Uber, Lyft Prevail To Keep California Workers Independent (apnews.com) 156
Uber, Lyft and other app-based ride-hailing and delivery services prevailed at the ballot box in their expensive gamble to keep drivers classified as independent contractors. From a report: The titans of the so-called gig economy bankrolled the most expensive ballot measure in California history to exempt drivers from being classified as company employees eligible for benefits and job protections. The measure had more than 58% of the nearly 11 million votes counted so far. Proposition 22 pitted the gig companies, including DoorDash, Postmates and Instacart, against labor unions. More than $225 million was spent -- the vast majority by the companies.
The ballot question overrides lawmakers and the courts to keep drivers independent and able to set their own hours. If the companies' had lost, it would have upended their business model and San Francisco-based Uber and Lyft had threatened to pull out of California. The landmark state labor law known known as AB5 threatened to upend the app-based businesses, which offers flexibility to drivers to work whenever they choose. But drivers forgo protections like minimum wage, overtime, health insurance and reimbursement for expenses. Labor-friendly Democrats in the Legislature passed the law last year to expand a 2018 ruling by the California Supreme Court that limited businesses from classifying certain workers as independent contractors.
The ballot question overrides lawmakers and the courts to keep drivers independent and able to set their own hours. If the companies' had lost, it would have upended their business model and San Francisco-based Uber and Lyft had threatened to pull out of California. The landmark state labor law known known as AB5 threatened to upend the app-based businesses, which offers flexibility to drivers to work whenever they choose. But drivers forgo protections like minimum wage, overtime, health insurance and reimbursement for expenses. Labor-friendly Democrats in the Legislature passed the law last year to expand a 2018 ruling by the California Supreme Court that limited businesses from classifying certain workers as independent contractors.
In other words (Score:4, Insightful)
These companies have (had) the money to pay their people, but instead chose to spend that money to prevent from having to pay their people.
Re: (Score:3)
That's not true either. These companies, especially Uber, are operating in the red and can only function through continual investment. If they spent all of that money on employee compensation it still wouldn't bring their employees (known as contractors) up to a living wage. That's how you can tell that these companies are scams.
Re: (Score:3)
More than $225 million was spent -- the vast majority by the companies.
It's the finest legislation money can buy.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Seemingly we'd be better off paying less for things we bought because we chose them, instead of paying more for things we were nagged to choose. But, it evidently doesn't work out that way.
Re: (Score:3)
Uber (just Uber alone) had 6.9 billion trips in 2019 [1]. Even if Uber spent all $225 million, that would be the equivalent of spending $0.03 per trip. Uber (alone) also has 5 million drivers [2] and I can assure you that the money they would have to spend on those drivers -- if they were considered employees -- would exceed $51 per driver.
In other words, a $51 "investment" per driver or $0.03 "investment" per trip is well worth the money for Uber (and Lyft) because "the money to pay their people" would GRE
Re: (Score:2)
And the people had a choice of whether to fuck themselves. I think we can be disappointed in pretty much all of America today, not only in corporations.
Re: (Score:2)
Well, duh. Corporations are people after all.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Wow...just...wow.
So, this appears to now be the left's mantra, if things don't go our way, we resort to violence and destruction?
Man, what happened to this country. We've had factions and disagreements for decades, but violence and destructions were NOT the go to actions if one side or the other lose a vote.
Re: In other words (Score:5, Insightful)
What happened is people started assigning the "other side" all the things they consider "bad". Rather than ignoring or even denouncing those bad things and continuing civil discourse.
Just to clarify, I assign the brick throwing as just another idiot idea. Not a left, right, or center. But honestly I think the GP was saying that in cheek.
Re: (Score:2)
Wow...just...wow.
So, this appears to now be the left's mantra, if things don't go our way, we resort to violence and destruction?
How were you able to ascertain from that that denzacar is a left winger or that left wingers in general agree with denzacar's sentiments?
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Good, it was a BS case... (Score:3, Insightful)
Uber/Lyft
- use own vehicle
- work your own hours
- choose your own routes
Sounds like a contractor to me. Government sues.
