3 ms·

1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. 2. Interesting idea, but then all companies could just do this and

1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. 2. Interesting idea, but then all companies could just do this and make the same claim that their employees/contractors/vendors are just customers too! Not gonna fly.

dnautics 6y ago
2. Just FYI, this is basically what the taxicab companies do. And a lot of companies that you interact with basically do this, except at a higher level of organization: namely franchises. A manager at a mcdonald's is not typically an employee of mcdonald's, and is responsible for paying a lot in fees (and has to fulfill a lot of XYZ requirements to maintain the franchise).
Gunax 6y ago
In terms of legality I agree with the judge. In practical terms, this is trivial for uber to dodge. All they need to do is transform from a company offering rides, to a company connecting riders to drivers. It sounds like a big difference but I susoect very little about the user experience would change. For instance they could allow riders to offer different rates, but heavily favour (through ui and other soft incentives) the suggested rate. In the end the drivers would be driving the same car at the same price with the same benefits.
- sk5t 6y ago
  I submit that it's not trivial, in that Uber will have to either let drivers set their own rates, or let drivers cherry-pick without penalty the contracts they wish to accept. Either change constitutes a monumental change to the rider experience.
- unishark 6y ago
  > In practical terms, this is trivial for uber to dodge. All they need to do is transform from a company offering rides, to a company connecting riders to drivers. It sounds like a big difference but I susoect very little about the user experience would change. There's typically an agenda behind these laws in terms of trying to increase the benefits and power of workers at the expense of the company. So I'm not sure Uber will be allowed to sidestep that goal by simply changing the way things are handled and presented. The govt could simply argue that giving users the option to choose a ride from Bob or Sally is meaningless since customers have no idea who these people are and just choose the first or cheapest on the list. Especially considering the amount of gray area already crossed to classify uber drivers as employees in this ruling.
eru 6y ago
> 1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. Wrong in what sense? In a moral sense I might agree with you. In a legal sense, governments around the world do that all the time, and get away with it.
masonic 6y ago
CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. Indentured Servitude is a voluntary working relationship between two parties. Is it wrong that it's illegal in CA?

dnautics 6y ago

2. Just FYI, this is basically what the taxicab companies do. And a lot of companies that you interact with basically do this, except at a higher level of organization: namely franchises. A manager at a mcdonald's is not typically an employee of mcdonald's, and is responsible for paying a lot in fees (and has to fulfill a lot of XYZ requirements to maintain the franchise).

Gunax 6y ago

In terms of legality I agree with the judge. In practical terms, this is trivial for uber to dodge. All they need to do is transform from a company offering rides, to a company connecting riders to drivers. It sounds like a big difference but I susoect very little about the user experience would change. For instance they could allow riders to offer different rates, but heavily favour (through ui and other soft incentives) the suggested rate. In the end the drivers would be driving the same car at the same price with the same benefits.

sk5t 6y ago
I submit that it's not trivial, in that Uber will have to either let drivers set their own rates, or let drivers cherry-pick without penalty the contracts they wish to accept. Either change constitutes a monumental change to the rider experience.
unishark 6y ago
> In practical terms, this is trivial for uber to dodge. All they need to do is transform from a company offering rides, to a company connecting riders to drivers. It sounds like a big difference but I susoect very little about the user experience would change. There's typically an agenda behind these laws in terms of trying to increase the benefits and power of workers at the expense of the company. So I'm not sure Uber will be allowed to sidestep that goal by simply changing the way things are handled and presented. The govt could simply argue that giving users the option to choose a ride from Bob or Sally is meaningless since customers have no idea who these people are and just choose the first or cheapest on the list. Especially considering the amount of gray area already crossed to classify uber drivers as employees in this ruling.

eru 6y ago

> 1. Makes sense. CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. Wrong in what sense? In a moral sense I might agree with you. In a legal sense, governments around the world do that all the time, and get away with it.

masonic 6y ago

CA is wrong to outlaw voluntary working relationships between two parties. Indentured Servitude is a voluntary working relationship between two parties. Is it wrong that it's illegal in CA?