Uber CEO Says Its Service Will Probably Shut Down Temporarily in California if It's Forced To Classify Drivers as Employees (cnbc.com) 476
Uber would likely shut down temporarily for several months if a court does not overturn a recent ruling requiring it to classify its drivers as full-time employees, CEO Dara Khosrowshahi said in an interview. From a report: "If the court doesn't reconsider, then in California, it's hard to believe we'll be able to switch our model to full-time employment quickly," Khosrowshahi said. Uber and rival Lyft both have about a week left to appeal a preliminary injunction granted by a California judge on Monday that will prohibit the companies from continuing to classify their drivers as independent workers. Following the order will require Uber and Lyft to provide benefits and unemployment insurance for workers.
California's attorney general and three city attorneys brought the lawsuit against the companies under the state's new law, Assembly Bill 5, that aims to provide benefits to gig workers core to a company's business by classifying them as employees. In his decision granting the preliminary injunction, the judge rejected the notion that drivers should be considered outside the course of the companies' businesses, calling the logic "a classic example of circular reasoning."
California's attorney general and three city attorneys brought the lawsuit against the companies under the state's new law, Assembly Bill 5, that aims to provide benefits to gig workers core to a company's business by classifying them as employees. In his decision granting the preliminary injunction, the judge rejected the notion that drivers should be considered outside the course of the companies' businesses, calling the logic "a classic example of circular reasoning."
Oh noes! (Score:4, Informative)
How else will the suckers find a way to drive around all day and wear out their car to earn $4 an hour?
Re: (Score:3)
How else will the suckers find a way to drive around all day and wear out their car to earn $4 an hour?
Damn, Somebody makes $4/hour driving for Uber? No way..
I ran the numbers once and there was no way to make this pay. Sure, there was a lot of cash flow, just very little profit. If you figured in maintenance and depreciation of the car you are driving, I don't know how anybody could clear $4/hour in the long run driving part time. The only possible way to make this pay was to drive the cheapest car possible, only during peak pricing and only in specific areas. The problem is, there are too few of thes
This is't new the state has been at this for years (Score:2)
Inefficient (Score:5, Insightful)
The disruption of the tech industry has mostly been to strip low level employees of compensation and benefits to overcompensate executives. This goes back to MS misclassifying workers as contract, the crying and threatening to move to Canada if they had to follow the laws of the US. Uber is doing the same thing threatening to shut down in California, sending a message to the rest of the world. That they would rather put all their workers, who they have a responsibility to, out of work rather than follow the law.
Uber does impose certain restrictions, such as the type of car, and the number of rides one is allowed to disregard, that makes the contract worker more like employees. They certainly have to rework the guidelines for workers, for instance deny certain drivers who do not earn enough, but that is not unreasonable. We will simply be moving to a more professional and reliable workforce, which I think will benefit us all
Re:Inefficient (Score:5, Insightful)
Hollywood has never made a profit, either.
I thought this was part time work? (Score:5, Insightful)
From the very beginning we've been told the Uber Cab Company was not a full-time job, but a way for people to gain a little extra cash on the side by offering up their vehicles as cabs once in a while.
You know, that if the person just happened to be going to the local airport at 5 AM for some unknown reason, and someone else was going the same way, they could pick up this passenger for a fee. And by fee that means far above and beyond the cost of gas used to drive to said airport.
Then, on their way back from the airport they went to for some unknown reason at 5 AM, someone else was going to the same grocery store the driver was going to, once again a fee would be imposed far and above the cost of the gas used to get to said store.
Yet now we're being told people are driving their vehicles as cabs full-time but aren't allowed to get the benefits of a full-time worker? Something tells me Uber may not be telling the truth.
Re:I thought this was part time work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that's how it was portrayed when they started, but very quickly they found most of their drivers were full-time. They also engaged in various programs to do things like help drivers to buy cars, which was clearly targeted at full-time drivers.
Now if Uber limited contractors to 20 hours a week, then you can bet all those drivers would spend another 20 hours with Lyft, and another 20 hours with some new competitor. That's the problem with forcing people into part-time jobs to avoid paying benefits.
Of course, 90% of this boils down to the problem of tying health care to employment. That's by far the largest benefit issue at stake here. Paid time off is just a drop in the bucket in comparison.
Re: (Score:3)
Of course, 90% of this boils down to the problem of tying health care to employment.
