5 ms·

Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work a

• ccday 6y ago
  Regardless of whether this decision is correct or not, Uber's financial situation is of their own making and shouldn't factor in to the ruling.
  • lhh 6y ago
    Fair enough, the court's job is just to interpret the law; it's the law I object to. But a lot of people advocating for these types of laws make the moral argument that companies are exploiting workers. Given the evidence, I think that's a pretty difficult case to make in good faith.
    • websight 6y ago
      It seems like a very easy case to make. Regardless of whether the abstract corporate entity is losing money, Uber's founders, employees, and early investors have all done very well for themselves.
      • lhh 6y ago
        How does it follow that someone was exploited for that to have happened?
• fcsp 6y ago
  Is it still voluntary if it happens out of economic desperation?
  • twblalock 6y ago
    If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.
    • fcsp 6y ago
      Well maybe the unemployed masses in that situation will vote for universal basic income or better distribution of wealth to fix that? Full employment as an economic goal or even a feasible tactic has been obsolete for a long time if I understand correctly
      • gjs278 6y ago
        or they will be kicked out to states that does allow these jobs
      • google234123 6y ago
        This seems to be the goal of these politicians.
    • lhh 6y ago
      Exactly, the situation would be more desperate without Uber/Lyft/etc, not less.
      • fcsp 6y ago
        Would it though? How do you get to that conclusion? My understanding is that many drivers for those companies do it as supplemental income because their regular jobs seem to be unable to cover their living expenses. But doesn't that then lead to additional economic pressure for everyone else because i.e. now there's more renters willing to pay inflated prices, so more people get economically desperate and need to get supplemental income?
        • 6y ago
• specialist 6y ago
  What's Uber's path to profitable?
  • three_seagrass 6y ago
    Apparently not obeying those pesky government laws.
• willio58 6y ago
  A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker or society. Lower classes are currently forced to work for survival, there’s a lot of room for improvement. Poor management of investments on Uber/Lyft’s end is a burden the lower classes should not be forced to take on.
  • lhh 6y ago
    > A worker’s will to do something does not necessarily mean that thing is good for the worker That strikes me as a pretty condescending point of view. Shouldn't adults be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives?
    • fernandotakai 6y ago
      right? i mean, i'm a software developer contractor. should i be able to keep doing it so, or am i too dumb to realize that "my situation is actually bad"? i get it, gig jobs are not perfect -- but for a lot of people, it's the only job they have. do california lawmakers think that no job is better than a shitty job?
    • Akababa 6y ago
      This is part of a super generic tradeoff between liberty and public good that differs from case to case depending on your culture and values. For example, should we ban smoking? What about meth? And so on.
• ogre_codes 6y ago
  >Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Uber has spent their entire existence dancing in legal gray areas. It's hard to have a ton of sympathy for them when their over-generous re-interpretations of the law bite them in the ass on occasion. > Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter? This is the argument used against every single labor law ever passed. It's not even an argument. Our government and current economy is poorly equipped to handle the gig-economy. This decision doesn't really help it, but maybe it will motivate some lawmakers to try and address it longer term.
  • lhh 6y ago
    > Uber has spent their entire existence dancing in legal gray areas. It's hard to have a ton of sympathy for them when their over-generous re-interpretations of the law bite them in the ass on occasion. True. But it's also hard to have sympathy for taxi medallion companies. > It's not even an argument. ? It is, though. It's an argument that adults should be able to agree to whatever they want to agree to (or not). It's an argument for freedom.
• phatfish 6y ago
  Yup, it's definitely Uber and their billion dollar investors that need the government assistance here, and not their below minimum wage workforce.
  • lhh 6y ago
    I'm not saying the companies need government assistance. I'm saying they and their drivers should be able to come to whatever agreement they want to come to (or not).
• throw_m239339 6y ago
  > Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter? Because constituents voted for that government which gave them the power to vote employment laws that apply to Uber/Lyft. Or are you contesting the legitimacy of the democratic process, and California's constitution? Uber/Lyft are free to move their business to another state. > Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement Irrelevant, not all "arrangements" are legal. By that logic slavery should be legal as well, if the slave enters in a slave agreement willingly, to settle a debt for instance.