[HN Gopher] Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judg...
___________________________________________________________________
Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants
emergency stay
Author : badwolf
Score : 249 points
Date : 2020-08-20 19:07 UTC (3 hours ago)
(HTM) web link (www.theverge.com)
(TXT) w3m dump (www.theverge.com)
| dang wrote:
| The earlier thread, before this new information came up, is at
| https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24224882 and still ongoing.
| vmchale wrote:
| Damn. Too big to regulate!
| node-bayarea wrote:
| Lets regulate it to death!
| senderista wrote:
| How much of this debate would be moot if we had a proper social
| safety net, so workers didn't depend on their employers for
| necessities like health insurance? Social democracy can make the
| economy more agile, not less.
| afrojack123 wrote:
| Possibly a dumb and general question. Is Uber and Lyft
| responsible for state tax revenue from its contractors? Or are
| the contractors supposed to pay their own taxes? I could
| understand the states having problems with contractor's paying
| their own taxes considering their incomes are lower.
| darkwizard42 wrote:
| Independent contractors pay their own taxes. Uber and Lyft
| offer tools and assistance to help drivers adequately report
| and take deductions etc. as needed (Lyft at least offers the
| ability to export ride data etc. as needed, I believe but am
| not sure if Uber does the same).
|
| Companies pay taxes for their employees (different tax
| relationship altogether). Another way to think about it is...
| do you ever pay taxes for a painter or plumber that does a job
| for you? (probably not)
| solutron wrote:
| This is a symptom of the core, underlying problem. The coupling
| between employer, employee and health care needs to be undone.
| Employers aren't healthcare providers, we don't need additional
| middle-men and bureaucracy dictating, by proxy, how people
| receive care and from who. Universal healthcare would let Uber
| and Lyft continue to do what their primary focus is, and drivers
| would be able to do whatever they want work-wise and not have to
| worry about its affect on their ability to receive healthcare at
| an affordable price.
| viscanti wrote:
| It's crazy to see the same politicians who push for universal
| healthcare also push for more coupling of employment to
| healthcare.
| xwdv wrote:
| Why does it seem like people are trying so hard to be outraged
| about this?
| filereaper wrote:
| Good, this can wait till Covid-19, forest-fires and other urgent
| matters right now in California have been taken care of.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Yes. Once those crises are over it's all smooth sailing ahead!
| There'll be TONS of time for labor law then.
| filereaper wrote:
| I'm not saying it'll be smooth sailing at all, just that this
| isn't the right time to cut access given all the other issues
| that are ongoing.
| Bahamut wrote:
| Tell that to Uber and Lyft.
| slimed wrote:
| Tell them what? That they are _required_ to operate in CA
| no matter the terms? Good luck with that.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| I know global warming is a pretty controversial topic on
| this site, but I expect the frequency and severity of
| "other issues" to increase in the future. Thus what you're
| saying is there will _never_ be a right time.
| fsociety wrote:
| I and many others have never been as reliant on Uber and Lyft
| as we have now. I'm fortunate enough to have finances to adapt
| to this, but a lot of people don't.
| HaloZero wrote:
| It won't even have to wait till then. November is the Prop 22
| ballot. If it fails, I imagine Lyft/Uber will just have to
| start switching.
|
| By Sept. 4 each defendant must submit a sworn statement from
| its CEO "confirming that it has developed implementation plans
| under which, if this court affirms the preliminary injunction
| and Proposition 22 on the November 2020 ballot fails to pass,
| the company will be prepared to comply with the preliminary
| injunction within no more than 30 days after issuance of the
| remittitur in the appeal."
|
| From: https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-Lyft-
| win-l...
| node-bayarea wrote:
| Democratic politicians are terrible when it comes to business!
| They are going to kill great companies AND the economy for their
| self-serving political BS!
| serjester wrote:
| Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I
| drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want
| to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their jobs. I
| really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats imposing
| their idea of what a market should look like on an fairly
| efficient market.
|
| From my experience the drivers are perfectly aware of the costs
| that go into driving so I really don't buy the exploitation
| argument. Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats. Also
| don't see how it's realistic to expect them to be able to adjust
| to this on a dime. Although large, California is still a minority
| of their revenue.
| HaloZero wrote:
| I believe the idea is that employee protections and standards
| must come from the government.
|
| Sometimes it comes up naturally (see the benefits of being a
| software engineer) but when unemployment is high those
| protections tend to go away especially for jobs that have
| minimal barrier of entry (ie ride share driver). Right now
| drivers have very little leverage or power over Lyft/Uber
| except for not participating in their market.
|
| The question of AB5 is the right protections and classifying
| them as employees is I think the debate. I believe most drivers
| want independence b/c most drivers only drive part time. But
| the drivers who drive full time want better protections.
| Consultant32452 wrote:
| I feel like there is a general pattern. The left tends to
| prioritize all the good ideas: gender equality, racial
| equality, income gaps, etc. The right tends to prioritize
| systems that actually function in the real world with real
| people who are sometimes jealous, stupid, unethical, liars,
| etc. This is just a case where the first group has run amok
| without talking to the second group. It's the good idea of
| everyone should have good benefits without taking the time to
| design a system that actually works in the real world.
|
| You actually see this sort of dynamic in startups where you
| have two people at the top. One is the creative one who pushes
| all the boundaries and stuff. The other person is the more
| pencil pusher/lawyer/business type who makes sure the bills get
| paid on time.
|
| Lots of good things happen when you can get these two types
| working together instead of hating each other.
| senderista wrote:
| There's a difference between being skeptical of idealistic
| schemes and fetishizing the status quo, which is what I think
| the right predominantly does.
| treeman79 wrote:
| Good insight.
|
| Coming together is tricky when there is no common grounds.
|
| One side wants wealth to be fairly Evenly distributed to help
| the poor.
|
| The other side helps the poor by creating so much wealth that
| that most poor people have a lot of wealth.
|
| These days you can be considered poor and have housing, ac,
| heat, tv, video games, maybe a car, and weight problems
| because food is so cheap.
|
| This only leaves those who truly can not or will not work.
| Severe physical or mental illness, etc.
|
| Some can't stand that inequality exists. Others "know" that
| destroying inequality means we create more poor people.
|
| That's not even touching right to own body vs right to life
| crowd. There is almost no middle ground in that battle.
| Either it's removing a sac of cells or killing a baby. Maybe
| some wiggle room at the start, but none by end
| chillwaves wrote:
| They are poor because they live on a knife's edge, one
| accident away from financial insolvency or lack of
| sufficient access to necessities like health care and
| education opportunities.
|
| Also having to work multiple jobs to break even. The
| problem isn't "inequality" it is that the floor in the US
| is so low compared to other wealthy nations.
| bluedino wrote:
| Lots of people who make decent money live paycheck to
| paycheck because of poor decisions
| [deleted]
| eitherisarb99 wrote:
| Either one is an arbitrary choice that influences the market.
|
| Why should a supposedly free society be free to accept only how
| Uber or Lyft might have it?
|
| It isn't just bureaucrats but the public that votes them in.
| You're cherry picking bits n pieces from the broader social
| narrative to highlight. Why should anyone care what any random
| poster on HN thinks is just as valid and vapid a question once
| you take 5 minutes to think it over.
|
| HN is just as knee jerky and shallow as Twitter and Reddit.
| Don't kid yourselves folks
| chrisjarvis wrote:
| I tend to agree with this, I've always thought ridesharing was
| rather beautiful in terms of economic efficiency: pair those
| with extra money but who don't want to drive at that moment
| with those with extra time who want money. As long as there is
| adequate education about the all-in costs of car ownership I am
| all on board. And at scale it reduces traffic (or at least
| amount of cars in an area).
| all_blue_chucks wrote:
| We should all care. Uber doesn't provide health insurance.
| Instead Uber drivers get their healthcare costs covered by the
| rest of us (either via ACA subsidies or written-off care
| provided to the uninsured).
| labcomputer wrote:
| > Uber drivers get their healthcare costs covered by the rest
| of us
|
| So what? People without jobs also get their healthcare
| covered by MediCal (with zero out of pocket expenses). Is
| that also a problem? Wouldn't it be better if we had
| universal healthcare?
| usaar333 wrote:
| Making them employees doesn't give them health insurance.
| Only if they work over 30 hours a week, which Uber is highly
| incentived to cap.
|
| Besides, what you are actually stating is that Uber riders
| should pay for Uber driver's health insurance, rather than
| the general population.
| all_blue_chucks wrote:
| Correct. Uber drivers should play by the same health
| insurance rules as other workers. And under today's laws
| that requires they become employees.
|
| Ideally health insurance should be decoupled from
| employment status, but until then, we should all play by
| the same rules.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Again, I'm not following. Even if Uber drivers became
| employees I don't see why they'd even get health
| insurance.
|
| (This seems to be more about minimum wage, workers comp,
| UI, etc. which they would get)
| crazyjncsu wrote:
| Uber drivers pay taxes on earnings as contractors too. This
| at least partially covers ACA subsidies (if not fully).
|
| And we subsidize employer-provided healthcare also, hence its
| existence.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| Employer-provided healthcare is a byproduct of WWII-era
| price-fixing that gave employers no way to compete on wages
| (so they started competing on benefits, including
| healthcare).
| 908B64B197 wrote:
| Posted it in an other thread [0] but
|
| Pre-Uber, either the driver rented the car to a middleman who
| rented the medallion from a rich owner, or said owner was
| selling and financing (most banks won't touch these
| medallions!) a medallion at a ridiculous interest rate to a
| driver that planned to use it as his retirement savings (an
| extremely volatile asset and not very liquid).
|
| The more I spoke to cab drivers the more it seemed their
| industry was a pyramid schemed aimed at helping established
| rent-seeker take advantage of often poor new immigrants. Uber
| brought a breeze of fresh air: Someone could simply buy a car,
| calculate the depreciation and it's value on the market (since
| unlike medallions cars are relatively liquid assets!) do
| rideshare and calculate their profits or loss. They can get out
| of the game at anytime, and they know exactly how much they are
| going to get for the car they have should they sell it.
|
| [0] https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=24225648
| RIMR wrote:
| Sure, Uber drivers aren't forced to work at Uber specifically,
| but everyone is obligated to work in a capitalist society if
| they want to survive, so it is important that employers in
| general are bound by laws that protect workers.
|
| In this case, California created new laws in response to
| employee abuses at Uber and Lyft.
|
| This notion that Uber and Lyft drivers can afford to quit and
| find a new career is infantile. The real world does not work
| that way, and people who labor for low wages should be
| protected from abuse.
| bsder wrote:
| > overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they want to stay
| independent.
|
| However, _I_ overwhelmingly don 't want to pay for their
| healthcare or food stamps because they aren't earning enough
| money.
|
| I personally think that AB5 doesn't go far enough. If you
| employ people for more than 40 hours, you should owe healthcare
| and benefits, _period_. It doesn 't matter whether those 40
| hours are one person or 10 people or whether the people are
| contractors or employees. If you can't deliver benefits, fine,
| then you owe as payment to the government to provide that.
|
| We _WANT_ people to have stable employment, not gigs.
| labcomputer wrote:
| Sure, but you can't always get what you want.
|
| Not every business model is economically viable, and (at a
| guess) rideshare-drivers-as-employees might be one of those
| un-viable models.
|
| You can ban exploiting labor, you can force companies to
| share more with the workers, but you can't legislate well-
| paying jobs into existence. You might view Uber as an
| exploitative employer, but it isn't some wildly-profitable
| company that is failing to share its bountiful profits with
| the workers.
|
| I don't care whether Uber and Lyft stop doing business in CA
| as a result of AB5, but I think that's a fairly predictable
| outcome.
| dgellow wrote:
| Some people explicitly want gigs.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| But not allowing those people to work with uber would just
| make them... even more dependant on the state? Either:
|
| 1) They are driving because it's the best opportunity
| available for them, and losing that possibility would force
| them to work less desirable/paying jobs, have less disposable
| income if uber is just a side gig for them or just end up
| unemployed. Which would lead to them contributing even less
| to their healthcare/education/etc costs.
|
| Or
|
| 2) You are assuming that they are driving even if they can
| get 40h jobs with good benefits but just choose... not to? Or
| that if uber inevitably ends up closing their California
| operations, they will magically find those cushier jobs &
| those who drive to add to their income will just find an
| extremely flexible side gig that can net them hundreds of
| dollars a month?