Government Contractors
- have to use our equipment
- have to be at our site
- have to work when we tell you too
Sounds like an employee to me. Government does jack-$|-|
Re:Good, it was a BS case... (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber/Lyft
- use own vehicle
- work your own hours
- choose your own routes
Sounds like a contractor to me. Government sues.
Shouldn't independent contractors be able to set their own rates?
Uber, Lyft, Grubhub, et al don't allow that.
If your pay rate is set by someone else, aren't you an employee?
Re: (Score:3)
This is the biggest problem. Uber and Lyft inserted themselves as middlemen between the drivers and riders and they buy rides from drivers at prices they decide upon and sell rides at prices they decide upon. This is the exploitative part of the market. The riders should be able to set their prices like AirBnB hosts can set their rates. This is the only logical ay for this business to work. They app should give you list of say 5 nearby drivers, with their rates, cars and ratings.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Government contracts don't require that you use their equipment but they will require that you meet the government accreditation which the company you work for will not want to expense so they specify you will use the government provided.
Location will usually be specified as being provided by the customer aka government, so that it is not an additional expense to the contractor. If you are working out of your empl
Re: (Score:2)
Sounds like a contractor to me.
That's only because you don't understand what the legal definition of a contractor is. Ultimately your thoughts and opinions count for nothing.
Re: (Score:3)
The people railing against Prop. 22 don't understand it. They are just taking a reactionary anti-business stance on what has been politicized as a left/right labor issue. It is not that straightforward. If you read the actual text of the proposition, it is a very good outcome for drivers:
* Drivers get a minimum wage (120% state threshold), which is something AB-5 proponents wanted from the beginning
* Drivers get occupational accident insurance, another benefit AB-5 proponents w
Re:Good, it was a BS case... (Score:4, Informative)
* Drivers get a minimum wage (120% state threshold),
There's is literally ZERO effective change from how they were doing it before. Only time from pickup to drop off is counted. The rates were already higher than minimum wage for that time. At issue was the time that Uber *directs* employees to when and where wait, and then doesn't pay them for that time.
* Drivers get occupational accident insurance,
Again, limited, and already what they had before the law.
* Drivers get a generous health insurance subsidy.
This part is new, but it is a pittance, it is by no stretch of the word generous.
There are a few things AB-5 proponents did not get,
AB-5 was stupid. The people for AB-5 were arguing for a few basic union things, not all of the myriad of things that Uber does that makes their relationship employee-like.
Oh, and AB-5 was deliberately crafted to go after ride-sharing companies.
Again, irrelevant. AB-5 was stupid. That doesn't make the things Uber was doing to treat their drivers like employees just vanish.
Re: (Score:2)
Not sure I'm understanding your comment.
* Drivers get a minimum wage (120% state threshold),
There's is literally ZERO effective change from how they were doing it before. Only time from pickup to drop off is counted. The rates were already higher than minimum wage for that time. At issue was the time that Uber *directs* employees to when and where wait, and then doesn't pay them for that time.
So, if Uber rates are already paying above the minimum wage, what does classifying them as an employee gain? Nothing, aside from providing benefits that make no sense for an Uber driver (ex: unemployment). And I dispute your claim about directed waits. Uber does not force drivers to wait in the sense that a taxi has to wait (ex: airports, curbside). The only waiting a driver has to do is when they have accepted a passenger and that passenger isn't quite ready yet, and
Re: (Score:2)
Proposition 22 was an attempt to provide some of the things AB-5 was asking for, but in a more sensible way. I think they achieved that, so anybody advocating for AB-5 should be in support of Prop 22, for the most part.
This is my main contention with your understanding of the situation. The people advocating for AB-5 were not the drivers for Uber but rather the unions for taxis and the low-information politicians who were convinced by the prospect of more tax revenues in their hurting budgets. The first group is very much against prop 22 and the second group is, well, idiots being played, so what they think doesn't matter. Prop 22 was clearly a giveaway for the corps. It was their entire wishlist, their dream come true. Y
Re: (Score:2)
You may be right. I don’t really know who was advocating for what, but what is the better solution you are proposing? Earlier you had said drivers should be treated as employees, which sounded like you were in favor of AB-5. If you aren’t, what is your actual proposal? If drivers are against both Prop 22 and AB-5, what are they for?
