5 ms·

Phrases like "exploit workers" and "nasty" are judgements, not factual descriptions. Some argue that every employer since the beginning of history has been an e

Phrases like "exploit workers" and "nasty" are judgements, not factual descriptions. Some argue that every employer since the beginning of history has been an exploiter. Others argue, you are a free agent and if you dislike the conditions of employment you can simply go elsewhere. This is particularly true in the highly fluid gig economy.

toomuchtodo 7y ago
The state of California implemented AB5 to prevent further worker exploration perpetrated by gig economy companies. It stands to reason that the exploitation is not a judgment, but observable fact and therefore the impetus for the legislation I mention.
- tossaway981 7y ago
  It's still a judgement. The difference is the judgement is coming from legislators like Lorena Gonzalez who have the power to propose and pass laws, and who use such issues to raise their public profile and as fodder for re-election campaigns. In my judgement, you're calling this judgement an "observable fact" because you've got a non-trivial amount of money invested in Tesla based on information divulged in past comments and positions you've taken in those comments. As such, you have a vested interested in the AB5 rules because they impact ride sharing companies that will likely compete with Tesla in the future autonomous rides market.
  - deleted 7y ago
    [deleted]
Nextgrid 7y ago
They are indeed judgements but they are based on facts you are welcome to look up, like Wag (a dog-walking-as-a-service startup) trying to silence with an NDA a customer whose dog was killed in an accident, or KitSplit which uses misleading claims regarding their insurance (that doesn't actually insure against theft) to lure customers in and then fobs them off when the renters steal their gear (but issues a bullshit apology and promises to change their policies when the media gets wind of the story), or Airbnb which does nothing to help customers scammed on the platform until they go to the media (which results in the usual BS apology), or even my own experience with Uber Eats which tried to fob me off for incorrect food being delivered multiple times until I complained hard enough at which point they refunded me because they didn't want me to escalate the matter (they clearly planned on most people not taking things that far and just accepting their loss, thus free profit despite "breaking things").

toomuchtodo 7y ago

The state of California implemented AB5 to prevent further worker exploration perpetrated by gig economy companies. It stands to reason that the exploitation is not a judgment, but observable fact and therefore the impetus for the legislation I mention.

tossaway981 7y ago
It's still a judgement. The difference is the judgement is coming from legislators like Lorena Gonzalez who have the power to propose and pass laws, and who use such issues to raise their public profile and as fodder for re-election campaigns. In my judgement, you're calling this judgement an "observable fact" because you've got a non-trivial amount of money invested in Tesla based on information divulged in past comments and positions you've taken in those comments. As such, you have a vested interested in the AB5 rules because they impact ride sharing companies that will likely compete with Tesla in the future autonomous rides market.
- deleted 7y ago
  [deleted]

Nextgrid 7y ago

They are indeed judgements but they are based on facts you are welcome to look up, like Wag (a dog-walking-as-a-service startup) trying to silence with an NDA a customer whose dog was killed in an accident, or KitSplit which uses misleading claims regarding their insurance (that doesn't actually insure against theft) to lure customers in and then fobs them off when the renters steal their gear (but issues a bullshit apology and promises to change their policies when the media gets wind of the story), or Airbnb which does nothing to help customers scammed on the platform until they go to the media (which results in the usual BS apology), or even my own experience with Uber Eats which tried to fob me off for incorrect food being delivered multiple times until I complained hard enough at which point they refunded me because they didn't want me to escalate the matter (they clearly planned on most people not taking things that far and just accepting their loss, thus free profit despite "breaking things").