|
| I don't understand how unemployment is a more desirable
| outcome. Because uber will absolutely not pay for each of
| their driver's benefits. And that's even if they were able to
| afford it (they absolutely can't).
| tempsy wrote:
| imo biggest problem with the independent argument is Uber and
| Lyft actively penalizes you as a driver if you decline
| unprofitable trips. Also I believe Lyft (unsure about Uber)
| even stopped showing you how much you make per trip and instead
| just rolls it into one summary, presumably to make it harder
| for you to do the cost/benefit of deciding whether a trip is
| worth doing.
|
| that sort of big brother behavior is the antithesis of
| independence and throws out any argument that Uber is somehow
| just providing drivers with lead gen software like they're
| Salesforce or something
| grugagag wrote:
| I agree, the driver's independence is only one way : when
| convenient to them.
|
| Both Uber and Lift should lower their cut and stop these
| practices if they really want the drivers to remain
| independent
| tempsy wrote:
| yeah it feels like a few product level changes could easily
| swing the argument back in their favor - but I guess the
| risk has always been the impact to the efficiency of the
| marketplace and overall customer experience.
| ReaLNero wrote:
| California is about 5% of revenue for Uber.
| dcftoapv wrote:
| Maybe, but this law will prevent Uber from ever turning a
| profit in CA, so it's far easier to just shutdown operations,
| and move their headquarters.
|
| I live here, pay taxes here, and vote here. I am actively
| rooting against the state right now.
| dmode wrote:
| CA is 12% of Uber's revenue and 25% of Lyft's revenue
| lhorie wrote:
| Source? I've seen many different figures (including a very
| reliable source that stated it was in the single digits for
| Uber)
| tyrust wrote:
| You've asked for a source without linking your "very
| reliable source".
| lhorie wrote:
| Uber's CEO is my source
| cltby wrote:
| > Seems like a loss for everyone except bureaucrats
|
| Not true, it's a great opportunity for javascript developers to
| get up on their soap boxes and share with us their moral and
| economic wisdom.
| DevKoala wrote:
| Thank you for this.
| jsharf wrote:
| haha, point taken. But I'd say it's good that they care.
| Developers are in a different income bracket. Concern is far
| better than cold indifference, which is what usually
| happens...
| talmr wrote:
| wdym? is this related to the SO developer survey?
| jpxw wrote:
| This made me laugh out loud, lol
| yunderalls wrote:
| I laughed at this, but I do think I should point out that in
| a democracy it's good for people to have opinions about
| things that aren't their profession.
| Judgmentality wrote:
| I think it's less about people having opinions and more
| about people being so self-righteous about something they
| don't understand as well as they think they do.
| [deleted]
| geodel wrote:
| Indeed. This is great point. JS developers have made seminal
| contribution to our collective well being by their virtuous
| signals and thoughtful commentary on anything that matters.
|
| With the advent of E-protests they are finally being able to
| highlight against injustices taking place anywhere in the
| world.
| kbenson wrote:
| Sublime. Just the _slightest_ change in the context in
| which this was presented and Poe 's law would be in full
| effect. :)
| dcftoapv wrote:
| Pot meet kettle
| Spivak wrote:
| Poking fun at your own ingroup is the joke.
| maire wrote:
| I remember when there was a crackdown on software independent
| contractors. What most contractors did was go through an agency
| that managed your services. The difference in pay was usually
| 20% since the agency took 20% of your pay.
|
| I suspect this will happen ultimately with the drivers -
| although I can't imagine the drivers will be thrilled with a
| 20% cut in pay.
| grugagag wrote:
| 20% cut on top of the 30-40% that uber/lift take?
| lovecg wrote:
| The talking points I heard was that this was done because of
|
| 1) Payroll tax revenue 2) Unions feeling threatened
|
| The implication is in either case it's an explicitly hostile
| action by the government in favor of special interests, and the
| majority of drivers did not want this.
|
| Can anyone more knowledgeable on the topic pitch in -- is there
| any truth to these arguments?
| dcftoapv wrote:
| The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and
| coerced) the state / city government from installing a train
| from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash.
|
| Then, they got pissed about Uber, and had a rule enacted that
| forced passengers to take a bus to an external lot which
| turned the world's worst airport congestion into a way worse
| situation.
|
| It is not unrealistic to think that they are a driving force
| behind this situation as well. California is corrupt as fuck,
| from GM paying LA to take out way more efficient train lines
| so they could sell buses to Beverly Hills preventing LA from
| building a subway. It makes living here absolutely miserable.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| _The Los Angeles taxi union prevented (read: bribed and
| coerced) the state / city government from installing a
| train from LAX to DTLA because they were rolling in cash._
|
| This is false. Pure FUD. The LA taxi union isn't a very
| powerful union, and was never the primary roadblock to
| building the Green Line all the way to the airport. The FAA
| was the reason: they thought the power lines for the rail
| line would interfere with landing paths of planes.
| https://www.dailynews.com/2008/01/09/why-green-line-
| stopped-...
|
| _California is corrupt as fuck, from GM paying LA to take
| out way more efficient train lines so they could sell buses
| to Beverly Hills preventing LA from building a subway. It
| makes living here absolutely miserable._
|
| This is also a fraudulent representation of history. The
| old rail lines (i.e., Pacific Electric) were never
| profitable because they were intended as loss leaders for
| suburban housing developments. The lines ultimately went
| bankrupt when cars became popular because they had a max
| speed of approximately 15 mph. When LA formed its nascent
| public transportation system in the 50s, it acquired the
| few busy/profitable lines remaining. Some of those rights
| of way were used for new rail construction (for example,
| the E line to Santa Monica).
| dcftoapv wrote:
| Every other city in the country has figured out rail
| transportation. The FAA could have been pacified if there
| was any political will to find a real solution. Blaming
| the FAA because they rejected one design is pure bs.
|
| GM most definitely ran a campaign through the '50s and
| '60s designed to increase the use of buses as a
| replacement for street cars. That's not anywhere close to
| debatable and LA was not the only city that went along
| with it.
| mdorazio wrote:
| Was there ever a legitimately priced proposal for a train
| to go from LAX to DTLA? The only reason the Expo line
| worked was because the rights of way, and in some cases the
| rail itself, was already in place. I don't remember seeing
| anything other than concepts for an LAX train (not the
| people mover under construction now, an actual train) and
| thinking they would never get the funding and permits to
| make it work.
|
| To your comment about rideshare pickups at the terminals.
| Just no. Pre-COVID I was flying for work weekly and Uber &
| Lyft pickups were awful for congestion in the circle, in
| addition to taking forever to get to you. It was often
| faster to walk off-airport and get a ride from the Hyatt.
| And that was with normal level of traffic, not the expected
| Olympics-level. I'm sure the taxi union was involved, but
| the decision to switch to LAX-it made a whole lot of sense.
| dcftoapv wrote:
| Also a frequent flier. It sucked before but the solution
| was 100% designed to benefit cab drivers. Moreover, it
| absolutely fucked up the entrance to the airport which
| went from long, but doable, to dozens of people missing
| their flights per-day bad.
|
| I live in Playa Vista and had a 1.5 hour trip to LAX in
| November. I was this close to driving through there at
| 3am and stealing every one of their traffic cones.
| tomjakubowski wrote:
| What "Los Angeles taxi union" organization specifically
| lobbied against the LAX train, which, by the way, is now
| being built?
|
| There may well have been industry lobbyists fighting this
| but until very recently (the last five years) almost no
| taxi drivers in Los Angeles were unionized.
| labcomputer wrote:
| > which, by the way, is now being built
|
| Yea, over 25 years late.
|
| The Green Line (opened 1995) was originally supposed to
| have a real LAX station, instead of the (current)
| station-near-LAX-with-a-bus-transfer. The Crenshaw
| Corridor train (which connects to the Green Line) will
| open an LAX station sometime in 2021, if it isn't
| delayed.
| dcftoapv wrote:
| @tom No, it's not being built. The train that is currently
| under construction will connect the airport terminals to a
| cab stand and car rental station less than a mile from the
| airport because LA taxi drivers threw a shit fit when they
| suggested building a train into downtown and Santa Monica.
|
| By the way, we're paying $4 billion for that. $4 billion to
| carry passengers less than a mile from the airport so they
| can then take a cab...
|
| LA cab drivers are all unionized now and they had their
| entire hand stuck in this process. It was corruption as an
| art form.
|
| Our government sucks.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Blame the corrupt officials that enabled this, you can
| hardly blame a union for trying to act in their own self
| interest. They don't represent you but the city does.
| TheAceOfHearts wrote:
| It's possible to blame both. You can certainly blame the
| union for acting against the common good.
| dcftoapv wrote:
| I'll continue to blame the minority interests that are
| doing everything possible to keep LA transportation stuck
| in the stone ages, thank you.
| slg wrote:
| >Completely anecdotal but I bring this question up every time I
| drive in an Uber and overwhelmingly the drivers tell me they
| want to stay independent. No one is forcing drivers into their
| jobs. I really struggle to understand why we need bureaucrats
| imposing their idea of what a market should look like on an
| fairly efficient market.
|
| Everyone who works for Lyft or Uber is making an active choice
| to work for Lyft or Uber. It isn't surprising they would choose
| to continue working for them rather than risk losing that job
| entirely. That doesn't mean these people aren't being taken
| advantage of by these companies.
|
| It is comparable to someone being paid below minimum wage under
| the table. If that person entered into that arrangement
| voluntarily, they likely did it because that is their best
| option. If that person is given the choice of supporting a
| lower minimum wage or being fired, they will likely support the
| lower minimum wage. That doesn't mean that society as a whole
| would benefit from a lower minimum wage. We should instead
| enact laws we think are best for society as a whole (I'm not
| convinced that AB5 is necessarily that, but I am speaking
| generally here) while also implementing social policies that
| can take care of the people like this who are caught in the
| transition of raising labor standards.
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| They want to stay independent, fine. Then actually treat them
| like independent contractors. Let them set rates. Let them
| decline rides without facing penalties by the platform. Make
| the changes necessary to fit the independent contractor model.
| And not just the rideshare company, but the state too: these
| workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has shown, and
| somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or the
| ridesharing businesses.
| piptastic wrote:
| I think they do allow them to set rates now in CA
|
| https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
| apsec112 wrote:
| Uber and Lyft already did this in California after the
| passage of AB5 earlier this year. That's why they now have
| price estimates instead of giving exact values ahead of time.
| [deleted]
| jkarneges wrote:
| Indeed Uber allows drivers to set fares in California. I'm
| not sure if that's true of Lyft though?
|
| https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/Uber-to-Lyft-
| Yo...
| smsm42 wrote:
| So how that works in practice? One of the major advantages
| of Uber for me was fixed price upfront. So now I don't know
| the price until I order the ride? What if the driver sets
| an excessive price - can I decline the ride?
| grandmczeb wrote:
| See https://www.uber.com/blog/california/set-your-fares/
|
| My understanding is that the rider is presented with a
| range of possible fares before searching (e.g. $9-10). If
| they are matched with a driver asking for a higher fare
| than that range they have the option to decline.
| mehrdadn wrote:
| > Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the
| platform.
|
| Does the model of IC _have_ to imply that every ride is a
| new, independent contract? Is there no other reasonable model
| in which multiple rides are part of one contract? Why?
| wtallis wrote:
| What would such a contract look like? How would Uber or
| Lyft hold up their end of a N-ride contract if they don't
| end up having enough riders that day?
| mehrdadn wrote:
| > What would such a contract look like?
|
| The obvious answer: perhaps more similar to the way it
| looks like right now? I just don't see why IC implies
| "let them decline rides without facing penalties by the
| platform".
| kelnos wrote:
| I don't think it directly implies that, but I think many
| of the policies in place chip away at things that should
| be a part of an IC's experience. Imposing penalties from
| declining rides means that their power to set rates is
| reduced.
| ttymck wrote:
| What does the alternative look like? A contract for 10
| rides? A contract for one week at a time? What if the
| driver wants to serve one ride, and then never again: what
| contract models allow that single ride to fulfill a
| "contract"?
| Swizec wrote:
| The alternative is traditionally called a retainer. You
| hire the contractor for "various tasks over a set period
| of time up to N tasks and at least M tasks"
|
| This is the indie version of being salaried. Very common
| among software engineers, for example.
| fooker wrote:
| Contracts can be pretty arbitrary. "Independent
| contractor -- except can't turn down a ride."