Re: (Score:2)
I don’t really know who was advocating for what, but what is the better solution you are proposing?
The free market, sans AB5 and prop 22. Too late for that now.
Earlier you had said drivers should be treated as employees,
I don't know what gave you that idea. The issue isn't how they should be treated so much as how they are treated. The control exerted by the app corps is employee-like. With prop 22 passed now, they are classified as "independent contractors" by statue even though they will be treated almost the exact same as before it passed.
If drivers are against both Prop 22 and AB-5, what are they for?
Most that I know, if educated enough to understand all the ins and outs, are for being actually treated as independent cont
Re: (Score:2)
The free market, sans AB5 and prop 22. Too late for that now.
I actually agree with you about that, but as you say it’s too late now. My only real defense of Prop 22 is that while it sought to overturn AB-5, it did provide some concessions. Other than that, though, I agree, classification as an employee vs contractor doesn’t meaningfully change anything.
I don't know what gave you that idea. The issue isn't how they should be treated so much as how they are treated. The control exerted by the app corps is employee-like.
I see, I misunderstood you earlier. I think the discrepancy in our viewpoints is that I don’t think Uber’s actions are overly restrictive. I mean yes, you do have to operate within some constrai
Re: (Score:2)
Usually the government contractors are a large entity that sign a contract. The people doing the labor are regular employees of that contractor.
Re: (Score:2)
How many is enough?
If you don't want to work at a particular time, you log out. That doesn't penalize you.
If you don't want to work in a particular area, you set your geographical boundaries. That doesn't penalize you.
If you want to collect higher fares by driving a larger vehicle, you can do that.
If you want to take a different route that you like better, you can do that. Passengers don't mind because route choice doesn't affect their cost.
Seems pretty flexible to me. Far more flexible than a taxi company.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: Good, it was a BS case... (Score:2)
So $20 an hour? Maybe youâ(TM)re being sarcastic, but thatâ(TM)s a pretty good rate.
Re: (Score:2)
The ONLY other thing they should be able to do they currently can't is set their own price.
The interface change would not be that hard. I submit request for ride (I'm told average price for route like this in my area). I'm presented with bids in order they were input by drivers, maybe with some information about who will arrive at my location soonest etc.. I pay whatever I agreed or I don't ride. Not hard. (Uber takes a percent off the top). Everyone wins and no way, anybody can claim even imagine they
The obvious question: why only app-based drivers? (Score:5, Insightful)
Why was this ballot measure written to only cover app-based drivers, rather than all professions (and means of contact)?
Is there something special about driving and app-based placing of orders, in particular?
I think I understand why a majority of voters think force should be used against employers to provide worker's comp, time off, etc. What nobody (until YOU reply?) has explained, is why a majority also thinks that app-based drivers are such a specific and unusual exception.
If you're an app-based maid, the exception doesn't make sense, right? And if you're a hailed or voice-called driver, the exception also doesn't make sense, right? But if you're an app-based driver, then the usual rationale for designating you as an employee is inapplicable so we need an exception, right?
This seems very arbitrary to me and I'd love for a CA voter to walk this humble idiot through it.
Re:The obvious question: why only app-based driver (Score:4, Interesting)
Why was this ballot measure written to only cover app-based drivers, rather than all professions (and means of contact)?
Sponsered.
Is there something special about driving and app-based placing of orders, in particular?
Deep pockets.
This seems very arbitrary to me and I'd love for a CA voter to walk this humble idiot through it.
It boils down to two simple things. The ballot measure exists because Uber, Lyft and others used their influence to get it there. And the media didn't bother forming an opinion and covering this measure because it wasn't interesting or "newsworthy". This lead to voters not forming an opinion on it until the 5 seconds before they checked YES on the ballot.
To steal a phrase from an evil conservative radio host: these are low-information voters.
Anyone thinking that California is a liberal leftist socialists state needs to realize that we have corporations pulling our strings like any other red-blooded capitalist. We may talk like liberals, but it's just virtue signaling, when the rubber meets the road we're ready to exploit workers for profit and weaken unions just like everyone else.