Exactly. Can you imagine if car insurance and oil changes was tied to your employer? Our healthcare in America is so ridiculous.
Re: (Score:3)
Car insurance can be tied to what you do for a living. Go tell your insurance company you are really using your car to Uber/Lyft/Postmates/Doordash/etc, honestly quote your mileage, and watch your rates go up dramatically..
Re: (Score:3)
I thought regular car insurance didn't cover you while driving for Uber. If you have the app on, you're a commercial driver, which leaves a nasty gap, as Uber's insurance only covers you when you have a passenger. Or at least that was the case a couple of years ago when I looked into it.
Re: (Score:3)
I never understood why people saw health insurance provided by their employer as "free". Your employer doesn't see the cost to employ you as just your wages. They see it as the sum total of your wages + benefits + insurance + payroll taxes + logistics (office space, computer, HR time for interviews, etc). They have a maximum limit in mind for how much they're willing to pay to hire someone. If you insist on sticking heal
Re:I thought this was part time work? (Score:5, Insightful)
Employer-provided health insurance is still generally cheaper than buying the same level of coverage as an individual, even when you factor in the employers' portion. Companies have professionals who know the system and can get the best deal, especially if they're negotiating for hundreds or even thousands of people.
The paid time off being really about being able to take vacations without losing your job is mathematically valid, but if we didn't structure it that way, people wouldn't take vacations, and that wouldn't be good.
Another thing with benefits is that they don't count towards the minimum wage, so at the low end, any mandated benefits can be viewed as a minimum wage increase, though usually they instead result in converting full-time jobs into multiple part-time jobs. That's why I've argued that if we have mandated full-time benefits, employers should also be required to pay a pro-rated equivalent for part-time jobs, so that they can't bypass the benefits portion. At the low-end of the economy, we have tons of people with multiple part-time jobs and no benefits, which is just wrong.
Re:I thought this was part time work? (Score:4)
It's worse than that. Last time I was at PepBoys to pick up some parts, there was a waiting area in the store they had dedicated for people renting vehicles specifically to drive for Uber and Lyft. This was distinctly different than renting a vehicle while yours was in for repair. There's a larger predatory economy forming around contract drivers beyond just how Uber and Lyft driver/employer relationship.
If we can't have slaves were shutting down (Score:5, Insightful)
To me it just reads like "Our slaves want to be slaves. If we can't have slaves were shutting down the plantation".
Sure, we all like getting our cheap cotton. And maybe it will be rough on the slaves at first.
But that doesn't justify allowing it to continue and expand.
The plantation owners will just have to figure out how to continue making cotton profitably while at the same time compensating their labor force appropriately under the law.
Capitalism is Beautiful (Score:3)
That's the beauty of capitalism. If Uber cannot make a profit while complying with the law in California, I am confident another startup will be happy to take its place. Uber will be happy not to be forced to operate under the rules of meany Californians, another set of venture capitalist will make a ton of money, consumers will have choice, and drivers will be recognized as employees.
Everybody wins, right Mr. Khosrowshahi?
Gig economy = 1%er heaven (Score:3)
After watching the "gig economy" for a few years I've come to the conclusion that it is just a pretty name slapped on traditional business models so they can pretend they're something new and inventive, under-pay employees, offer no benefits, scrape all the profits to the investors, and walk away when someone notices that they're a traditional business using semantics to try to avoid labor laws and legal responsibilities.
Re:Gig economy = 1%er heaven (Score:5, Insightful)
It's worse than that. Like the permanent part time models used by companies like Walmart, they basically use a jurisdiction's social safety net as the employee benefit package, essentially forcing taxpayers to underwrite their business model. So it isn't merely an abuse of their workers, it's an abuse of the taxpayer.
Just wait, it gets better (Score:3)
Re:Regulators, be careful what you ask for (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
It wasn't a violation of any law, until CA passed NEW laws specifically to screw with Uber/Lyft, and likely contract workers even beyond these companies.
I feel sorry for the freelance photographers and musicians that got hit out there recently by crap legislation like this...well meaning, but screwed folks' livelihoods that had been working just fine for decades and decades.
Re:Regulators, be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the law wasn't new.
And Uber which was supposedly ride "sharing" company had turned into a full fledged taxi company with full time workers. It had substantial control over their work.
If they were really independent contractors, they would have been taking bids from uber, lyft, and any other ride company- offered a known amount in advance before they took the bid where they were in control of prices.