| ng12 wrote:
| Great, next time I take a consulting gig I'll be sure to
| turn down the jira tickets I don't want to do.
| [deleted]
| sixothree wrote:
| Also, doesn't Lyft require drivers to have an Lyft sign on
| their car?
| ng12 wrote:
| > Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the
| platform
|
| The independent contractor model works both ways. Uber has
| the right to avoid working with contractors who continually
| refuse work. You can't be picky about your work but also
| demand the company keep contracting you like you weren't.
|
| The independent contractor model doesn't map perfectly to gig
| work but it's much closer than traditional employees.
| gamblor956 wrote:
| The point of Uber's _alleged_ model is that Uber _is not_
| employing the driver, but rather that it is simply matching
| up drivers to passengers as a marketplace.
|
| If that's the case, then Uber has no right to avoid working
| with contractors simply because they continually refuse
| work. That indicates a non-independent agency arrangement
| between Uber and the driver (aka "employee") and that's
| what they're claiming they don't have.
| strbean wrote:
| Regarding the whole declining rides thing...
|
| Wouldn't most companies keep performance stats for their
| contractors, and if one started refusing lots of jobs, stop
| giving them work? Seems like Uber is just automating what is
| a normal part of working with a contractor.
|
| With regards to unemployment insurance, this is really a hole
| in our safety net. Regardless of whether Uber drivers
| _should_ be considered independent contractors, we should
| have a solution for independent contractors being put out of
| work.
| AnthonyMouse wrote:
| > Wouldn't most companies keep performance stats for their
| contractors, and if one started refusing lots of jobs, stop
| giving them work? Seems like Uber is just automating what
| is a normal part of working with a contractor.
|
| The easiest way to allow drivers to set rates, and I'm not
| sure if there is some reason they haven't already done
| this, is to just let the driver tell the app their rate, so
| that they wouldn't even be offered rides below it (which
| naturally might mean they don't get as many), and the
| service would just give the ride to the driver in the area
| with the best rate. Obviously that would mean that if you
| set a lower rate you'd get more rides.
|
| > we should have a solution for independent contractors
| being put out of work.
|
| It's kind of non-applicable to the situation though,
| because when you have market pricing like this, you never
| really get put out of work, it's just that the amount you
| get paid may vary (and fall below the point where you seek
| other employment). Does Uber even do layoffs of
| contractors?
| bhupy wrote:
| Uber now lets drivers set their own rates, with a
| multiplier: https://therideshareguy.com/set-your-own-
| rates-uber-feature/
| manquer wrote:
| I understand that there is significant power disparity ,
| however this is true for most contract gigs .
|
| If you turn down some projects and/or get back feedback most
| companies will give you less work .
|
| Consultants have to be really niche and highly skilled , hard
| to replace to be able to meaningfully negotiate their own
| terms .
| bsimpson wrote:
| We expect eBay/Amazon/Etsy to enforce standards on their
| platforms, but no one would argue that their sellers are
| employees.
|
| I'm not convinced that having price and ride quality
| standards invalidates the contractor relationship.
| Dobbs wrote:
| In all of your listed examples people set their own
| standards, list their own products, and set their own
| prices. I'm no way is it comparable.
| Retric wrote:
| Quality is debatable but none of eBay, Amazon, or Etsy
| enforce prices. Fundamentally choosing prices is what
| defines markets, trying to set them is the actions of an
| employer.
| mardifoufs wrote:
| I'm not sure but I think amazon enforces some kind of
| forced price adjustment policy. IIRC they change the
| prices if their algo detect lower prices somewhere else
| on the internet or on similar listings. I'll try to find
| the WSJ article where I've read about this.
| grumple wrote:
| Maybe for their own products. Definitely not for others.
| bgorman wrote:
| This is just fundamentally wrong.
|
| As a kid I refereed soccer games. There was a set cost
| structure for each game depending on age group and
| whether I was assistant referee or center referee.
|
| There was a system where I could sign up in advance if I
| wanted the work or not. Uber drivers know exactly what
| they are getting into and they are free to quit at any
| time.
|
| I was not an employee of the soccer leagues, I was an
| independent contractor who was able to work for multiple
| leagues if I wanted to and who was able to quit at any
| time.
|
| There is a fundamental role in society for temporary
| work.
|
| The employer will always set the price in any kind of
| business relationship. If I hire a contractor to remodel
| my house for 4 weeks does this mean he is a full time
| employee of mine and I need to provide him benefits. If
| he doesn't want the work, he doesn't need to be there.
| Retric wrote:
| _Uber drivers know exactly what they are getting into and
| they are free to quit at any time._
|
| New Uber drivers don't know what their pay will be. They
| can eventually keep a running average to get some idea,
| but that's only meaningful as part of an ongoing
| relationship.
|
| Surge pricing seems like a benefit to the drivers, but as
| they can't simply decline endless non surge prices that's
| not an individual price negotiation. Essentially, their
| options are quit the platform or accept the vast majority
| of whatever is being handed to them.
| theroo wrote:
| This is a key point, well made.
| brian_cloutier wrote:
| > these workers need unemployment insurance, as Covid has
| shown, and somebody needs to pay for it: be it the workers or
| the ridesharing businesses.
|
| The state could also pay for it, through tax revenue.
| Unemployment insurance seems like a great fit for a
| government, since any kind of massive correlated
| unemployment, as we're experiencing now, would absolutely
| wipe out any private insurer.
| TuringNYC wrote:
| This is about bureaucrats. This is about politicians seeking
| lobbying dollars, and return the favor with policy changes,
| just like it was in NYC.
|
| In NYC, the Taxi and Limousine companies were one of the top
| donors to the Mayoral race and, naturally, the Mayor strangled
| Uber/Lyft soon after.
| dmode wrote:
| I think the problem is that driver's want to remain
| independent, but their cost is borne by the society. Such as
| the recent CAREs act had unemployment for drivers. I am
| assuming they also get subsidized healthcare, and would be
| eligible for Medicare ? Their employers don't really contribute
| to these things. But perhaps the law should just have complied
| them to contribute via additional taxes instead of asking them
| to be classified
| jschwartzi wrote:
| If you're an IC, you have to pay Self-Employment Tax to cover
| the employer's part of the payroll tax deductions. Plus
| you're also liable for all the usual payroll taxes. That
| burden doesn't go away just because you get a 1099 instead of
| a W-2. So it's the drivers who are in theory paying in to
| healthcare subsidies and Medicare.
| [deleted]
| deminature wrote:
| The RideShareGuy is the most prominent blog for drivers and
| their annual survey seems to reflect that [1]
|
| >66% of drivers said they wanted to be independent contractors
| vs 15.8% who wanted to be an employee
|
| [1] https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/
| shanemhansen wrote:
| There's lots of ways to lie with surveys, I wonder what the
| exact wording was and what the responses would be to variants
| such as:
|
| 1. Do you want to be CEO of your own company or a peon
| employee?
|
| 2. Do you want uber to set your hours?
|
| 3. Do you want medical, vacation days, or unemployment
| insurance?
|
| For some people these are all basically the same questions.
| For most folks, I don't think they are.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Very curious about this trend I've seen on HN where instead
| of going to the primary source, commenters will take 2x the
| time to hypothesize about what the primary source could
| contain.
|
| In this particular case it was so easy that it really makes
| me wonder.
|
| I can think of a couple of reasons:
|
| * Uncertainty with where in the primary source the content
| is
|
| * Concern that you're being Gish Galloped with citations
|
| * Lack of skill at skimming
|
| Anyway, the source is particularly weird with the way it
| links to things and stuff but it wasn't that hard to find.
| I went through it and then decided to screen record the
| interaction afterwards. It's my second time going through
| but not that different from the first.
|
| Using headlines, pull quotes, and pictures as the things
| I'm aiming for, I got there in 30 s. I think your comment
| would have taken longer for me to have written than 30 s.
|
| https://gfycat.com/rashwholeindianjackal
| mediaman wrote:
| There's a psychological reward to having other people
| read what you write, and possibly getting upvotes.
|
| This reward exceeds the reward from learning the actual
| information.
|
| Many platforms are plagued by people more interested in
| being heard than learning facts.
| [deleted]
| haberman wrote:
| > When we polled drivers about their preference between
| remaining an independent contractor or becoming an
| employee, an overwhelming number of drivers wanted to
| remain independent.
|
| > "What type of employment relationship would you like to
| have with rideshare companies"
|
| > (A) I don't know the difference: 3.3%
|
| > (B) I'd like to be an employee: 20.8%
|
| > (C) I'd like to be an independent contractor: 75.9%
|
| https://therideshareguy.com/california-sues-uber-and-lyft-
| fo...
| [deleted]
| kelnos wrote:
| Is 734 out of a population of 80,000 a representative
| sample? And even if it is, are the 80,000 people on their
| mailing list a representative sample of all drivers?
|
| Not saying they aren't, but I... just don't know.
| notafraudster wrote:
| "Representativeness" has to do with the process of
| sampling, not the sample size -- a sample of one is in
| fact a representative sample of the population in the
| sense of being unbiased for the quantity of interest.
|
| Here's a simple anecdote: suppose you want to measure how
| often a coin comes up heads. The true answer is 50%
| heads. If your "sample" is a single coin flip, the answer
| will always be 100% or 0% (both wrong answers!). Maybe
| you do this experiment and get 100% and I do it and get
| 0%. But since the magnitude of the error will be the same
| on either side, on average across many repetitions of the
| experiment (this is called a "sampling distribution")
| we'll get the right answer.
|
| What adding additional sample size does is reduce the
| variance of the estimated statistic -- that is to say
| reduce the degree to which the estimate of the parameter
| moves around across samples. If I flip the coin 100 times
| and you flip the coin 100 times, we're both likely to get
| very close answers to one another.
|
| The bigger concern here is not sample size, it's whether
| the sampling was random (it was not) and whether the
| sample frame -- the population from which they were
| sampling -- matches the population of interest (it does
| not, as you suggest in your post, so your instincts here
| are good!).
|
| There is very little reason to believe the people who
| chose to reply to the email are as-if random with respect
| to the question being asked. Rather, I would expect
| diehards of RideShareGuy (who likely converge on RSG's
| approximate editorial position on this issue) are more
| likely to reply. There is also likely to be confounding
| based on age, hours worked per week, geographical
| location in the country, etc.
|
| There is also very little reason to believe
| RideShareGuy's mailing list represents rideshare drivers
| as a whole; again, selection based on age, tech savvy,
| English competency, SES, geographic location, etc. all
| likely to be confounders.
|
| If this were a classical random sample of a valid sample
| frame, the parameter of interest would have a classical
| margin of error +- 3.6%, which is small compared to the
| overall story being told. This speaks to your concern. A
| simple rule of thumb is that classical MOEs are +-
| 1/sqrt(n) where n is the sample size. This comment is too
| long so I won't get into the derivation here.
|
| I actually think this question presents a lot of
| interesting problems for a survey statistician. In
| particular, I would guess there is extreme subgroup
| heterogeneity -- that is to say there are classes of
| people who overwhelmingly want to be contractors and
| classes of people who overwhelmingly want to be
| employees. My guess would be that the population-wide
| parameter is of little interest compared to identifying
| those groups. If we discovered that, say, every person
| above 40 hours a week wanted to be an employee and every
| person below wanted to be a contractor, it'd be an error
| to present a weighted average of the groups versus
| exploring policy solutions that reflect that
| heterogeneity.
| LegitShady wrote:
| The secret is that your status has nothing to do with what
| you want but the terms of employment. It doesn't matter if
| 100% of them want to be contractors the judge just ruled it
| doesn't count as contractors by law.
|
| If Uber wants contractors they need to make sure the terms of
| their employment follow the law, including classification.
| CogitoCogito wrote:
| Assuming that poll is representative of the drivers' will at
| large, I guess then hopefully Uber and Lyft can satisfy these
| drivers by following the regulations required for them to be
| classified as independent contractors.
| monadic2 wrote:
| Exploitation does not just go away when you consensually sign a
| contract.
|
| In any idea that these folks resemble independent contractors
| in any way is bullshit. They can't set the rates of the rides
| or that they give to Uber or Lyft. They can't set the basic
| terms on when and where you accept rides. When someone doesn't
| want to drive me across the bay, I can hardly blame them, but
| they have no leverage to dictate their own employment except by
| quitting. I guess these people end up accepting some kind of
| opaque, kafkaesque punishment to their livelihood. Independent
| my ass.