Re: (Score:2)
I doubt that's the cause. Prop 16 was heavily sponsored and lobbied for, outspending the opposition by a ratio of 40 to 3. Yet it failed to pass anyways. This was probably the electorate just saying no to AB5. The whole point of AB5 was like that scene in Austin Powers where Dr. Evil asks everybody to leave, then says "not you" to everybody but mini-me. AB5 did the "not you" to everybody but lyft and uber. Basically the whole point of AB5 was to target them while pretending to target the gig economy in gene
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Soon, all Taxi-drivers will become app-based. It doesn't have to be a GOOD app, just an app of some sort.
Re: (Score:2)
I'm a Califofornia voter!
Why was this ballot measure written to only cover app-based drivers, rather than all professions (and means of contact)?
That's easy, and you could have just searched for this. Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash each paid $30 million into a campaign to write and pass this law. They have no shame.
I think I understand why a majority of voters think force should be used against employers to provide worker's comp, time off, etc. What nobody (until YOU reply?) has explained, is why a majority also thinks that app-based drivers are such a specific and unusual exception.
In the weeks leading up to the election, I was getting multiple texts daily expressing support for this law from "drivers for Uber" or other people claiming to be working via an app. Reading the news a bit, it seems many of these folks were actually workers for the app companies (and of course, the app companies have t
Re: (Score:2)
>Why was this ballot measure written to only cover app-based drivers, rather than all professions (and means of contact)?
Because it was written by Uber, Lyft, etc.
It would have been much better if it had just overturned AB5 (which is an absolutely horrendous bill) and continued using the nationwide standards for 1099 contractors, but I think that they figured that since they were writing the bill, they could make it extra special just for them. It's really the fault of the Democrats who tried irrationall
So the majority voted for cheap rides (Score:2)
Apparently when you ask people to choose between paying people fairly and getting cheap rides they will choose cheap rides.
Big shock.
Coming next, the vote for "Everyone making less than $100k gets a check for $10,000 from someone making over $200,000"
Worst possible outcome (Score:4, Interesting)
AB-5 was passed to curb these companies. Now they get an exception, but AB-5 is still on the books for others. Unless the legislature decides to do a wholesale repeal of AB-5, we just get more bloated law with special carve-outs. I know someone personally who isn't a driver, and AB-5 was screwing with their business. Where's their carve-out? Nowhere, because they couldn't bankroll the biggest initiative campaign ever.
I just have to throw up my hands and sigh over all the people that voted for this.
Re: (Score:2)
I just have to throw up my hands and sigh over all the people that voted for this.
You sigh over that. The rest of us are wondering what the 63million people were thinking yesterday in bewilderment. From the outside it looks like America is actively trying to screw itself over. I'm genuinely impressed.
Re: (Score:2)
Feels even worse on the inside.
This is OT, but I am clearly seeing how poisonous social media is. Not in the Russian/N. Korea, name your bogeyman way. But in 'a people will do anything to make a buck' on the internet, and these small time snake oil salesmen go 'viral' based on us human still having that lizard part of brains that jacks into that sales pitch, triggers the appropriate fear response and suddenly its neighbor against neighbor. Google/Faceback/Twitter are happy to oblige because, hey it's jus
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
AB-5 was passed to curb these companies. Now they get an exception, but AB-5 is still on the books for others. Unless the legislature decides to do a wholesale repeal of AB-5, we just get more bloated law with special carve-outs.
Well, that's the thing, isn't it? We already had a bloated law with over 100 industry-specific exceptions and it was abundantly clear Uber, Lyft, and DoorDash specifically were never, ever going to get equal treatment. Sacramento kept adding new exemptions in an attempt to keep hurting U/L/DD and avoiding harm to other industries.
My fondest hope is the legislature realizes this is a forelorn hope and they just go ahead and repeal AB5. It's not going to facilitate organizing ride sharing drivers so the union
Why vote? (Score:2)
If you're not going to even research the bullshit placed in front of you?
Smarter than I expected (Score:2)
vs
Wouldn't it be nice if we gave them benefits? What do we have to exaggerate and lie about to make that happen? Welcome to far left logic.
