291–300 of 343 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Lyft can simply offer more money and accept lower margins.
So can Uber, that's just a race to the bottom.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Making it illegal is the the whole point of AB5. Contractor status was once for a very specific kind of worker: independent professionals who were basically solo businesses. It has turned into a giant loophole, where worker have the downsides of employment along with the downsides of being a contractor. AB5 aims to return to the status quo, where if you want to hire a bunch of employees, you really have to treat them…
Except they aren’t employees. They are something else. Make a new classification for them.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not that many people will agree to exclusivity for minimal wages, certainly not for hours they aren't scheduled and paid.
True, but the majority opinion driving AB5 seems to be that most drivers are doing this as their full time jobs. Yes, there are those who drive a few hours occasionally as a hobby or for extra side income, but they don't count much. If the number of Lyft drivers falls significantly, consumers will have to wait longer to get a Lyft ride and they will start abandoning Lyft. Hastening the spiral. Another comment mention…
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…
There is very little downside for the employee to be classified as such rather than as a contractor. The vast majority of the downside is for the employer. I'm a W-2 employee at the company I work for, and they don't dictate my hours.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
So can Uber, that's just a race to the bottom.
Assuming that Uber has a competitive advantage because of their brand, and both Uber and Lyft are rational actors who want to maximize their profits, they will end up in a state where Uber has higher margins than Lyft.
Woah - I see Lyft as the one with the competitive advantage due to Uber's brand. Uber is toxic while Lyft is seen as friendly.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
I'm not a fan of the whole "late-stage capitalism" meme, but I think that perfectly describes your complaint here. The ideal approach is two pronged, you raise the standard which benefits society as a whole and increase the social safety net to take care of those few lost in transition. The same principle applies to a wide variety of economic changes from increased labor regulations, to housing, to free trade, to aut…
My point is that it's impossible for us to keep up and fix everyone's problem for them. We need to empower people to make their own choices. That's the best way to help.
Wow, just .. wow. I thought it was going to be Uber's plan of coming under compliance of AB5 and sugar coating the entire thing to made them sound like some honorable people. But no, they're still scum. You get half way through and you realize it's just business as usual. We're going to ignore, fight and not give a shit about the law. The build up to this legislation was that it was specifically around companies like…
Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…
Earlier quoted context omitted.
A corporation's illegal business practices don't become legal just because they're required to sustain its business model. 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.
Can you explain how what they do is illegal?
If you can't figure out why the general statement I made is relevant in this context, no amount of explanation from me is going to solve that problem.
Uber's defense is that it is licensing lead generation software to drivers, and that it just takes a commission from each trip as payment for use of its software. In many ways, I can see it. I think the issue lies in a lot of Uber's current policies around drivers e.g. very strict rules around cancellations. If Uber was just a lead generation provider then it shouldn't care or intervene if a driver decides they don't…
Considering drivers can't even set their own prices, this fails that test from the get go.