|
| Granted, single payer healthcare would ameliorate some of the
| problems here, but it's very difficult to categorize the cut
| that Uber or Lyft takes for the commodity service they provide,
| protected by absolutely massive moats of capital, as anything
| but exploitative.
| tyre wrote:
| For those wondering why Lyft and Uber doing the shutdown, it's to
| bully voters into voting their way on Prop 22 in November.
|
| They had two years to adjust their businesses for a proposition
| approved by voters. They chose to spend nine figures fighting it
| in the press and the courts.
| product50 wrote:
| I hope you realize that AB5 will eventually make its way into
| delivery services too. All those services will cost a lot more
| then. Are you ready for that? Even if you are, have you thought
| about low income earners and how they will cope up with this?
| These are 2 sided marketplaces - just thinking from the
| driver's standpoint, who mind you have also protested against
| this since it robs them of flexibility, is missing the point.
|
| I really hope people vote for Prop 22 and kill this awful law
| which was mostly brought in by unions/taxi drivers to have
| their way around things.
| apsec112 wrote:
| AB5 was a legislative act, not a proposition.
| handmodel wrote:
| I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that works
| well and people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft are
| right in that the platform is valuable and unique?
|
| If California lawmakers are using this as negotiating tactic
| that's cool with me - but I'm not sure why we wouldn't expect
| Uber or Lyft to negotiate as well.
| alpha_squared wrote:
| > I mean - if no one else comes up with a business now that
| works well and people enjoy doesn't that prove Uber and Lyft
| are right in that the platform is valuable and unique?
|
| To me, it proves that investors don't have the appetite to
| fund an underdog fight against the two large companies. There
| _are_ ethical alternatives (at least half a dozen when I last
| checked a couple years ago), but they 're slow-growing. The
| fact that the conversations seem to default to assuming there
| are no other alternatives already speaks volumes about
| consumer mentality.
| ztratar wrote:
| They did not have "years to adjust their businesses" to a
| changing landscape of demands, the worst-case scenario of which
| literally destroys their innovation/business.
|
| "You had years to plan for us removing 95% of your business!"
| is quite the argument.
| AlexandrB wrote:
| Their business was a legal dodge to begin with and they knew
| it. You can't start a business selling cocaine through a
| series of complex transactions such that it's "technically"
| legal and then complain when the government tries to regulate
| your "innovation" to bring it in line with existing law.
| sushid wrote:
| Freelancing is already a thing. This is a horrible analogy.
| handmodel wrote:
| While cocaine is illegal and most voters still think it
| should be illegal, no voters think that calling a cab with
| an app should be illegal (at least provided the driver is
| compensated fairly).
| tareqak wrote:
| The article links the appellate injunction here:
| https://appellatecases.courtinfo.ca.gov/search/case/dockets.... .
|
| I read the following section in it "Oral argument shall be
| scheduled for October 13, 2020", but nothing about an October
| deadline.
|
| Here is the relevant section in full.
|
| >> start
|
| On August 10, 2020, the trial court issued a preliminary
| injunction enjoining Lyft, Inc. (Lyft) and Uber Technologies,
| Inc. (Uber) from classifying their drivers as independent
| contractors and from violating certain laws. Both Lyft and Uber
| have appealed the order, and the trial court stayed the
| injunction for ten days to allow them to seek relief in this
| court. Lyft (in case No. A160701) and Uber (in case No. A160706)
| have each petitioned this court for a writ of supersedeas. The
| People have filed an opposition to the petitions. The petitions
| for writ of supersedeas are hereby consolidated for purposes of
| decision. The petitions are granted and the preliminary
| injunction is stayed pending resolution of Lyft and Uber's
| appeals, subject to the condition that, by 5:00 p.m. on August
| 25, 2020, Lyft and Uber shall both file written consents to the
| expedited procedures specified herein. If Lyft and Uber do not
| both file such written consents, the stay shall expire at 5:00
| p.m. on August 25, 2020.
|
| The procedures are as follows:
|
| 1. Lyft's and Uber's appeals shall be consolidated. Lyft and Uber
| may file separate briefs or combined briefs as they prefer.
|
| 2. Lyft and Uber shall proceed with an appendix in lieu of a
| clerk?s transcript on appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.124.)
| They shall cooperate to prepare and file a single combined
| appellants' appendix, rather than separate appendices, which they
| shall file no later than the date they file their opening briefs.
| The appendix shall include a full copy of the index at the
| beginning of each appendix volume, and the digital copy of the
| appendix shall include pdf bookmark tabs for each entry on the
| index.
|
| 3. Briefing shall proceed on the following schedule. The
| appellants' opening briefs shall be filed no later than September
| 4, 2020. The respondent's brief shall be filed no later than
| September 18, 2020. The reply briefs, if any, shall be filed no
| later than September 25, 2020. Absent unforeseen extraordinary
| circumstances, there shall be no extensions. Oral argument shall
| be scheduled for October 13, 2020.
|
| 4. On or before September 4, 2020, each defendant shall submit a
| sworn statement from its chief executive officer confirming that
| it has developed implementation plans under which, if this court
| affirms the preliminary injunction and Proposition 22 on the
| November 2020 ballot fails to pass, the company will be prepared
| to comply with the preliminary injunction within no more than 30
| days after issuance of the remittitur in the appeal.
|
| 5. Should Lyft or Uber fail to comply with these procedures, the
| People may apply to this court to vacate this stay. Unless
| otherwise ordered, the stay will dissolve upon issuance of the
| remittitur in the appeal. (Cal. Rules of Court, rule 8.272.)
|
| << end
|
| Hopefully, the above should help others here figure out where the
| October deadline is coming from.
| MangoCoffee wrote:
| Isn't their business is based on "freelance"? if their taxi
| drivers go full time. the business operation will be a lot more
| with additional cost.
| iaabtpbtpnn wrote:
| They're lucky to have that judge. Uber and Lyft have consistently
| flaunted the law with a basic attitude of "screw you, our service
| is too popular, if you try to regulate us out of existence then
| your constituents will be madder at you than us". But right now,
| the service is not popular at all. I was a relatively heavy user
| of Uber and I haven't even thought about calling one in months.
| Food delivery sure, but I don't plan on using ride-sharing
| services for at least another year... who wants to sit in an Uber
| with a stranger, breathing each other's air? Who wants to DRIVE
| for Uber, breathing strangers' air all day? Besides, there is
| nowhere to go. No events, bars are all closed, etc. The ride-
| sharing economy has just evaporated.
| ojagodzinski wrote:
| > who wants to sit in an Uber with a stranger, breathing each
| other's air?
|
| XD There are countries (like any other country then US) that
| have something called PUBLIC TRANSPORT. And people use is every
| day regardless of pandemic.
|
| > The ride-sharing economy has just evaporated
|
| Uber is still much more "healthier" than public transport.
| iaabtpbtpnn wrote:
| I am posting from the Bay Area, we have public transit here
| too. Not as good as other countries, but it's normally quite
| popular. My girlfriend actually works for the transit agency.
| And right now, let me tell you, they are completely fucked.
| Ticket revenue is down something like 95%. Nobody wants to be
| on BART or Caltrain right now. (Although it's worth noting,
| here specifically the trains are typically used by people who
| also have a private car that they could take instead if they
| choose.)
| leptoniscool wrote:
| The state government blinked, and Lyft and Uber won
| blakesterz wrote:
| "Uber and Lyft say drivers prefer the flexibility of working as
| freelancers, while labor unions and elected officials contend
| this deprives them of traditional benefits like health insurance
| and workers' compensation."
|
| I was curious about what drivers think. I guess they're not happy
| [1] but want to be independent contractors still [2].
|
| 1. https://therideshareguy.com/uber-driver-survey/
|
| 2. (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and
| Lyft drivers nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent
| contractors) https://www.wsj.com/articles/uber-lyft-ordered-to-
| classify-d...
| tedivm wrote:
| That survey has been thrown around a lot, but there are a lot
| of problems with it. A big issue is that the survey was
| explicitly of people who follow a specific website (and
| potentially align with that websites opinions).
|
| Another is that once you explain that California allows
| flexible schedules even for employees a lot of people who say
| they want to stay independent contractors change their mind.
| The biggest thing that drivers want is flexibility in their
| schedules, and there's a lot of misinformation saying they'd be
| required by law to sign up for shifts if they were employers.
| Once you correct for this FUD and drivers realize their
| favorite part of being a contractor isn't at risk anymore the
| answer seem to shift quickly.
|
| Even if it was true though- most people who work at sweat shops
| are happy to have the job because they need the money. That
| doesn't mean that it's right to allow crappy conditions for
| them.
| [deleted]
| square90 wrote:
| This reminded be of the Planet Money episode on long-haul truck
| drivers [0]. It's a similar contractor v. employee (company
| driver) scenario. Not a happy story, unfortunately.
|
| [0] https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901110994/big-rigged
| hammock wrote:
| >I was curious about what drivers think. I guess they're not
| happy [1] but want to be independent contractors still [2].
|
| If the employers don't want the change...
|
| and the employees don't want the change...
|
| and the customers don't want the change...
|
| and the shareholders don't want the change...
|
| and the residents of California don't want the change
| (exhibited by the threads yesterday with outcry over the
| decision to shut down)...
|
| Why is the government of California trying to force the change?
| Is this a breach of the social contract?
| [deleted]
| coldpie wrote:
| I'm not a resident of California (rather, Minnesota), but I
| do want it to change. I don't use gig services because I
| think anyone doing 40[1] hours of work deserves a wage they
| can live off of, along all the other employment protections
| we've worked so hard to implement. Gig services are cheap
| because they don't meet that requirement. If gig services
| were required to meet that minimum wage and workers' rights,
| then I would be very happy to use them.
|
| [1] Negotiable.
| orangecat wrote:
| Serious question: is your main complaint the low pay, or
| lack of benefits? If Uber increased pay to an average of
| $30/hour after expenses but still treated them as
| contractors and told them to buy their own health
| insurance, would you be ok with that?
| coldpie wrote:
| Both. I'm not an employment law expert, but things like
| mandatory breaks, working conditions, PTO (pa/maternal
| leave, etc.). If you work a full time job, you are
| entitled to a comfortable life with a healthy work/life
| balance.
| orangecat wrote:
| Am I misunderstanding, or are you saying that freelancing
| and independent contracting should not be permitted under
| any circumstances? Is there no sufficient amount of money
| where you'd acknowledge that workers are not being
| exploited in a fee-for-service structure?
|
| And what about small business owners, who effectively
| have zero paid leave or vacation?
| coldpie wrote:
| > are you saying that freelancing and independent
| contracting [and small business owners] should not be
| permitted under any circumstances
|
| It's a good question and I'm not sure. I think my answer
| is some weak form of "yes." My goal is to enforce a good
| work-life balance, I think society benefits from a
| healthy workforce. So they wouldn't be impermissible per
| se, but they should meet those same requirements.
| However, obviously that's really hard to enforce for a
| contractor type situation, and some people genuinely
| thrive in their jobs in a healthy way. So, I don't know
| what the right balance is. I believe France has some
| mandatory maximum work hours regulations. Those might be
| interesting to look into.
|
| I know some will argue this point, but I really do think
| it's clear that gig workers don't fall into those two
| categories, regardless. The power dynamics are totally
| upside-down between traditional independent contractors
| and SBOs, and Uber/Lyft drivers.
| yibg wrote:
| You've lost me now. You've gone between multiple topics
| and I don't really understand what your stance is. Are
| you saying:
|
| - There should be a limit on number of hours worked
| (regardless of type of employment).
|
| - Everyone should be an employee, and not a freelancer or
| otherwise independently employed
|
| - Everyone should get benefits
|
| Or all 3? Those are all to me at least independent
| things. You can have work hour limitations as a
| contractor or you can be an overworked employee.
| dgellow wrote:
| > So, I don't know what the right balance is. I believe
| France has some mandatory maximum work hours regulations.
| Those might be interesting to look into.
|
| I never thought I would see the French system pointed to
| as a potential example. If you're talking about the 35h
| week keep in mind that it is a really contentious topic
| there!
| yibg wrote:
| Do you also not eat at small independent restaurants? The
| owners also don't meet the same requirements, and in many
| cases make even less than uber drivers.
| ericd wrote:
| And where does that "enough money to live off of" come
| from? Unless the company has a lot of fat to trim, it has
| to come from customers in the form of higher prices, or
| from investors throwing more cash onto the bonfire. What
| happens when customers would rather not use your service
| than pay the amount whatever you're proposing takes?