I have zero doubt (Score:5, Insightful)
As I've said before. Not only are they independent contractors, they are actually entrepreneurs. They use Uber's software as a toolset, just like a painter uses Benjamin Moore paint, but isn't employed by Benjamin Moore.
But that's not the point.
The point is that we have employment laws for a good reason. It's not because "Employment" has any special meaning. It's simply because it's very easy for people above a threshold to take extreme advantage of people below a threshold. That threshold can be anything -- education, finances, time, or in this case significance.
Uber drivers are, by their very design, completely replaceable. Instantly, and without consideration. Indeed, that's the point.
In this society, we pay wages not based on the value of the work done, and not based on the difficulty of the work. Your nurses and teachers don't get paid more than your landscaper, and your plumber doesn't get paid more than your web designer. In this society, we pay wages based on how easily we can train a replacement. It's always been that simple. Ball-player, zero dollars. MBA ball player, millions.
The gig economy is scary -- given current employment laws. It's the waitress of the future. Near-zero qualifications required to enter. Near-zero room for advancement. Below minimum wage somehow legally.
Those kinds of jobs are great. It's an easy way for a 17-year old, busy with school, to earn $20 a day, with the chance to earn $100 on harder days. Excellent. The problems come with the fact that the 25-year old has no way out.
The 25-year old, now done school, needs more than $100 a day. But they have absolutely no way to progress. They are forced to start from scratch in a new career, or keep fighting as a driver forever.
The one and only reason that we have employment laws is to stop otherwise-perfectly-legal actions from the slippery-slope of stuckness.
Forget about whether or not Uber drivers are independent. The question is only this: should a few hundred-thousand, soon to be a few million, working people have absolutely zero career protections? That's it.
Should they all be able to lose their jobs at any second?
Should they all be able to suddenly go bankrupt?
Should they all be able to have no minimum wage?
Should there suddenly be able to be twice as many of them? What about half as many?
That's the one and only question. Think about it. Then get back to me.
I'm an entrepreneur. Have been for thirty years. As a result, I'm "qualified" for absolutely nothing. I have no degrees, no credentials, and absolutely no references. I fought to attain my success. I continue to fight to keep it. I knew I was doing exactly that. I don't think most of these drivers know all that. I don't think they're in any position to know it. That's a problem. Similarly, I'm sure that half of them do it because they are in dire straits. That usually means they don't have the ability to choose based on research. They have more important issues to fight. And that means it is so easy to take advantage of them. And that usually means someone is doing just that. Welcome to payday loans -- a lesson in how to take advantage of people simply because they don't have the capacity (time, energy, opportunity) to understand the fine-print. It's not criminal to make millions of dollars by convincing people to starve their children. It's just evil.
And that's why people need protecting. And that's why employment laws must exist. And that's why Uber drivers can't remain independent.
So, in my view, you have a choice. Make them "employees", because they need the same protections that actual employees need, or make them regulated members of an industry association that negotiates for the very same protections.
Or, there's a third option. Don't protect them. Let [ultimately] millions of hard-working people risk and lose everything without even realizing it's their own damned fault, and have your entire society weakened as a result.
Your country isn't mine. Still, last night, I had three scotches and a vodka. Your stress spreads internationally.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber drivers are, by their very design, completely replaceable. Instantly, and without consideration. Indeed, that's the point.
It cuts both ways. A driver can stop driving after the current ride, never to be heard from again. The companies are disposable to the drivers, also by design.
Those kinds of jobs are great. It's an easy way for a 17-year old, busy with school, to earn $20 a day, with the chance to earn $100 on harder days. Excellent. The problems come with the fact that the 25-year old has no way out.
The 25-year old, now done school, needs more than $100 a day. But they have absolutely no way to progress.
Uh, they went to school. That ought to have prepared them for a career with higher prospects. If it didn't, they wasted their time in class. But that's not your real point.
Drivers need to be realistic. Driving a car isn't a difficult or especially valuable skill, not like the skill required to start a company. It doesn't strike me as reasonable to exp
Mixed feelings (Score:3)
I have mixed feelings about this. While yes, the drivers have flexibility when to work and when not to work they are putting a lot of unpaid miles and hours trying to position themselves where the demand is the highest. Sometimes a ride will take them way out, where they are not very likely to get a new ride, and they do idle a lot.