And as ride "sharers", they wouldn't plausibly be "sharing" more than a couple rides a day.
Re:Regulators, be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
Most of the law wasn't new.
And Uber which was supposedly ride "sharing" company had turned into a full fledged taxi company with full time workers.
Even Uber knows they are a taxi company, their original name was UberCab.
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
If they were really independent contractors, they would have been taking bids from uber, lyft, and any other ride company [...]
I may be wrong on this, but I think I've noticed people who are driving for both Lyft and Uber. I would assume that the drivers take whatever individual ride will make them the most money.
Re: (Score:3)
While I agree with your sentiment, please show an example of any type of work outside of the gig economy where at a moment's notice you are able to pick which job you are committing to for the next 15m-1hr. Ability to switch employers on a moment's notice multiple times in a day at the employee's discretion doesn't fit within any traditional definition of employment. That's fairly clearly in the realm of contract labor. If Uber and Lyft really want to fight this, that's the point they need to be hammering o
Re: (Score:2)
I feel sorry for the freelance photographers and musicians that got hit out there recently by crap legislation like this
I feel sorry for the attorneys who used to be partners in law firms but are now forced into an employee-employer relationship.
No, wait. That didn't happen. Sharks don't eat their own young*.
*Well, actually, sharks do.
Re: (Score:3)
Show me any instance in which there are general partners in Uber and/or Lyft and your comment might be relevant.
By the way, associates, of counsel, staff attorneys, and the rest are in employer-employee relationships with law firms. Partners are not the only lawyers involved, and they're not even necessarily owners (see the concept of "income partners").
The laws weren't designed to screw with Uber/Lyft (Score:5, Informative)
Uber got away with it not because they weren't breaking the law but because they'd gotten enough capital they could tie cases up in our courts arguing over minutiae for decades... long enough for self driving cars to make it all a moot point.
That was always Uber & Lyft's goal, California saw through that, and so they put a law on the books to clarify it to the point where there wasn't enough minutiae to keep them in the courts.
Contrary to what you might think, you want this. Freelance photographers are just fine as they make and sell a product and people buy it for a variety of reasons. Uber & Lyft's problem is that they are and are only a Taxi Cab service.
The Daily Bugle still has a paper without Peter Parker. The Sunshine Cab Company doesn't have a business without Alex Reiger & his friends.
Re:Regulators, be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Informative)
"AB5" is the law you're looking for: https://laist.com/2019/12/31/a... [laist.com]
It looks like they've made some progress in fixing it:
https://www.cnn.com/2020/02/07... [cnn.com]
https://leginfo.legislature.ca... [ca.gov]
but it's still broken for many freelancers at the moment.
Re:Photographer vs Musician vs Driver (Score:5, Insightful)
With Uber as a driver, you see a ride pop up, you can decide to take it or not.
You do NOT have to follow the route the app gives you, it often gives the best route, but not always. I've known many drivers in New Orleans, take different than suggested routes because they know the area better.
You provide your own equipment.
You choose your own hours.
And remember with the Uber/Lyft drivers...their customers are NOT the passengers.
They are contracted with Uber to transport A to B.
It happens to be people, but it could be food or logs, etc...it doesn't matter really, they are contracting with Uber, so Uber is there customer and they accept Uber's terms of payment per pickup/dropoff of cargo.
No one forcing them to accept this contract, nor are they locked into it, they can quit at any time.
Sounds suspiciously like any contract I've worked on...except I know what my time is worth.
But, people should be free to make their own adult decisions.
I know a lot of people that enjoy that freedom to run out and make a bit of side money.
Re: (Score:2)
They don't seem to understand California law. Or law generally.
The law is what classifies different people as contractors or employees. It isn't just a check box where they're supposed to choose. They're not a sovereign that could Declare how a person, in a particular business relationship, is classified.
They're supposed to use the legal classification, not make up a classification.
Re:Regulators, be careful what you ask for (Score:5, Insightful)
What is it with everyone here being so comfortable with companies blatant violations of the law?
We want to live our lives and make our own choices. We want to be free people, not obedient subjects bowing our heads to kiss the ring of the local government strongman.
Also, it's just people giving each other car rides. The transaction is none of your business or anyone else's business.
Re: (Score:3)
Also, it's just people giving each other car rides.
