5 ms·

If Uber et.al. were really smart, their response to AB5 would be to cap every driver at 30 hours per week, avoiding the legally mandated benefits and the decrea

If Uber et.al. were really smart, their response to AB5 would be to cap every driver at 30 hours per week, avoiding the legally mandated benefits and the decreased supply will increase surge pricing. Also, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez would have her feet held to the fire by most of her base.

pishpash 7y ago
I believe that already happens in NYC rideshare, and if Lorena Gonzalez or her ilk keeps it up, you will surely be treated to such glory in California too. All hail Dear Leader Lorena Gonzalez and her infinite wisdom!
leoh 7y ago
Clever yet risky. Narrative could be spun as "drivers who could barely support themselves now definitely can't support themselves on their diminished hours because Uber doesn't want to give provide them basic benefits and yet rides are more expensive than ever." If that narrative prevailed, _Uber's_ feet would end up right back in the fire and California would look like a saint.
- CodeWriter23 7y ago
  Uber has more cash to spend pushing the other side of that narrative, how much better off drivers were prior to AB 5. The gambit for Uber is, if they don’t flat reverse this law in CA, NY then WA will adopt it, followed by all Blue States. And then it’s game over for them. They will cost more than a taxi. And taxis will cost more due to the same contractor to employee conversion.
  - pishpash 7y ago
    If "game over" is what WA and blue states are dead set on bringing about (vs. unintended consequences) then they and their constituents can have it and deal with the outcome. A faceless corporation doesn't care in the long run, there are always other markets and other businesses.
creddit 7y ago
> If Uber et.al. were really smart,... and the decreased supply will increase surge pricing. I like how you indirectly criticize Uber for not being particularly smart and then you assert that, while ignoring other effects, decreased supply => increased surge prices is a strictly good thing. While, in the absolute simplest terms, this clearly decreases supply (by your own admission) and therefore decrease # of trips by an amount that is obviously both unknown AND inestimable by you so it's NOT clearly beneficial to Uber. They, also, MIGHT know better than you whether or not it may be beneficial to them.
- gbronner 7y ago
  Or they could cross reference the voter file and exclude anyone who donated to her campaign.
  - AlexandrB 7y ago
    This would be an exciting new development in corporate fuckery. I suspect (hope) it’s unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
- CodeWriter23 7y ago
  Temporary loss for long term gain, combined with unconventional politics actually is the cornerstone of Uber’s business strategy. AB 5 is a symptom of the underlying problem that 3000 bills were considered in the Capitol last session. Not even the combined army of staffers of all representatives could think carefully about all that. Insanity Leaders driving this madness like Gonzalez-Fletcher need to be ousted. And that’s the point of my idea.
deleted 7y ago
[deleted]

pishpash 7y ago

I believe that already happens in NYC rideshare, and if Lorena Gonzalez or her ilk keeps it up, you will surely be treated to such glory in California too. All hail Dear Leader Lorena Gonzalez and her infinite wisdom!

leoh 7y ago

Clever yet risky. Narrative could be spun as "drivers who could barely support themselves now definitely can't support themselves on their diminished hours because Uber doesn't want to give provide them basic benefits and yet rides are more expensive than ever." If that narrative prevailed, _Uber's_ feet would end up right back in the fire and California would look like a saint.

CodeWriter23 7y ago
Uber has more cash to spend pushing the other side of that narrative, how much better off drivers were prior to AB 5. The gambit for Uber is, if they don’t flat reverse this law in CA, NY then WA will adopt it, followed by all Blue States. And then it’s game over for them. They will cost more than a taxi. And taxis will cost more due to the same contractor to employee conversion.
- pishpash 7y ago
  If "game over" is what WA and blue states are dead set on bringing about (vs. unintended consequences) then they and their constituents can have it and deal with the outcome. A faceless corporation doesn't care in the long run, there are always other markets and other businesses.

creddit 7y ago

> If Uber et.al. were really smart,... and the decreased supply will increase surge pricing. I like how you indirectly criticize Uber for not being particularly smart and then you assert that, while ignoring other effects, decreased supply => increased surge prices is a strictly good thing. While, in the absolute simplest terms, this clearly decreases supply (by your own admission) and therefore decrease # of trips by an amount that is obviously both unknown AND inestimable by you so it's NOT clearly beneficial to Uber. They, also, MIGHT know better than you whether or not it may be beneficial to them.

gbronner 7y ago
Or they could cross reference the voter file and exclude anyone who donated to her campaign.
- AlexandrB 7y ago
  This would be an exciting new development in corporate fuckery. I suspect (hope) it’s unconstitutional or otherwise illegal.
CodeWriter23 7y ago
Temporary loss for long term gain, combined with unconventional politics actually is the cornerstone of Uber’s business strategy. AB 5 is a symptom of the underlying problem that 3000 bills were considered in the Capitol last session. Not even the combined army of staffers of all representatives could think carefully about all that. Insanity Leaders driving this madness like Gonzalez-Fletcher need to be ousted. And that’s the point of my idea.

deleted 7y ago

[deleted]