On the other hand they are not really employees. They are more of an independent business selling a service, question is who are they selling the service to? Uber and Lyft or riders? They cannot set the prices, like AirBnB hosts. In a way, Uber is buying seats in their cars at rates Uber decides, and sells them to rides at rates which Uber decides.
Re: (Score:2)
Uber is buying seats in their cars at rates Uber decides, and sells them to rides at rates which Uber decides.
This is what makes them employees. Oh well. It got redefined now, thanks to low information voters and low information journalists. The headline of TFS is exactly the kind of bias that made it pass.
as an 1099 uber driver I want to an Taxicab Confes (Score:2)
as an 1099 uber driver I want to do an Taxicab Confessions show in my car as an 1099 uber can't say no.
Sad day for app developers (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
You must now have at least 3 million in cash if you want to make an app in California.
Huh? I can write an app in my spare time and upload it to an app store for virtually nothing. What do I need $3 million for? And why would it matter if I'm in California or New Caledonia?
Not only that, but you have no choice but to use Uber's exploitative and immoral business model...
Sure you do. Go work at McDonalds, WalMart, Amazon, the local construction contractor, or any of a million other low-skill, low pay jobs. Oh wait, those don't have anything like the schedule or location flexibilty of a gig job. Dang. That ride sharing job isn't looking so bad compared to your other options.
I was listening t
Re: (Score:2)
Huh? I can write an app in my spare time and upload it to an app store for virtually nothing. What do I need $3 million for? And why would it matter if I'm in California or New Caledonia?
Do you not understand that Prop 22 is now law? California law. And now you have to obey that law. *whooosh*
I was listening to an interview the other day. The subject made the point that you don't make people better off by taking away their options.
And yet that's exactly what prop 22 does for app makers. Your only option now is to use Uber's business model. No other options. Are you that dense?
Re: (Score:2)
I was listening to an interview the other day. The subject made the point that you don't make people better off by taking away their options.
And yet that's exactly what prop 22 does for app makers. Your only option now is to use Uber's business model. No other options. Are you that dense?
No, not dense, just baffled by your inability to say what you mean. "Write an app" != "Start a ride sharing company". What moron thinks those are even vaguely similar?
Are we done insulting each other? Good.
You're right, Prop 22 is a terrible proposition. Normally I'd never consider voting for it. Leaving AB5 intact was worse. In my perfect world, Prop 22 would have simply repealed AB5. Problem is, the toadies in Sacramento immediately pass it again so that wasn't an option. Next best would maybe be to repea
Re: (Score:2)
"Write an app" != "Start a ride sharing company".
prop 22 doesn't say ride sharing company. It says "app-based company". Sound stupid? Because it is.
Funny thing (Score:2)
Re:regulatory capture (Score:4, Informative)
You obviously don't know what "regulatory capture" means. This was a ballot measure, not a bureaucratic decision, pinhead.
Re: (Score:2)
Only because they couldn't cut checks directly to law makers.
Re:regulatory capture (Score:4, Insightful)
The state made a law, those subject to the law ignored it and then created this ballot measure to override it. This would never have passed if small/special interests didn't spend hundreds of millions of dollars duping people. While there wasn't a takeover of a government agency, it now takes a super majority to undo this crap. They bent the law to their will with money - call it whatever you want. I call it wrong.
Re:regulatory capture (Score:4, Insightful)
That isn't what regulatory capture is. Regulatory capture is quasi-governing panels of this or that industry, empowered by government to set rules, and empaneled by those same people from the industry they regulate. They are a problem because they work to preserve industry players at the expense of competition.
This is a disruptive business model, disrupting the entrenched taxi industry and the officials protecting it from competition, and this was a vote of The People to allow that to continue, rather than drag it back under control of the entrenched, regulatorily-captured taxi service industry.
Any questions? I hope you understand the flaws in your cavalierly-slung rhetoric.
Re: (Score:3)
This is a disruptive business model,
The irony is, no one can come in now with a disruptive business model, where contractors are ACTUALLY treated like contractors or any business model that varies in any way from Uber's business model, because that is the only legal business model now.