LOL. I like that line of reasoning. Let's apply it to some other situations:
Iran's nuclear weapons program is "just people working with metal alloys".
Hillary's e-mail server was "just people running a computer program".
Mexican drug cartels are "just people providing entertainment options".
Re: (Score:3)
A billion-dollar company controlling every single aspect of a transaction with their computers isn't a "car ride". Don't be insane.
Re: (Score:3)
The transaction is none of your business or anyone else's business.
And that the driver is sleeping in the car because they can't afford rent and hasn't done basic maintenance on the car isn't important either, apparently.
Now he won't be able to afford food. Congrats.
Re: (Score:3)
Because despite lip service 'conservatives' don't give a shit about rule of law.
Re: (Score:2)
that was the point (Score:2)
What do you think the point of regulation is, if not to ban companies from doing illegal things? What good would regulation be if these same companies just continued doing the same thing?
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
If it looks like a duck and it walks like a duck, it's probably a duck.
UBER failed the ABC test.
https://www.thebalancesmb.com/... [thebalancesmb.com]
"Key Takeaways
The ABC test is performed to determine if a worker is an independent contractor.
The ABC test application may vary by state.
An employer must answer yes to all three parts of the test to qualify a worker as a contractor.
The IRS automatically categorizes workers as employees unless proven otherwise."
As the article says, parts of this law have been standard practice for a long time. Some parts were written to recognize changing technology was allowing some companies to bypass the law.
This is no different than when companies change people from hourly to "salary" to avoid paying overtime when the employees are clearly not exempt status.
This redefinition of terms .. originally pretending this was about a driver *sharing* a ride because they were already going to be traveling that way morphing into behaving exactly like a taxi driver but without published rates... needed to be addressed.
Re: (Score:2, Redundant)
I believe this is now due to a CA state law that just came about and being enforced above and beyond what the IRS laws state...and on the state level is running the companies out due to the new state law reclassification.
The problem is, law like this in CA have already hurt other workers in the state (unintentionally I believe)....like freelance photographers and musicians.
Loss of jobs t
Re: (Score:3)
AB5, the law that has basically outlawed ride-sharing programs, has put about 4 million people out of work and they are in no way related to ride-sharing. For example, a friend was a translator specializing in medical and legal documents. She would easily pass the ABC test, but AB5 made it illegal for her to work, and right when a global pandemic has made it near impossible to find alternate work. So instead of her making a decent living and paying taxes, she is now broke and wondering how to pay rent.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
What reason does Uber have for shutting down instead of becoming compliant? Is Lyft having similar problems? Uber is playing the spoiled child card and threatening to take all the toys back home.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Re: (Score:3)
Every driver I've ever had (within the last couple years anyway) has "worked" for both, so it's not like they will all suddenly be out of a job.
Which is interesting because that's exactly the sort of thing contractors do, not full time employees. I'm pretty sure every company I've been employed by had an exclusionary clause in my employment agreement--I was not allowed to work for another company at the same time.
They're already not profitable (Score:4, Informative)
First, once self driving cars are a thing it's possible they'll own the transportation market, making that worth throwing a few billion at (it would've sat in a Cayman Islands account anyway).
Second, Uber has fundamentally changed the nature of the employee / employer relationship to the benefit of the employer. For the same reason why H1-Bs are so popular with employees Uber is. If they can get away with it then they erase 200 years of hard fought gains.
Re:They're already not profitable (Score:5, Informative)
Three, Uber provided a way for people to get around a rent-seeking taxi industry. [wikipedia.org]
Another example of rent-seeking is the limiting of access to lucrative occupations, as by medieval guilds or modern state certifications and licensures. Taxi licensing is a textbook example of rent-seeking. To the extent that the issuing of licenses constrains overall supply of taxi services (rather than ensuring competence or quality), forbidding competition from other vehicles for hire renders the (otherwise consensual) transaction of taxi service a forced transfer of part of the fee, from customers to taxi business proprietors.
Re: (Score:3)
I still don't get it, what makes Uber drivers employees? What does Uber have to change so they are not?
They already don't provide any benifits.
They don't provide the materials used to do the work ( car gas etc.)
Do they require you to work a certain number of hours or any particular scheduled? How can someone who is 'required' to work 0 hours a week be a employee @ all?