|
| It's very possible that this market only exists at the size
| that it does at a price that doesn't support what people in
| the US think of as "a wage they can live off of", and that
| by mandating more compensation, then there will be a whole
| lot of drivers for whom this just isn't an option anymore.
|
| That said, I think drivers should be able to set their own
| prices, and that there should be a real market with
| bidding, but the UX will probably suffer.
| SahAssar wrote:
| > It's very possible that this market only exists at the
| size that it does at a price that doesn't support what
| people in the US think of as "a wage they can live off
| of", and that by mandating more compensation, then there
| will be a whole lot of drivers for whom this just isn't
| an option anymore.
|
| And that's different from many other hypothetical
| services how? If we accept that the floor should be
| lowered it should be for everyone, and if we don't it
| shouldn't. It should be an even playing field, not
| something where some companies slip through by not
| employing their workers.
| coldpie wrote:
| > Unless the company has a lot of fat to trim, it has to
| come from customers in the form of higher prices, or from
| investors throwing more cash onto the bonfire.
|
| Nope, there's lots more options than that. Cut executive
| pay. Tax high earners more and provide social services
| like healthcare and public transit, to reduce cost and
| demand on these services. And yes, prices would likely go
| up, because they're no longer being subsidized by gov't
| welfare.
|
| > It's very possible that this market only exists at the
| size that it does at a price that doesn't support what
| people in the US think of as "a wage they can live off
| of"
|
| Then the market is exploiting labor and is being
| subsidized by the welfare system (else the workers
| couldn't live, by definition). If we're going to
| subsidize unprofitable activities, we should do that as a
| society, not by funneling cash to Uber's owners.
| shuckles wrote:
| The highest leverage way to help low income people in
| California is by focusing on reducing the cost of being
| alive. High barriers to earning money will just continue
| the decades long out migration of low income workers.
| ksdale wrote:
| If you don't use gig services, will the gig workers become
| employees and make more money? Isn't it just as likely that
| the services will go away and the gig workers will not have
| a source of income at all?
| gruez wrote:
| >and the residents of California don't want the change
| (exhibited by the threads yesterday with outcry over the
| decision to shut down)...
|
| but didn't they also vote in favor of AB5? I'd take a
| referendum result over a non-uniform sampling of people's
| opinions.
|
| edit: nevermind. AB5 wasn't a referendum, so citizens
| actually didn't get to vote on it.
| granzymes wrote:
| No, the referendum is this November (prop 22).
| [deleted]
| dnr wrote:
| I think the idea is that we're in a local maximum for "how
| good is the current arrangement for society as a whole". Any
| small change to the arrangement is going to make things worse
| for one party or another, and probably even make things worse
| for society as a whole. But there's a chance that a bigger
| change could get us to an even higher maximum, where everyone
| is better off, both individually and on net.
|
| It's hard because you can't just jump there, there will be
| some people or entities that are worse off during the
| transition. Also there are unintended consequences so things
| might not go as you expect.
|
| Usually to (attempt to) make changes like this, it has to be
| a government doing it, because it's a coordination problem
| and you have to force people to look past their short-term
| self-interest for a little while.
| smallgovt wrote:
| > (In a May online survey drawing responses from 734 Uber and
| Lyft drivers nationwide, 71% said they wanted to be independent
| contractors)
|
| As others are mentioning, the survey was very simplistic and
| most drivers don't understand the full ramifications of AB5.
|
| That said, I still think the majority of fully-informed drivers
| would vote against AB5.
|
| Enforcing AB5 will very likely result in: 1) substantial
| increase in benefits 2) slightly lower base pay 3) half of
| drivers losing their job 4) scheduled shifts.
|
| My guess is #3 is the biggest issue for most drivers.
| chasd00 wrote:
| If the people affected are against the law then how did it make
| it to a vote, let alone pass? that blows me away.
| mindlar wrote:
| California is a single party state with a supermajority of
| delegates. This means that Democrats can pass pretty much any
| law that they want without any real opposition.
|
| The unions in California are unhappy with Uber/Lyft employees
| not being union members since their presence is an
| alternative (read danger) to some of the unions
| (teamsters/taxis). Unions have a lot more power with
| Democrats since they are some of their biggest supporters, so
| the legislature tends to do things that benefits unions.
|
| Since California is effectively a single party state, the
| legislators that voted for this don't need to worry about
| things like being reelected because they are unlikely to
| actually see real opposition outside of a primary challenger.
| tathougies wrote:
| Exactly what the poster said. California is a single party
| state. There is no choice in most elections. Due to the way
| elections work, you're usually choosing between democrats
| who believe the same thing. There is no dissent.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| > ...Uber drivers reported earning $13.47 per hour, which means
| that on average, drivers report that their car is costing them
| over $6 per hour to operate.
|
| If you were to drive full time, that would get you about
| 27k/year, which is about the average income that a taxi driver
| makes. Rideshare companies are asking you to take more personal
| financial risk than you might as a taxi driver, but giving you
| more flexibility.
|
| Still 27k/year is not much money really anywhere in the
| country. I think this is a symptom of some major underlying
| problems with our economy rather than an indictment of the
| rideshare industry. If we can't afford to pay drivers a living
| wage to do their work, then the people who are using these
| services aren't as well off as they think they are.
| jluxenberg wrote:
| Tangent:
|
| $6/hr sounds a bit low; actual costs are probably higher.
|
| The IRS standard mileage rate (the amount you can deduct from
| your taxes for each mile driven) is $0.58/mi
| (https://www.irs.gov/tax-professionals/standard-mileage-
| rates)
|
| $6/hr operating costs means the driver is driving a max of
| ~10mi/hour, if costs to operate are in line with IRS
| guidelines.
| bpodgursky wrote:
| The IRS deprecation is very far above the costs in actual
| practice. It's a very conservative number.
| jluxenberg wrote:
| I think the IRS number might be spot on.
|
| Quick math: ($25,000 cost to buy car new
| - $4,000 residual value at end-of-life )
| / 100,000 miles usable lifetime = $0.21/mi
| depreciation of value $3.22 / gallon * (1 /
| (17 mi / gal fuel efficiency)) = $0.19/mi for
| fuel Maintenance: $40 per oil change
| / 8,000 miles = $0.01 / mi $600 tire change /
| 60,000 miles = $0.01 / mi $1,186 average yearly
| repair / 16,000 average miles driven = $0.07 mile
|
| That all adds up to $0.49 / mi and does NOT include
| insurance and DMV registration fees.
| beached_whale wrote:
| I was talking to a taxi dispatcher at some function here in
| Canada, and it came up that each vehicle on the road would
| drive about 500km/day. That's about $200-$250/day in what
| the per distance rate many employers give out(40C/-50C//km)
| for fuel and wear on vehicle. But assuming an 22hrs of
| driving a day(on a taxi with multiple drivers), that's
| about 22km each hour or $11/hr for fuel and wear on the
| vehicle according to what many employers would pay in
| addition to time driving. This is in Canadian dollars, so
| $11/hr is about $8/hr in USD and works out to an average of
| $16USD/hr of driving(assuming (22km|13miles)/hr average)
| Skunkleton wrote:
| TCO for a Prius is about 6k a year for non-rideshare
| applications. The link has this cost around ~13k per year,
| which isn't outlandish. I think you are right in general
| though. Uber will let you drive an F-350, but there is no
| way you will make money with it.
| Hamuko wrote:
| I wouldn't be surprised if drivers are underestimating
| their costs. The true cost of vehicle ownership is rather
| murky and I doubt many of these drivers are self-taught
| accountants.
| jeffbee wrote:
| That's why the driver attrition rate is so high and
| Lyft/Uber have to constantly run driver recruitment
| efforts in mature service areas. After the driver ruins
| their original car in less than a year, they quickly
| realize the true operating costs.
|
| Say what you will about the taxi business but at least
| taxi drivers knew that the gate fee on a leased vehicle
| was $100/day.
| JumpCrisscross wrote:
| > _Rideshare companies are asking you to take more personal
| financial risk than you might as a taxi driver_
|
| At least in New York, the drivers carry all the risk. They
| pay for insurance and gas and damages and time (so they take
| risk of not getting fares).
| asdasfasdfasdf wrote:
| "personal risk"
|
| This is kind of the state of the country really. Ridesharing
| is an OK gig until you get into an accident, you're fine
| without health insurance until you get injured, you don't
| really need a union until you start getting treated unfairly,
| you can pay for college as long as you consistently have a
| good salary... we're being statistically gaslit with the idea
| that most people can scrape by without higher wages and
| better general protections.
| macinjosh wrote:
| I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that
| this personal risk is taken at personal choice. If someone
| wanted the arrangement that comes with an employee/employer
| relationship there are jobs that offer that. But not
| everyone wants that, some people prefer, for their own
| reasons that are really none of your business to be an
| independent contractor. This is about choice plain and
| simple.
| vore wrote:
| Not everyone has that choice, which is why so many people
| depend on gig economy jobs as their livelihood.
|
| If you do not have in-demand skills for the market, have
| a family to feed, and the cost of training exceeds your
| expenses, Uber/Lyft might be one of your only job
| options.
| RangerScience wrote:
| We make choices within contexts other people create.
| macinjosh wrote:
| And your solution is to take away more choices from
| people?
| asdasfasdfasdf wrote:
| Do you think people are really walking around thinking "I
| don't want health insurance because I prefer being
| destitute in the event of an injury"?
| EllyFant wrote:
| Yes, we've removed lots of choices.
|
| Like for example, it's illegal to sell yourself into
| slavery or indentured servitude. That's a choice you are
| not legally allowed to make.
| Klinky wrote:
| The solution is to ensure the worker's employment status
| is within the legal definition as it's defined. Gig
| economy could usher in a new era of worker flexibility,
| but it could also usher in a new era of worker
| exploitation.
|
| The gig economy keeps pushing risks and cost down the
| chain, while also showing signs that it may not be a
| sustainable model as a whole without venture capital to
| burn through or an end game of predatory monopolist
| behavior within the market region.
| Dylan16807 wrote:
| The choice to not have important types of insurance hurts
| the chooser and it hurts everyone else.
|
| There are many situations where it's best if the societal
| bargain restricts the options available.
| Daishiman wrote:
| Personal risk isn't an isolated thing. Thousands of
| people taking personal risk have systemic effects, and
| these companies aren't paying into it, even though
| everyone around these "risk-takers" suffer the
| consequences.
| macinjosh wrote:
| > Thousands of people taking personal risk have systemic
| effects
|
| How do you know the personal situation of each of
| Uber's/Lyft's drivers? How do we measure risk for each
| person in an objective way? Some people might be at no
| risk, some higher. We can't know! What right is there in
| taking away options that benefit some people because it
| might possibly not work well for someone who voluntarily
| signed a contract? This is not liberal policy. This is
| paternalistic, state-controlled economic oppression.
| InitialLastName wrote:
| > Some people might be at no risk, some higher.
|
| All rideshare drivers are (by definition) participating
| in the most dangerous activity (western) humans do on a
| daily basis. Every non-utilized minute they spend on the
| road adds risk to them as well as to other members of
| society.
| Daishiman wrote:
| The fact that in most places in the world there's
| legislation that defines requirements and
| responsibilities for professional drivers, from
| qualifications, to insurance, alcohol intake, maximum
| working hours, minimum rest hours, etc., Implies that it
| totally does exist.
| matmann2001 wrote:
| I think you're gas lighting us by ignoring the fact that
| these types of choices aren't fully unconstrained. People
| aren't assuming this risk because they prefer to, but
| rather they have limited choices available to them given
| their resources and background.
| macinjosh wrote:
| > but rather they have limited choices available to them
| given their resources and background.
|
| So let's take one more choice away!? Not every person
| looking to make some money is looking for something with
| as much commitment as employment. Not every business
| needs people to work according to their schedule at a
| specific place. While you think you're giving full-time
| employment and benefits to all of these people what
| you're really doing is taking certain kinds of
| opportunities away.
| asdasfasdfasdf wrote:
| >While you think you're giving full-time employment and
| benefits to all of these people what you're really doing
| is taking certain kinds of opportunities away.
|
| This is some of the most phenomenal bullshit I've ever
| read.
|
| There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing
| people to work their own hours and also giving them
| benefits if they meet hourly qualifications.