Enslaved? No, no, no... (Score:4, Funny)
The preferred term is "liberally delimited".
Re:To Keep California Workers Independent (Score:5, Insightful)
No one holds a gun to anyone's head to work the jobs and a grown adult should be able to decide for themselves if they want this contract or not.
Re: (Score:3)
The exception is only for drivers, and where their orders come from an app. If your orders come by voice call, or you provide some other service, then the presumption is still that a gun is held to your head or you're not a grown adult.
jk sort of, but not really. I actually agree with you on the principle, but the specificity of this ballot measure really does suggest that the basic issue you're bringing up is not the motivation.
This law isn't about such philosophical generalities; it's about automobiles
Re: (Score:3)
Considering the many laws essentially criminalizing poverty and homelessness, the cops in many cases are the proverbial gun to people's head.
Re: (Score:2)
hmm... so you are saying if you are homeless that is a crime somewhere? I regularly meet with homeless people , talk to them etc. Some places it is harder to be homeless, but those laws need to change more then the ones requiring Uber to classify people as employees. People shouldn't be treated poorly because they are poor.
Re: (Score:2)
If you got fired (and needed to work to survive because you're couldn't retire) and the only job available was one that doesn't offer healthcare or other worker protections, would you starve to death out of principle?
Re: (Score:2)
no, I'd mow lawns, paint houses, do most anything any one time Job I could find, until I found something steady that paid the bills. However, If I use a website like Homeadviser to find clients for my house painting service, I would not expect HomeAdviser to give me health insurance or cover my unemployment benifits.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody asked you.
Taxi (Score:3)
Let me get this straight. The argument is that Uber and Lyft drivers *want* to be employees. But, if they want to be an employee, they could go work for a taxi service, right? Is there something preventing them from working for a taxi service as an employee? If so, wouldn't *that* be the underlying problem? Otherwise, it doesn't really matter, does it?
Re: (Score:2)
or McDonalds, or Target, or Shell / 76 or .. a book store, or a lawn service, janitorial, a temp service? or ... seems unreasonable to think there is NOTHING people can't do if they want to be employed, but apparently they think Uber is a better deal then all those choices , maybe because of flexible hours and being able to more or less 'be their own boss'.
Literally the exact opposite (Score:3)
I don't have an opinion one way or the other about this ballot measure, whether it's good or bad. I do, however, know English.
Slavery is when someone is FORCED to work a particular job for a particular master under threat of violence, they have no choice. In short, slavery is forcing someone to work the way you want them to, taking away their choice.
The ballot measure would take away people's freedom to work a few hours of gig work if they want to, on the weekend, between jobs, whatever. I did little whi
Re: (Score:2)
And drivers want to make some extra cash in their spare time by having a side gig.
If ANYONE is attempting to work for uber or lyft as a primary means of supporting themselves they are utterly misunderstanding the business model and purpose of the service. A Gig ( is a one time service performed at hoc). I do think there needs to be some kind of law that lets the drivers have control of their own price. That is really about the only unfair thing about it.
Think about it. Suppose you provided a service for
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
'enslaved'
Fuck you. Nobody forces anyone to sign up with Uber or Lyft. AB 5 was an attempt to fuck over millions of customers to benefit the taxi cartels
Ah, those evil taxi cartels.
Now that's fixed, can we get kids back down the mines and stick one in the eye of those bastards in the school cartels?
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Ah, those evil taxi cartels.
Damn right. Uber only exists in the first place because cab service in the bay area was a total shitshow. If you lived in a bad neighborhood, they simply wouldn't come and pick you up. Not much of an issue for your typical white liberal, but it sucked big time for minorities.
The cab cartels paid Sacramento to forbid competition for decades, and Uber kicked that door wide open. If you have a problem with that, go fuck yourself.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
If you want to operate a taxi company then maybe you should comply with the laws regarding them.
Re:To Keep California Workers Independent (Score:4, Funny)
Take prospective drivers and help to incorporate themselves in each state.
This way, the transaction will purely be a corp-2-corp contract and then all questions of employee vs contract tor will be settled.