Re: (Score:3)
Interesting read: https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/fa... [ca.gov]
My interpretation (not a laywer) of the ABCs: A, they can't tell you HOW to do your work. (Uber does this, they tell you who to pick up and how to get them to their destination) B, the work you're performing is different than what the company would normally do. (This is a tough one to argue. Uber bills themselves as a platform, not a taxi company, but I think they're going to have a hard time wriggling out of it.) And C, the work has to be something y
Re: (Score:3)
ABC rules have been in place in most states of the US before Uber ever existed.
Re: (Score:3)
I can't really side with anyone who's against a minimum wage.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:2)
That's also how MANY workers that enjoyed earning extra side money this way, are now FULLY unemployed.
Nice timing too during a pandemic, where folks are already losing jobs left and right.
Bravo.
I guess we just don't need to allow individuals to make up their own minds on how they want to earn a dollar, eh?
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Republicans - telling people they'll get a pay raise if corporations and the 1% are given a tax cut since 1980.
Oh nooo, I'll have to hire a Lyft! (Score:2)
Democrats - putting the poorest people out of work through well-meaning regulation and laws since... well, forever.
Screw those liberals with their minimum wages and worker protections. If a person wants to work for negative income, it should be their right!!! It's called freedom!!!!!
Also, I don't know if it's any loss that Uber pulls out. All the drivers and customers will move to Lyft. That sounds like a win. Uber wants to behave like a petulant child, let the adults take over. From what I've heard, they've had terrible leadership and toxic culture for awhile now.
This is capitalism as it's supposed to wor
Sub-living-wage means gov-subsidized (Score:5, Insightful)
A job that pays A wage is better than NO job and NO wages.
If an employee can't pay their bills, that means someone else has to. We don't let people starve in the US because we're a civilized country. So when Uber refuses to pay someone enough to live off, they collect gov benefits...and thus the entire taxbase subsidizes their unprofitable business while the CEO, VPs, and board members live extravagant lifestyles. Dara Khosrowshahi, the Uber CEO, earned 45 million in 2019....on the backs of underpaid and desperate people, many of which ended up requiring government assistance.
Also, these leech businesses make it harder for the businesses who pay living wages to compete. The world is better without them. This is why we have regulations. Not following them only makes it challenging for responsible companies.
As a responsible semi-conservative/libertarian, this is my problem. I want small, lean government. I can't have that as long as big businesses use sleazy tactics to get around minimum wage requirements. That means I have to pay higher taxes to ensure those drivers who work for uber are fed, their kids are in school, their healthcare costs, and all other externalities Uber has introduced, not to mention the lost tax revenue. So yeah, who wins?...Uber customers, just a tiny bit, and Uber VPs, a huge, huge amount....at the expense of the ENTIRE tax-paying population of the communities they operate in as well as companies that want to compete with them by following the law.
Good riddance Uber. If you can't charge a dollar more per ride to follow the law, we're better off without you. I'd rather pay extra per ride that lots of tax money to subsidize your ponzi scheme.
Re: (Score:3)
A growing number of jurisdictions are determining that Uber and Lyft "contractors" are in fact employees. Most taxation agencies have a set of measures to determine whether a contract is, in fact, an employment contract. Uber is hardly the first company to try to evade paying withholding taxes by declaring its workers as contractors, and it won't be the first to be nailed the practice. Up here in Canada, when I was working as a bookkeeper in my youth, I saw a couple of companies hit pretty hard for back pay
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
"I'm from the Government, and I'm here to help."
If a leader of the government tells you that's a bad thing, then they're admitting they're completely fucking useless at their job. Somehow this is lauded.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Governments provide services that are uneconomical to provide through the private sector. And things that you don't need on an ongoing basis.
People should not be planning their life around receiving continual government assistance. But when they need it, it's nice to have it there. When my business is being vandalized by some crazed lunatics, a SWAT team is a welcome sight. I just don't want to live in a place (CHAZ) where this is a daily event. A fire department is good to have in the event my house catch
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
Governments provide services that are uneconomical to provide through the private sector.
But now with the difficulty/impossibility of firing bad employees and government employees being given massive, far outside the private sector benefits (pension/health care), it's becoming less economical for even the government to provide them. Part of why people are turning on government services is that it use to be that public employees worked for the public benefit. Now public employees work for their benefit, and the benefit to the public is a secondary concern. Here in my school district (and we are not an outlier) we literally have to go get permission from the teachers' union to do just about anything.