|
| You're talking about people making <$30k a year while
| shouldering most of the risk and using their own cars as
| if they're shopping around for the best FAANG salary.
| username90 wrote:
| > There's nothing stopping Uber and Lyft from allowing
| people to work their own hours and also giving them
| benefits if they meet hourly qualifications.
|
| There is, if the driver drives in bad hours making their
| income not come up to minimum wage uber would be forced
| to pay the driver anyway. In order to avoid this uber
| would be forced to limit when and where people can drive.
|
| Being an employee means that the company has to ensure
| that the employees time is well spent so that it is worth
| the minimum wage and benefits at least. Being a
| contractor means that the contractor himself is
| responsible for what he is doing is profitable enough for
| him to live on. So changing them to employees means that
| now uber has to ensure every driver only drives when it
| is profitable for uber.
|
| So everyone who wants to handle this responsibility
| themselves don't want to be an employee.
| matmann2001 wrote:
| Yes! If the free market results in employers offering
| shitty choices that take advantage of workers with
| limited options, the government should step in and
| attempt to correct the power-imbalance that puts the
| workers at life- and liberty-threatening disadvantages.
|
| Extrapolating from your logic, indentured servitude would
| still be allowed to exist.
| asdasfasdfasdf wrote:
| When's the last time you've worked a minimum wage
| contract job? At that level of employment you're not
| exactly shopping around for better offers.
|
| Uber and Lyft can offer benefits to contract workers. Do
| you think they don't because they want to give people the
| right to choose?
| sampsonitify wrote:
| And what does welfare pay? Serious question as I'm not in the
| USA and have no idea.
|
| If Welfare pays less, isn't Uber/Lyft a positive thing?
|
| And that is just the direct monetary benefit of $27K vs
| welfare. There are many intangible benefits to work vs
| welfare beyond money.
|
| Being unemployed has mental health and life satisfaction
| costs (summary: https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolu
| tion/2019/04/is...). This is research that has existed for >
| 30 years.
|
| There is significant evidence that long term unemployment
| REALLY hurts someone's hiring chances when applying for a job
| (see https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/2013/0
| 4/co... from 2013 with linked papers). As a stepping stone to
| a living wage, driving rideshare likely helps people looking
| for better paid work, especially given you can clock off for
| two hours to take an interview, then clock back on. Try that
| working any other job.
|
| The rideshare side of the ledger has better mental health &
| life satisfaction, more money and better job prospects, vs
| the welfare side with more free time.
|
| I'd prefer to frame the "living wage" question as of all the
| people who drive Uber/Lyft, not Uber/Lyft drivers which puts
| their job above their humanity and implies it is a permanent
| state of affairs, anyway of all the people who drive
| Uber/Lyft at some point in their lives, will they be better
| off with the option of driving Uber/Lyft, or better off in a
| world where Uber/Lyft is not an option?
| gruez wrote:
| >There is significant evidence that long term unemployment
| REALLY hurts someone's hiring chances when applying for a
| job (see https://marginalrevolution.com/marginalrevolution/
| 2013/04/co.... from 2013 with linked papers).
|
| But in the study linked, they're really testing whether a
| resume gap hurts your chances of getting hired. I'm
| skeptical that it would translate the same to gig economy
| job, given you can't ask them for a reference, nor is there
| any indication of how much you worked (did you work 40 hour
| weeks? a few hours a week?), or how reliable/timely you
| were.
| hammock wrote:
| Who says driving for Uber/Lyft should be a full-time job, or
| statutorily viable as a full-time job? If you consider it
| only as a second or third job, then it makes a lot more sense
| that your second or third job is not going to pay as well or
| have the same benefits as your first job. Those aspects would
| be expected and reasonable. The low-risk, high-reward jobs
| fill your primary job slot, then you seek other options as
| needed. (After all, if it was any different, you might quit
| your first job and drive for rideshare instead)
| jon-wood wrote:
| That you don't bat an eyelid at people needing a second or
| third job to make ends meet is in itself an indictment of
| the general state of the US.
| the-dude wrote:
| I was amazed at the series _Breaking Bad_ , that a
| teacher would take a summer job to make ends meet. At a
| carwash no less.
|
| I have brought this up here before and got all kinds of
| justifications : he has a big house, he has a special
| needs kid.
|
| I don't think there is any teacher in NL taking summer
| jobs to make ends meet.
| macinjosh wrote:
| Why is it necessarily better for someone to have a single
| job verses multiple gigs? Not everyone wants to be a
| shift worker or office drone. Its just an implementation
| detail of the economy not some sort of indicator of a
| problem.
| chrischattin wrote:
| Who said they needed the extra gig to make ends meet?
| Some people might just enjoy it, or want to earn a little
| extra during their free time, or have a seat open on
| their commute.
|
| To view temp/gig work with a full-time lens is
| disingenuous, imo.
| [deleted]
| jeffbee wrote:
| This is just repeating TNC company propaganda. _Nobody_ is
| saying this has to be a full-time job. Many, many people
| work part-time jobs and they are all employees of their
| workplace. Many of these people also have second part-time
| jobs, where they are also legally employees of the second
| company.
| skybrian wrote:
| What happens in practice is that people try to make ends
| meet with two or three crappy part-time jobs, because
| that's all they can find.
|
| (Insert plug for UBI here.)
| Skunkleton wrote:
| You can't really compare yearly salaries unless you pick
| something to standardize on. You will notice that I didn't
| pick on benefits at all. I would guess that the reality is
| most people depending on rideshare for a living are doing
| multiple jobs.
| gmadsen wrote:
| if only the people who were driving as an addition to their
| primary job, uber would be severely hampered. the ease of
| access and response is predicated on full time uber drivers
| orclev wrote:
| Our economy has become so overwhelmingly top heavy that the
| majority of the population is losing the ability to take part
| in it. The middle class used to be the mean income, but these
| days the mean has drifted so far from the mode that the
| distinction between middle class and lower class has all but
| vanished. Just taking a brief look at the 2014 census
| numbers, the mode income was centered around $22,000 a year
| while the mean was $75,000. Let that sink in. The largest
| percentage of the US population makes less than $25,000 a
| year.
| macinjosh wrote:
| This information is only useful if it is contrasted against
| the number of people who want/need/are able to work. People
| like the retired, teenagers, stay-at-home parents, college
| students, etc. all may make some small amount of income
| each year but generally speaking don't work full time. This
| isn't evidence of people struggling. It is evidence of
| people exercising their personal rights which include not
| being a worker.
| orclev wrote:
| You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-
| home parents, and college students make up the majority
| of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one
| at all. The US economy is fucked right now, we've been
| madly spinning the plate to try to keep it going, but
| it's starting to wobble badly. Unless something major is
| done soon it's only a question of when not if things
| start to implode.
| macinjosh wrote:
| > You're suggesting that the retired, teenagers, stay-at-
| home parents, and college students make up the majority
| of the US working population? Yeah, not buying that one
| at all.
|
| No where did I say this. What are you talking about?
| orclev wrote:
| My point was that the mode income, that is the income
| reported by the largest number of people was incredibly
| low. You claim that's because there are a bunch of people
| that don't really need/want to work, so they don't make
| much. That implies that that group represents the
| majority of the working population (in order to be the
| mode income). You're point might have been correct if we
| were talking about the mean income being very low, but in
| this case it's exactly the opposite.
| spurdoman77 wrote:
| "I guess they're not happy [1] but want to be independent
| contractors still [2]."
|
| Any normal employee or freelancer is not happy, but still goes
| to the job because there are bills to pay. It is normal to want
| things to be always better but low skill jobs are not going to
| be goldmines no matter what the regulation says.
| overgard wrote:
| I honestly don't mind paying more if it goes to support the
| drivers, but I haven't really seen a compelling argument for why
| all drivers should count as employees. From my perspective being
| an "employee" implies certain things that don't seem to apply
| here (predictable work times, exclusivity (so many lyft drivers
| are also uber drivers), etc. ) "Freelancer" seems way more
| appropriate, the only problem is the lack of protections. It
| seems to me that culturally "gig worker" has become its own
| category anyway and it makes more sense to create a new legal
| category with its own set of legal protections.
|
| I know people will point to health insurance... but that's a
| separate problem with having health insurance tied to employment.
| I think it's awful that people that aren't considered full time
| employees don't get health insurance.. but I also think that's
| the government's problem and obligation, not Uber or Lyfts
| CharlesMerriam2 wrote:
| Recognize that more reasonable solutions exist, for example,
| modifying AB5 exempting anyone pulling in >$50K ($25/hour for any
| hour available or logging into the app).
|
| Propositions, being like an unchangeable binary library, are
| 'take-it-or-leave-it' laws.
| umvi wrote:
| So basically "if you are poor you can't use Uber/Lyft you would
| exploit yourself out of desperation. Go find a different job
| that pays a living wage/benefits. If you are middle class and
| already making enough to live on, that's cool you can use
| Uber/Lyft to supplement your income since you won't abuse
| yourself trying to make the platform sustain you."
| timavr wrote:
| Love how they fight for drivers rights and working real hard to
| replace them with self driving fleet.
| omot wrote:
| What really irks me about this whole thing is how Uber Eats and
| Door Dash is unaffected by all this. Delivery workers have almost
| exactly the same paradigm, but I guess they're not enforcing it,
| because of the number of restaurants, drivers, and eaters that
| will be affected?
| kreutz wrote:
| Why not let the market decide? If drivers are so unhappy why not
| just seek some alternative form of work? Uber/Lyft do not force
| anyone to hop online.
| yannyu wrote:
| The market is not fair. People have to eat, and will look for
| whatever job that can get that will help them eat and provide
| for their families.
| annexrichmond wrote:
| Yeah and what if they won't have a job at all because
| Uber/Lyft suddenly became too expensive for anyone to use?
|
| If the costs increase dramatically, demand goes down and thus
| fewer drivers needed, as people look at alternatives like
| getting their own car, public transportation, bikes, etc.
| tetrometal wrote:
| I genuinely don't understand this position. I don't see how
| replacing a "bad" option with _no_ option helps anyone,
| especially the people that were willing to take the "bad"
| option.
| babypuncher wrote:
| If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying jobs
| with adequate health insurance, then the answer is to re-
| think how the economy works, not create more garbage jobs
| that earn miserable livelihoods.
|
| If we did things like abandon employer-subsidized
| healthcare for a modern single payer system, then maybe it
| wouldn't be so disadvantageous for drivers to be classified
| as contractors.
| tetrometal wrote:
| > If the economy cannot support enough reasonable paying
| jobs with adequate health insurance
|
| I don't see why anyone other than the person doing the
| work gets to define what "reasonable" or "adequate" is.
| It also seems completely heartless to me to put people
| out of work in order to push a political agenda.
| tathougies wrote:
| Great, let's rethink how the economy works. AB5 does not
| do that though. It is actually a return to historical
| norms (in that it mandates foisting the institution of
| employment on something that is wholly new). AB5 is an
| incredibly conservative bill seeking to return to the
| pre-uber status quo. It is not a 'rethinking of the
| economy'.
| randyrand wrote:
| banning prostitution is the best example of this dumb line
| of thinking. If they could do something better they already
| would be doing it. Replacing a "bad" option with "no"
| option does not help them.
| crawlcrawler wrote:
| Prostitution should not be an option for anyone.
|
| How is:
|
| "I was so poor I had to sell my body so as to not starve
| to death but selling my body made me depressed and so I
| spent all my money on drugs leaving no money for food,
| throwing me into a life of starvation."
|
| ...better than:
|
| "I was so poor I could not buy food."
|
| ...really?
| jayd16 wrote:
| The missing link is that you're raising a false dichotomy.
| Its a sliding scale of profit margin. Instead of bad or
| none, the choice is more low paying options or fewer higher
| paying options. Some will receive higher wages, while some
| opportunities will not be available.
|
| Both sides believe the net benefit backs up their stated
| position and there's very little compelling data one way or
| another.
| [deleted]
| tetrometal wrote:
| I'm not so sure how false it is. If there were a better
| option, wouldn't people be using it already? And since
| they're not, aren't we just... firing them and leaving
| them to figure it out? Seems heartless. Honestly it comes
| across as "F the little guy, give me the policy I want."
| (I'm not accusing you of that, your tone came across as
| quite polite.)
| JMTQp8lwXL wrote:
| That's a non-existent binary. There are plenty of other
| options, including regulating rideshare companies to ensure
| drivers are paid a living wage.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| the option is to provide the infrastructure for the market
| to figure out, but you need some baseline first, and we
| don't have that baseline. Decouple healthcare from having a
| job and you're already halfway there, like the rest of the
| world.