This and it willl benefit the drivers in that they now have their own company and can do another work through that entity.
Re:To Keep California Workers Independent (Score:4, Insightful)
No, much easier. they need to let the drivers bid on routes. A route pops up how much are you willing to be paid for this route. Consumer gets to sort bids and pick the one they want based off of rating and expected time of arrival for car. Now the drivers are setting their own price and providing all the time and materials and no on can question that Uber is just a transaction broker and relationship manager, no different the e-bay or Etsy, or Rent-a-coder.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Why are you so angry? Is your Uber late this morning?
Re: To Keep California Workers Independent (Score:3)
I doubt that he's angry, his side won after all. He probably views those laws for what they really are: regulatory capture. You may as well have argued that if tesla wants to sell its cars, then it has to sell them through a third party dealer like the law requires, instead of skirting the laws by only taking online orders. Those laws were only written to protect car dealers at the expense of consumers.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Other places in California I have lived also generally had an effective taxi system. The obvious exception is the miserable Armenian Maffia at LAX. Of course, the more rural the place the le
Re: (Score:2)
Serfdom voted in, the latest in happy Libertarian gains. Every person is a country, and corporate flaunting of taxation revenues benefiting social needs is achieved.
George Orwell was right about what Ayn Rand portended.
Re: (Score:3)
I moved out of the Bay Area a long time ago, but San Francisco actually had a very good cab system,
San Francisco in the very middle of the city has/had a good cab system. You can call for a taxi, or often find one and flag it down. In the rest of the Bay Area, you needed to schedule the cab at least a day in advance. Not great.
Re: (Score:2, Insightful)
Uber and Lyft are taxi companies but aren't following any of the requirements to become one. They started out as a ride sharing service.
Re: To Keep California Workers Independent (Score:3)
And the voters pretty clearly decided that they don't want to require them to operate as cab companies. Welcome to direct democracy.
Re: (Score:2)
Do you believe anyone works for those thieves out of free choice? You fucking retarded libertArian psychopathic degenerate.
It always takes two. The greedy profit psychopaths... and asshole retards like you.
Re: (Score:2)
Wait, so who picks up the phone, downloads the service, agrees to the term and then shows up? Just checking... ? ok.
Are you seriously saying people who are providing uber services really and truly can't find anything else to do that pays? Like work at McDonalds for full or part time? or retail. If the there is somewhere where the Job shortages are THAT bad then I'd say that area has much bigger problems the Uber not paying enough.
Re: (Score:2)
No...there are other jobs out there to choose from.
Employment (Score:2)
Wouldn't they be better off working for a taxi service? Why *aren't* they working for a taxi service? There seems to be demand for it. If something is preventing them from working for a taxi service, shouldn't *that* be looked at?
Re: (Score:3)
Grow up. Nobody is holding a gun to the head of freelancers.
Re: (Score:2)
Nobody is holding a gun to the head of freelancers.
No one has to. As the old Firesign Theater line went, "...just tell 'em necessity sent ya!".
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
How is it a false choice? Are you honestly trying to tell me and everybody else that there's no other work besides uber? There's no need for janitors, fast food workers, security guards, or any other number of entry level shit paying jobs that make people hate their lives but also pay a minimum wage and come with benefits if you work full time? You're a pretty damn sheltered snowflake for believing that there's nothing outside of uber.
Re: (Score:2)
Yep. At first we'll have robot routes and human routes. Then the human ones start costing a premium. Then the human ones mostly go away.
If they can fight legislation specifically created to reign in their abuses and win, they're now a permanent fixture until they run out of money. They can essentially do what they want now.
Re: (Score:2)
Let's face it, ridesharing would have pulled out entirely if they had to classify their drivers as employees, no way around that.
Except the Uber CEO himself said they probably wouldn't pull out, they would contract to fleet providers like they already do for some of their services. This indeed would mean fewer opportunities for independents in the short term, HOWEVER...
Users would lose ridesharing,
As you state, the demand is there. If Uber did pull out it wouldn't be long before a savvy app maker created an actual marketplace for independents. Such a marketplace is now illegal under prop 22 though, because "app", it requires that you use uber's exact business mo