Re: (Score:3)
The question to ask then isn’t why does the public sector get so much, rather you should ask why does the private sector screw over their employees so badly?
demand better. and if the fat cat corporatists won’t give it to you, organize and demand appropriate treatment and benefit. Fuck the rich, make them give the rest of us what we’re owed.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Now public employees work for their benefit[...]
What a strange criticism. When has any class of employee, at any time in history, worked for any reason other than their own benefit?
Why do you work?
Re: (Score:3)
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Interesting)
Private fire departments used to be a thing. If you didn't have the correct placard on your house (denoting current client status in a department) your house would be left to burn. Until someone figured out that the largest actuarial risk for fire was proximity to one cheap bastard with a wooden shack that wouldn't pay.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:4, Insightful)
I would add that professional firefights are often assigned other responsibilities in addition to responding to fires (such as responding to motor vehicle crashes) that are not usually assigned to volunteer departments.
Re:That government is best, that governs least (Score:5, Insightful)
And yet, government is responsible for so many great things. Without government, we would not have landed men on the moon. We would have no internet. We would still have five year olds working in factories. We would not have the weekend, or eight hour work days. We would be eating shitty, tainted meat. We would be getting our arms ripped off in unsafe factories. We'd have lead in paint, and in gasoline. There would be tons of toxic waste buried under our feet.
Government works. For those who actually vote. The rich know this, and that is why they donate to politicians and vote in every single election. If government did not work for them they would not continue to spend money on politicians! But this is a democracy, and if we, the people, actually got out and voted in our own interests like the rich do, we would still have a middle class.
We can do it again. We can make government work for us again, like it did back in the day (see above for a list of successes) but we need to get out and vote en masse.
Re: (Score:3)
government is not in and of itself bad. The greater problem we have at this point in time is a sharply divided populace and people yelling 'no compromise but blood' on both sides of the isle. We need to find some way of solving that problem except no on is will to compromise to solve it. So we will continue to degrade until there is some kind of fascist dictatorship, either a 'ultra religious right' or a 'far left socialist republic'. I wish I could believe otherwise. I don't like either option, but u
Re:That government is best, that governs least (Score:4, Insightful)
Condorcet method voting. Or really, any ranked choice. We've amended the way we vote before, letting blacks women vote. we can do it again.
Re:That government is best, that governs least (Score:5, Insightful)
The fact is that government DID do those things, and you are the one engaging in hypotheticals to support your anti-government position. That's a losing strategy.
You may want to educate yourself on the history of child labor: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
But I know you really, really want to argue that child labor is a great thing and we should still force the children of the poor to work. Admit it!
As for the weekend, 6 and 7 day work weeks were common before we, the people decided we wanted to force sociopathic owners into behaving decently. See here: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
Whatever industry does, costs as much as they can, through hook or crook, charge us. And it is done with the most possible corner cutting and the shoddiest materials. Any industry would much rather "corner the market" and "destroy the competition" so they can get away with monopoly practices, than actually compete on a level playing field. That's how capitalism works. Capitalists HATE the free market and will do anything to ensure its demise.
The industry is best, that is regulated the most!
Re:That government is best, that governs least (Score:5, Insightful)
This is always the argument of libertarian types "If only we had no government, things would be an idyllic paradise!" They can only get away with it because there are zero real world examples of libertarianism in action. It's easy to fantasize about things that are already completely fantastical.
Re: (Score:3)
"Whatever government does, is done very poorly and costs a lot more than it needs to."
I imagine that you've never worked for a very large American corporation?
Honestly, I think it's just a fact that it's very, very hard to get large amounts of people to do anything constructively together. Scale invites waste, inefficiency and creates opportunities for 'bad actors' to exploit any system. Sure, government is the most obvious example, but sometimes you HAVE to work together at scale - to get truly big things
Re:That government is best, that governs least (Score:4, Insightful)
I don't think it's antipathy, rather, voters in the booth can't compare to lavish campaign contributions. You might vote someone in, but that someone was probably financed and tends to owe the financier more than the voter. This depresses the hell out of voters.
The government isn't failing, it's being bribed in the wrong direction. Public policy is largely bought and paid for, legally.
Until there's a voter option that says your candidate pledges to limit contribution size, accept them only anonymously, and spend less than 5% of their time even soliciting them, politicians will turn towards who actually feeds them and gives them their sense of power.