| throwaway0956 wrote:
| This is like complaining to the landlord that your AC
| doesn't work and the landlord saying "Fixing is not an
| option. We need to stop Global Warming so that the
| temperatures stop going up first."
| yoz-y wrote:
| The goal of regulation is to stop the race of the bottom at
| some point.
| ReaLNero wrote:
| Is it? By regulating, you'll just create an artificial
| shortage.
|
| This is microeconomics 101.
|
| If you _have_ a competitive equilibrium, you can 't
| improve the situation for consumers and producers by just
| regulating prices.
| johndevor wrote:
| > The market is not fair.
|
| What's your definition of "fair"?
| whb07 wrote:
| No such thing as fair in life. So why have some bureaucrat
| write laws to dictate fair based on their politics? The
| market isn't political.
|
| Having said that, Uber drivers exist because it does provide
| enough money to have people show up and provide a service. If
| it didn't, no one would do the driving. Not to mention most
| drivers don't want to be considered employees.
| node-bayarea wrote:
| I see the democrats downvoting this. Unfortunately, this is
| the world we live in!
| bananabreakfast wrote:
| This is a pretty absurd argument to make when the alternative
| is quite literally these jobs not existing at all as almost
| just happened at midnight tonight.
| jayd16 wrote:
| Uber and Lyft shutting down is posturing. I find it quite
| hard to believe taxi services will become impossible and
| not simply a bit more expensive.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| alternative is to provide healthcare as a human right?
| kreutz wrote:
| Healthcare should be provided as a human right but this
| is not accomplishing that.
| unionpivo wrote:
| This jobs will exist one way or the other. If uber is out
| taxis(or some other third party) will pick up the slack.
| supergirl wrote:
| it's not that simple. by that logic you could say eliminate
| minimum wage and any other legal employee benefit. companies
| are in a position of power so they must be regulated
| bhupy wrote:
| Sure, status quo policy isn't gospel, and a minimum wage
| isn't necessarily the best solution to the problems it aims
| to solve.
| supergirl wrote:
| it's the best because it was chosen by the people of a
| democracy (more or less). if it's not good they can change
| it
| bhupy wrote:
| The democratic process has been known to produce sub-
| optimal results. The only way to correct those results is
| to criticize the status quo. This is all part of the
| democratic process...
| epicide wrote:
| Because a lot of drivers start driving because they already
| can't find an alternative form of work?
|
| Or they already have another job (or several) that does not pay
| enough. However, they can't find yet another job with flexible
| enough hours.
|
| When the job market is garbage, "just let the market solve it"
| doesn't really cut it.
| jwilber wrote:
| But Uber/Lyft have nothing to do with the job market being
| garbage. If anything, they provide options to help ameliorate
| the situation.
|
| Instead of the government playing court for something nobody
| wants, maybe they can do their job: set an an appropriate
| minimum wage, ensure better safety nets so people don't need
| 3 jobs, provide better options to employers so jobs aren't
| lost, etc.
| kreutz wrote:
| I don't think the job market being garbage is Ubers problem
| to solve. If the job market was flourishing drivers would
| still be "unhappy" with their experience on these platforms
| and AB5 would likely still be a thing. Uber offers a
| convenience. I think drivers like that convenience so much so
| that it prevents them from seeking traditional employment and
| leads them to want to fit a square peg into a round hole.
| rfrey wrote:
| There was a time, not very long ago, when people "chose" to
| send their 12 year old children into dangerous factories for 12
| hours a day. Government rightly restricted corporations from
| offering that option to desperate people.
| throw_m239339 wrote:
| Why not let the drivers decide whether they want to be
| contractors or employees as well?
|
| > Uber/Lyft do not force anyone to hop online.
|
| Yeah, let the drivers eat cake, hmm?
| asdasfasdfasdf wrote:
| The employer has dramatically more power in the free market.
| Especially when backed by endless piles of VC money.
|
| Remember that the free market didn't end child labor, create
| weekends, or the minimum wage.
| Aarostotle wrote:
| It only enabled the technological foundations to do all of
| the above.
| rrose wrote:
| none of those things required technology. pre-industrial
| society would not have collapsed if laborers had weekends
| and a minimum wage
| node-bayarea wrote:
| How do you know that? Because of industrial revolutions,
| minimum wage and stuff was even thought about and
| eventually implemented! Without industries that afforded
| that, these social policies would have totally collapsed!
| chillwaves wrote:
| Society seems to be progressing just fine with a min.
| wage and weekends off.
| Trias11 wrote:
| Because markets and private sector can never be wiser than
| politicians, especially CA politicians.
| itslennysfault wrote:
| > Why not let the market decide?
|
| Because we're not monsters.
| yibg wrote:
| What does that even mean? We're monsters for giving people
| choice?
| jayd16 wrote:
| The market has previously decided unsafe factories and
| child labor is ideal. Often market forces are great but
| empirically they do not solve every case and as a society
| we must evaluate each case accordingly.
| yibg wrote:
| the hypothesis is being an employee is better for the
| workers, and if so it's something they'd willingly choose
| if given the option. The current data says that's not the
| case, but would be an interesting experiment. If given
| the choice of the current setup vs one of being an
| employee, what would drivers choose.
| ribosometronome wrote:
| Cocoa for chocolate, materials for phones, etc show that
| the market continues to be just fine with practices like
| child slavery. Alternatives may exist but most companies
| are still "striving" rather than there.
| chillwaves wrote:
| What does "let the market decide" mean except let the poor
| be at the mercy of the rich?
| lsiebert wrote:
| Because collections of people organized into corporations have
| greater bargaining power than individuals in negotiations.
|
| Traditionally the answer to that is unions or professional
| group who can bargain on behalf of all their members, but it's
| hard to unionize fields with low barriers to entry (and harder
| when the workers are living paycheck to paycheck and thus can't
| strike easily), and impossible to unionize independent
| contractor drivers based on how the laws are written.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| Where have you been the last 200 years?
|
| The market is great at optimizing certain imbalances, but a
| large scale imbalance of power between actors is not one of
| those imbalances.
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| You can't let the market decide because the market is doomed
| (in the treating-people-as-human-beings sense) by the lack of
| infrastructure in the first place:
|
| - no healthcare means you're a slave of whatever you can find,
|
| - tipping culture means your employer can pay you shit
| kreutz wrote:
| They can find work elsewhere then?
| compycom wrote:
| Unless you are entrepreneur with access to capital, I'm not
| sure how you can expect individuals to will a good employer
| into being if none is to be found. Using the government to
| create better conditions for the working class is a
| completely reasonable use of the political process.
| kreutz wrote:
| Right here: https://sfbay.craigslist.org/search/jjj
| usaar333 wrote:
| Why aren't they doing that already?
| kreutz wrote:
| Because Uber is easier.
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| Didn't we already go through this line of reasoning during
| the industrial revolution? Didn't we already have our
| muckraking moments to show exactly why this line of
| reasoning is full of assumptions, totally devoid and
| dissociated from the actual reality of people's lives?
| kreutz wrote:
| Where do people go if Uber does not exist?
| TeaDrunk wrote:
| You literally just linked a craigslist job listing to
| show indeed that uber is just a choice and they can take
| great jobs elsewhere.
| tathougies wrote:
| Given that the industrial revolution in retrospect has
| clearly improved the lot of the entire world, comparing
| uber to the capitalists of the industrial revolution in
| attempt to castigate them is actually quite laughable.
| chillwaves wrote:
| Those industrialist were doing a great job of putting
| children in factories!
| eitherisarb99 wrote:
| The market is just people and they decided not to openly revolt
| against government, tacitly approving it doing the work it's
| long done of lifting up the bottom of society no one else wants
| to invest in.
|
| The majority is not high tech types, nor does it need to aspire
| to be.
|
| How do you separate this all from physical reality so easily?
|
| Economics is not physics. The math is defined by biologically
| biased humans. Physical reality works how it do regardless of
| the syntax you want to emit about sound economics.
|
| You really are just asking questions that have been debated
| forever. The answers haven't changed. The narrative you would
| choose to recite isn't the same as many others. And westerners
| aren't a literal majority
| compycom wrote:
| Capital has an immense amount of leverage in the market, and
| the only way for that power to be counteracted at scale is
| through government action and/or labor organizing. Individuals
| can't will a reasonable employer into being on their own.
| babypuncher wrote:
| Free market economics does not and should not apply to labor.
| These are people, not barrels of oil.
| Ericson2314 wrote:
| I'm sad that here was a rare chance that people voted on
| something, and the effects of the vote would have been palpable.
|
| We'll have scare tactics, stays, negotiations, changes to the
| bill, etc., all leading to a complete lack of shock and awe.
| People will not pay attention, and continue assume the effects of
| votes is nothing. And I wouldn't want to convince them otherwise.
|
| To be clear, this comment doesn't assume people actually want
| Lyft to leave. Whether people are thrilled or filled with regret,
| it doesn't matter. I just want them to feel the power of a vote.
|
| :(
| ffggvv wrote:
| I'm not sure why we need prop22 specifically targeting rideshare
| drivers instead of just repealing AB5
|
| i know so many people's whose jobs were destroyed by it and still
| haven't found anything else.
| usaar333 wrote:
| Didn't AB5 just codify a court decision and in some sense
| actually exempt people from being employees?
| wskinner wrote:
| Can you share the professions of the people you know whose jobs
| were destroyed?
| victorvation wrote:
| Freelance writers, both bloggers as well as longform
| investigative journalists.
| ffggvv wrote:
| one was a contractor for a company that did content
| moderation/fact checking on a big tech website. when ab5 was
| passed they predictably laid off everyone in california.
|
| others include freelance writers, and other online work
| renewiltord wrote:
| Upwork sent around a "Don't worry about AB5" email but I'm
| not taking chances. Just ended everything with Cali
| contractors.
| ffggvv wrote:
| yeah i mean frankly speaking it's just not worth the risk
| to hire someone from ca given the law. it's not like ca
| employees provide anything special over other state's
| that would justify paying them more for low skill jobs
| that can be done remotely
| kooshball wrote:
| one example
| https://www.latimes.com/business/story/2019-12-17/vox-
| media-...
|
| The only reason we haven't seen other professions being
| widely decimated by AB5 is because they all lobbied for
| exemptions which again shows how corrupt this law was.
|
| See the full list here https://www.nolo.com/legal-
| encyclopedia/exempt-job-categorie...
| ccktlmazeltov wrote:
| This is all a shit show because the infrastructures in place are
| currently doomed for the market to succeed:
|
| - no healthcare means you're a slave of whatever you can find,
|
| - tipping culture means your employer can pay you shit
| ram_rar wrote:
| +1 for tipping culture. I just dont get it, why can employers
| pay their fair share, instead of expecting customers to foot
| the bill.
| Skunkleton wrote:
| > instead of expecting customers to foot the bill.
|
| Either way, the customer will be paying this bill.
| ksdale wrote:
| I wouldn't mind at all if tipping culture disappeared, but I
| think it's naive to think that costs wouldn't go up
| dramatically for customers. Customers are footing the bill
| one way or another, it's just a matter of whether we're
| willing to pay enough to ensure everyone gets a livable wage.
| crosscorsair wrote:
| The real problem of tipping culture is it transferred the
| conflict of interest from businesses/employees to
| customers/employees. Yes customers may end up paying the
| same, but when the employees want more, they will not ask
| for it from the customers.
| aeyes wrote:
| I once worked for a company which was already established in
| many markets, no tips allowed and fair pay. When the company
| entered the US market we got asked about tipping left and
| right. Workers seem to like the gamble on getting a huge tip
| and for certain industries customers just assume that workers
| aren't well paid.
|
| But do you tip at Mc'Donalds, the gas station or the
| supermarket?
| vinay427 wrote:
| The larger issue with employers paying insufficiently is
| minimum wages that are too low. Federal minimum wage still
| applies for tipped workers, as far as I can tell, so employers
| are required to compensate the difference if workers make less.
| The same seems to apply to most states that have higher minimum
| wages, and in a few the minimum wage (excluding tips) is the
| same regardless of tipping.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| When companies like Uber/Lyft depend on safety nets like
| unemployment without ever paying into the system, what's
| happening is that our children are paying for returns on VC
| capital.
|
| People profiting from these types of companies should feel bad
| about themselves.
