I would rather you are more restricted or stop driving for Uber, and full-time drivers get decent terms, then you get to keep your (seemingly) unnecessary side money and full-time people, for whom it is the main job, have substandard conditions and rights. Ideally there wouldn't be a tradeoff, but in practice it seems like there is one.
The more important group that loses without flexible hours are people who get by on a combination of part time jobs, or are training/educating themselves and need extra money to support themselves.
Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words. I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.
That amount of money can go a long way. Unfortunately.
this is probably going to be labeled as a naive view, but to me it's clear that no one cares about the spirit of the sharing economy (not even corps like uber or airbnb): no one should be dedicating 100% of their "work time" to ubering... nor buying up properties to rent it out as airbnb permanently... I thought it was about unused/wasted time/resources that could be shared (for some profit). Corps likely airbnb and…
This is the fiction sold by AirBnB, Uber, etc. You just can’t grow forever (as these companies require) by “sharing.” Do you think investors would continue to happily light billions on fire if Uber didn’t have huge ambitions?
This is very similar to Etsy. Founded as a handmade marketplace until they realized not enough people make stuff by hand to keep growing. Now it’s just a mass-produced shit shop just like every other place.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Ebay doesn't control how much you sell your product for. Ebay doesn't police how you sell, package, or ship your product. It's mostly hands off. Compare this with the level of control Uber exerts on its drivers. Similarly, Ebay's service is less dependent on how well you provide your commerce services, it pretty much lets the market determine your prospects on its platform. On the other hand, Uber is highly reliant o…
Uber and lyft have to dictate the price the end user pays. Nobody would use the service if they had to collect bids from a bunch of drivers each time they wanted to go somewhere. As a result they wouldn’t have an effective pool of customers needed to attract drivers. I agree with others. These “gig economy” jobs are a different classification of worker that doesn’t currently exist. Dunno what the details should be bu…
I don't think your post makes a strong statement to this effect, but it suggests it, and it's good to be clear on this point.
As 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…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The bill is intended to protect people for whom driving is one of their primary sources of income. Not to be callous, but most people aren't particularly worried about how this affects those who drive for Uber on occasion when they're "a little bored and looking for something to do".
90% are not full time .
Uber's defense fails The Duck Test. They are describing a job, people doing a job, people paying for a job, and people taking a cut of the profits. They just don't use those words. I suspect if/when this gets to a higher court, the whole thing will come crashing down, because to allow Uber's weaselly redefinition of common terms, would be to allow other classes of employment to similarly become unprotected.
Isn't being a driver on Uber platform same as being a seller on Amazon marketplace? Amazon takes care of delivery, cancellation etc and charges a commission for those services.
Currently, most drivers seem to drive for both Uber and Lyft (based on their cars having stickers for both). But if classified as employees, and being guaranteed a minimum wage, then Uber/Lyft might require them to be exclusively available. As a result, the drivers will have to choose either Uber and Lyft and since Uber has more market share, they will likely choose Uber and Lyft will be squeezed out.
What am I missing/misunderstanding above?