Re: (Score:3)
Pay attention not to "whom" but to these wonderful things known as "policies." Vote for whoever has actual policy proposals that match what you want government doing.
Sure, it takes a bit of work but the alternative to "Paying attention to your government" is having a terrible government.
Re: (Score:3)
You're twisting my words. "Crooks" implies criminality — which Reagan was not — at least, not admittedly.
I would reelect people, who agree with me in that government is inherently costlier and less efficient in everything, and thus should be limited to only doing, what no one else can. Such as maintaining military and police (even though some Libertarians question even that).
Re: (Score:3)
The people who use that phase would have cheerfully let them both die to keep charging $3000/mo for insulin
When you pull made up numbers out of dark places like that, you should at least try to be in the ballpark. You can buy a vial of insulin at Walmart without a prescription for $25. A 30-day supply is usually 2-3 vials of insulin, so that's $75/month.
If you insist on getting the latest, fastest acting insulin such as Fiasp, it's about $312 per vial. Still less than a third of your claim. Generic versions of common modern analog insulins like Novalog are around $135/vial.
Re: Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Taxi drivers in my area (Silicon Valley) were amazingly rare. They're used to get to and from the airport by out of towners; anyone local knows how to use cheaper shuttles anyway. But when Uber and Lyft showed up they were getting used for stuff no one ever used a taxi for - such as to drive you 2 blocks from the train station to work (I know someone who did this); they're being used as a regular commuter service by some people. Uber and Lyft are being used by people with a lot of money anyway, not by poor people, not by those who can't afford taxis. Mass transit should be the solution here, whereas with the ride share we have more cars on the roads, more energy consumption, more traffic congestion.
Re: Uber: a simple business model (Score:3)
Way to deny the workers their autonomy and right to self-determination. It's unfortunate that they didn't check with you first before taking the job, or all of this unpleasantness could have been avoided.
Patronize much?
Re: Uber: a simple business model (Score:3)
Actually, itâ(TM)s even simpler:
1) Exploit workers
2) Undercut everyone by subsidising rides
3) Loss
Re: (Score:3)
Farm subsidies are a good thing- for many reasons, including national security.
What I (and the GP I'm guessing) have a problem with is people shouting and screaming about 'welfare' and 'big government' without having the slightest clue what its about and why.
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Interesting)
The Democrats are the party that says government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn. The Republicans are the party that says government doesn't work and then they get elected and prove it.
P. J. O'Rourke
Re: (Score:3)
Or in this case, the Democratic party is the one that said that people working as taxi drivers should get the bare-bones benefits like workers comp and unemployment insurance that taxi drivers normally get. Hardly in the same category as saying "government will make you smarter, taller, richer, and remove the crabgrass on your lawn."
But you have to admit, when the Tea party took over the Republican Party, Trump became president and gained the house and the senate, they wasted no time conclusively proving that under them, government most assuredly does not work in any known sense of the word 'work'.
Re: Ahh, Democrats (Score:2)
Drivers wonâ(TM)t vote for government assistance to be provided by democrats if they can fend for themselves. This is what they just really want anyway. Letâ(TM)s help them find the welfare office
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
you must be one of those guys like Charter Communication trying to tell the FCC that users actually WANT data caps...
Corporations that do evil are exactly those which grow large enough to suppress open-market competition by acquiring the powers of a government. This includes having laws passed to cement a monopoly in place.
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Republicans - we should keep allowing companies to abuse workers and skip out on taxes. Through the magic of I don't give a shit about plebs, I don't have to give a shit about the poorest people. #MAGA.
You are not a Republican, nor are you a good facsimile of one.
Republicans would have said to Uber - "hey wait a min, you are a taxi service and we have laws about how you must do business." and we'd not have this whole mess now. You see, Republicans are about following the laws, as written, and not skirting around the laws because we find them inconvenient.. We will advocate that the laws/rules get CHANGED if they are inappropriate, but enforce them until then. IN FACT, that's what I was saying about th
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
Contrary to your oft-repeated demagoguery, workers aren't slaves. Anyone finding conditions at Uber disagreeable can walk away. There is no "abuse".
I don't have to defecate on account of anyone — poor and rich alike. This is an Individualist country — and prosperous because of that.
The opposite — Collectivism — is what yields Socialism/Communism or, at best, Fascism. No thank
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:5, Insightful)
Sincerely, an employer
Re:Ahh, Democrats (Score:4, Informative)
His argument was that Somalia has either poor labour laws or unenforced labour laws. Not that it is or is not a failed state.