| erichocean wrote:
| Now do Amazon.
| sneak wrote:
| Amazon pays more in payroll taxes, SUI, and Social Security
| alone than the entire revenue of the vast majority of any
| company you could select in the world.
| fsociety wrote:
| Doesn't Uber pay all that too? I feel like I'm missing the
| point.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| No, not for its drivers.
| [deleted]
| c1b wrote:
| sounds like you don't know any Uber/Lyft drivers
| throwawaygh wrote:
| I think it's fairly clear I'm referring to the VC and
| founders who chose a business model that effectively
| arbitrages others' belief in an obligation to contribute to
| the social safety net.
| cltby wrote:
| When people like you create social safety nets like
| unemployment without ever paying into the system, "what's
| appending" is that Uber and Lyft are paying for your moral
| grandstanding.
|
| People shifting the costs of their moral choices to strangers
| should feel bad about themselves.
| vore wrote:
| How are we not paying into the social safety net? That's
| literally what we as individuals pay for with taxes.
| cltby wrote:
| My comment was a (lame) play on the inane parent.
|
| Maybe you're paying, and maybe you're not. But if you are,
| you're doing so grudgingly. "I wouldn't have to pay taxes
| to support this gigantic welfare state I've repeatedly
| voted for if only greedy Uber and Lyft would pay for my
| moral principles!"
| lovich wrote:
| You can want a social safety net and also be upset at the
| free rider problem
| throwawaygh wrote:
| You can also _not_ want a social safety net and also be
| upset at the free rider problem.
|
| Unless you're living off returns on capital, _your_ tax
| dollars and _your children's_ future tax dollars are
| keeping Uber /Lyft independent contractors fed and off
| the streets.
|
| I'm not sure why you'd be more angry at people who don't
| want to see homelessness/hunger than at people who are
| pocketing everything in good times and peaking out in bad
| times.
| cltby wrote:
| Ok I'll bite. Can you point me to something that shows
| that rideshare drivers would be hungry and homeless were
| it not for progressive generosity? Literally any sign
| that they disproportionately rely on public assistance?
| And to the extent they do, which they don't, did Uber and
| Lyft create that situation?
| cltby wrote:
| What exactly are Uber and Lyft free-riding off of? What
| public service are they abusing by operating a ride-
| sharing marketplace? In what way are they avoiding their
| "fair share" when their employees and investors already
| shoulder a massive and disproportionate part of the
| state's tax burden?
| friedman23 wrote:
| Uber and lyft would still exist without unemployment so how do
| they depend on them?
|
| If there was no unemployment insurance uber and lyft would
| still exist and saying that uber and lyft depend on these
| social safety nets is just dishonest rhetoric.
| RIMR wrote:
| In what situation aren't investors borrowing from the future?
| That's basically the entire state of our economy right now:
| that the wealthy older generation invested heavily in the
| future, and then squandered that investment and stuck the
| younger generations with the bill.
| marcinzm wrote:
| Huh? As I understand it Uber/Lyft drivers are not eligible for
| unemployment benefits (recent laws/court rulings aside). So
| they don't depend on the safety nets in any way.
|
| edit: Unemployment insurance is paid by companies for their
| workers who may use it in the future. It's not a shared social
| obligation from taxes. Nor is everyone eligible to use it
| merely by existing.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| From Lyft itself: https://www.lyft.com/hub/posts/how-the-
| cares-act-can-help-dr...
| square90 wrote:
| The CARES Act and state-level programs are paying
| unemployment assistance to contractors and self-employed
| individuals not usually covered by unemployment [0], [1].
|
| [0] https://www.edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/pandemi
| c-u...
|
| [1] https://www.edd.ca.gov/about_edd/coronavirus-2019/cares-
| act....
| marcinzm wrote:
| Which is a one-off "world is burning down" case which no
| one planned for or expected. Hardy a long term plan by the
| VCs to take advantage of everyone else.
|
| I'm guessing unemployment insurance didn't cover a lot of
| the rest of the unemployed either for COVID (as it ran out
| due to never being designed for this situation) so it came
| from taxes. In which case no one paid into the social
| safety net except through taxes (which Lyft/Uber are not
| exempt from).
| strbean wrote:
| I think we just need a way for unemployment insurance to
| include independent contractors.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| Any remotely competent student of history can foresee
| occasional economic crises with high unemployment. That's
| _why_ we have a national unemployment insurance scheme.
|
| Maybe you don't foresee a pandemic, but only in the same
| way that you don't foresee getting side-swiped when a car
| passes you while blowing its tire. Or having your house's
| roof ripped off by a tornado. Totally unforeseeable
| _events_ , but somewhat predicable _circumstances_.
|
| The bailouts in crises are not one off because there's
| always going to be another crisis.
|
| Taking care of contractors who work for employers that
| arbitrage labor protections == corporate bailouts.
| marcinzm wrote:
| >The bailouts in crises are not one off because there's
| always going to be another crisis.
|
| Please list the historical unemployment insurance
| bailouts that covered contractors.
| gwright wrote:
| I don't know who "we" is in your statement, but
| unemployment insurance is state by state in the US, not
| national.
| [deleted]
| hhsuey wrote:
| The gig economy model can be better, but I don't think it's
| helpful to blame individual companies. It's an entire system at
| play. Some people are totally happy with earning over a few
| hours a week. It's not a one size fits all system, so the model
| needs to be more flexible.
| grugagag wrote:
| The gig economy exists only because of the rapid advancement
| in technology. When the law catches up with that maybe it
| will be fairer. Until then they take and cut corners on
| whatever the law hasn't caught up with yet.
| chrischen wrote:
| Actually what happens is we get lower Uber/Lyft rates for
| consumers... consumers that may depend on it in low
| infrastructure areas such as other low income workers.
|
| In a competitive market there is no such thing as "free profit"
| for companies. Most savings that apply to all market
| competition across the board transfer to lower prices in the
| general market.
|
| Uber would only net the profit if for some reason it was the
| only company that didn't have to offer those things out of
| pocket.
| throwawaygh wrote:
| And, if those other people did it, then I would be saying
| this about them.
|
| "That's how the world works" is the oldest justification for
| injustice.
|
| If capitalism really is just a spreadsheet feudalism that
| deprives even the yacht owners of human moral autonomy, then
| maybe it's time to burn down the system. NB: I don't buy it,
| and I think markets can function alongside patriotic
| responsibility.
| donsupreme wrote:
| Uber gained market cap of $4B since this appeal news broke,
| already spent $100M to fight AB5, all the while they burnt $2B in
| their last quarter.
|
| And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to
| cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment insurance.
| donor20 wrote:
| I'm in a non-rideshare field. The law here (AB5) has been a
| disaster, a total mess.
|
| One proof point, workers in a TON of fields have absolutely
| flooded Sacramento to get exception after exception into this
| law. This is not a normal principles based law. This a law with
| "principles" that are so ridiculous that everyone then goes
| let's carve these random folks.
|
| Get a grip.
|
| Imagine if we had laws like this elsewhere. It's pathetic -
| really.
|
| Some of the carevouts.
|
| physicians surgeons dentist podiatrists psychologists
| veterinarians insurance brokers lawyers architects and
| engineers private investigators accountants securities broker-
| dealers and investment advisers direct sales salespeople (often
| horrible abuse here with door to door sales) marketing
| professionals travel agents human resources administrators
| graphic designers grant writers fine artists enrolled agents
| payment processing agents through an independent sales
| organizations photographers or photojournalists freelance
| writers editors newspaper cartoonists and lots more I think gig
| musicians want to be sure they have a carveout. Fisherman are
| doing carevouts. I think truckers are getting a carevout. A
| bunch of beauty industry jobs A ton of contractor and
| subcontractor work
|
| There has got to be some transit union or something pulling
| strings here - because the law is horribly unworkable even for
| folks who DO want to do the right thing. Most are resigned to
| waiting until everything is carved out but uber and lyft.
| jeffbee wrote:
| Ah yes, the all-powerful bus drivers' union.
| renewiltord wrote:
| Am I understanding this correctly? You mentioned the market cap
| because you're proposing that they leverage their market cap to
| pay for this by making share offerings available on some short
| enough cadence to ensure cash flow? Or to collateralize some
| loan with the current ownership?
|
| That's not a conventional strategy but perhaps you can make a
| good argument for why it will work.
| creato wrote:
| > And yet their argument is they can't afford to spend $300M to
| cover driver benefits and pay into state unemployment
| insurance.
|
| You compared global market cap/revenue losses to just the
| impact of CA. What happens when other markets follow in CA's
| footsteps?
| r00fus wrote:
| This argument that local laws can't be followed because "what
| would other jurisdictions do" doesn't seem to apply to
| authoritarian places like China who impose pretty onerous
| requirements for operation (like state ownership).
|
| There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers set
| their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make them
| less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would crater
| their valuation.
| creato wrote:
| I'm not making an argument for or against Uber. Just
| explaining why they didn't just eat the cost of this
| because it would have been insignificant/cheaper than
| fighting it.
| foota wrote:
| And also make the service much less useful. Or at least
| very different from what it is now.
| majormajor wrote:
| > There is another option for Uber/Lyft - to let drivers
| set their prices and/or routes. Of course, that would make
| them less of a unicorn and more of a utility and that would
| crater their valuation.
|
| That isn't enough, is it? Don't they still fail the "core
| business functionality" part of the test?
| ffggvv wrote:
| you're comparing a lot of unrelated numbers and mixing hem up.
|
| per barclays the figure for uber is 500M a year not 300. 300 is
| the figure for lyft
|
| market cap is the total value of the companies issued shares.
| they don't have access to that money.
|
| 100m to fight a law that would cost them 500m/year seems like a
| good investment.
|
| burning 2b last quarter is proof they can't afford any
| additional costs as they already aren't profitable.
|
| adding 500m a year would be increasing their quarterly spend by
| > 10% just to service a single state
| kumarski wrote:
| What most of the people in this thread don't realize is the
| reason that Uber became large?
|
| The smart ones will understand that Uber's entire subversive
| cross border growth tactic was tracking cops, which is a felony.
|
| They hired Eric Holder to do the clean up job with workplace
| harassment as the cover story.
|
| Eric Holder is not the best sexual harassment lawyer, he's the
| best lawyer to go close private backroom deals with Attorney
| Generals in all 50 states.
|
| Uber not only did this domestically they did it in places abroad
| too, india etc...
|
| They were able to fly under the radar long enough to circumvent
| localized taxes.
|
| Medallion holders pay taxes into their locales, Uber does not.
|
| TNC liceneses are a small fraction of the profits generated.
|
| AB5 California Contractor/Employee Policy:
|
| To hire a contractor, businesses must prove worker
|
| a) is free from the company's control
|
| b) doing non core/critical work to co
|
| c) has an ind. business in that industry.
|
| Must meet all 3 or be classified as employees.
|
| The lack of property taxes, more pension fund shortfalls, etc...
| means that California is racing to collect taxes.
|
| The first levers are things like weird fees on receipts, then it
| moves to applying payroll logic and taxes to businesses (employee
| vs. contractor), then to wealth taxes, and then the real big
| kahuna is the VAT taxes.
|
| The VAT taxes are coming.
|
| Taxi cab drivers were middle class and medallion ownership
| created wealth.
|
| Uber exploits its contractors, operates at a loss, and is propped
| up by political nepotism and cheap laundered CCP cash.
|
| David Plouffe's job was to run an astroturfing campaign in every
| major city.
|
| He had trouble written all over him.
| https://www.chicagotribune.com/news/breaking/ct-david-plouff...
|
| Uber is a revolving door of corruption at the highest levels.
|
| Uber circumvented taxes in every city they approached by bribing
| the State with TNC's and hiring from the revolving door.
|
| People don't talk about all the thug life things Uber did to
| grow.
|
| I always call BS whenever some Uber shirt tucker comes my way and
| says "marketplace dynamics" and "intelligent routing."
|
| Uber is an amoral company that built political firewalls against
| regulatory realities, not one of brilliant technologists.
|
| Also, here's me with $50k in uber credits:
| https://twitter.com/datarade/status/1080608107409993728?s=20
|
| It took me several years to figure out the subversive truths of
| Uber that made it large.
| dmode wrote:
| So, I wasted my outrage in another thread complaining about this
| only only for a judge to put this on hold. :facepalm:
___________________________________________________________________
(page generated 2020-08-20 23:00 UTC)