It's certainly a nice strawman to debunk whenever someone mentions the country though, I guess?
Re: (Score:3)
Anyone finding conditions at Uber disagreeable can walk away.
Indeed. In these times of record low unemployment and an amazing economy people should just quit the job because the world is their frigging oyster.
SLASH SARCASM. Now get off your high horse you entitled brat.
Re: (Score:3)
Contrary to your oft-repeated demagoguery, workers aren't slaves. Anyone finding conditions at Uber disagreeable can walk away. There is no "abuse".
They have a need to earn income to survive. They can only walk away to a certain extent. If Uber is allowed to continue its practices it will outcompete its competitors in the market, and there will be nowhere else for the worker to go with substantially better conditions. E.g. if Uber does 'x' to lower costs then Lyft will have to do something substantially similar to "x" to prevent Uber from taking all its business.
This is a race to the bottom, and in some cases the only way to set a floor for the worker
Re: (Score:3, Informative)
Again PLEASE educate yourself as to what contracting is.
There is NO LOSS of tax revenue when you are contracting 1099 vs W2 employment.
When you are a 1099 contractor, it is your responsibility to pay ALL of the taxes required, state, federal and the employment taxes (SS and medicare), in fact you have to pay BOTH the employer and employee shares of the SS/Medicare taxes.
You will not last very long if you refuse to pay your taxes.
This is true o
Re: (Score:3)
This is true. The Dems don't care about workers any more. Thy don't care about workers now. They care about identity politics. The Republicans have seized this opportunity, but they do not care about the workers either. They just pander to their fears. There is a need for a third party in the US, that would eschew ideological problems, like identity politics or religion, and focus on the well American people.
Re: (Score:3)
That whole "party of slavery" shit is just that: shit. The party names switched in the mid 20th century: https://www.history.com/news/h... [history.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Uber driver are not employees. They do not need to not report to anyone, they do not need to work any specific hours, they do not have to work in an specific area. Uber is essentially a dispatch service, with the problem being that their rates are not entirely transparent to the driver. Youtube has the the same problem - their compensation scheme is not transparent, and their rules for taking down content are not transparent. Moreover, their decision cannot be challenged.
The problem is that Youtube content
Re: (Score:3)
It's way more than just rates (Score:5, Insightful)
Uber exercises enormous control over their drivers. They're way past contractor status.
As for Universal Healthcare, why? They'd have to pay for it in taxes. Their employees certainly couldn't. Most barely make minimum wage with a handful making around $15/hr average. If you read Bernie Sander's detailed Medicare for All proposal most of the funding comes from the top. It has to, the bottom doesn't have anything. That's what it means to be "the bottom".
Re: (Score:3)
It would make sense for the law to recognize a new category, and regulate it as such, rather than trying to cram the drivers into one of the existing categories.
Good idea...perhaps we can call people in this category "serfs."
Re: (Score:3)
I think many of the politicians involved understood that Uber and Lyft would stop doing business in California. The goal was to remove a way of doing business that the politicians thought didn't serve their people well and encourage the market to replace it with something that will do better.
With Uber and Lyft leaving California, there is a market there ready for someone else to take. Very rapidly, we will see new competition. Uber and Lyft primarily innovated around how riders found a ride. That's not goin
Re:The Effects (Score:5, Insightful)
Yes, that model is called a taxi license. It ain't perfect, and is rife with abuses of its own, but the one thing it does assure is at least some basic level of pay, not to mention health and safety for drivers and passengers. Uber certainly has disrupted that, but hardly in a good way.
Re: (Score:3)
From everything I've read, Uber and Lyft actually increase congestion, so I'm sure LA gridlock victims will happily see them go away.
Re: (Score:3)
But let almost every IT shop in the country classify their people as contractors. Finding FTE positions in IT has become nearly impossible, but sure go after a company that hires part-time workers who drive when they feel like it.
Yeah, IT workers have a problem, but this one has a solution that part-time cab drivers don't have: it's actually practical for you to unionize, like lawyers, doctors, teachers, government workers, factory workers, basically every job that has full-time workers who have to regularly collaborate and want to be taken seriously as a profession.
Well, at least it would be easy to unionize if IT hasn't spent decades deciding they're too good to join the labor movement like all those other professions, and didn't,