9 ms·
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
by sjroot 6y ago
Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now.
- DiffEq 6y agoAnd also sounds great for those that now have to wait for an hour+ for a taxi or maybe not have a ride at all.
- dclusin 6y agoThis was the killer feature for those too young to remember a life before Uber. Back when I used to drink at bars it was so frustrating to call different cab companies and have them all say they're "5 minutes away." I felt and continue to feel no sorrow for those cab companies that Uber decimated.
- thruhiker 6y agoI also remember the extremely poor customer service provided by taxi cabs. Dirty cars, rude drivers who acted as if they were doing you a favor instead of engaging in a business transaction. The taxi cartels are no better than Uber and Lyft corporations for sure.
- maxk42 6y agoLet's not forget the outrageous prices.
- ghaff 6y agoRight. Because taxis don't typically operate at a loss. Whether it's laws like the ones in California or it's just Uber and Lyft having to be profitable, I have little doubt that you'll see large price increases. I actually don't really understand why they haven't just bitten the bullet and done so before now.
- JamesBarney 6y agoNot to mention safety. My female friends all felt far safer with Uber than Taxis.
- nemo44x 6y agoOr not being able to get a cab because you're going to a place they don't want to drive (it was way more common in NYC before Uber for a cabbie to ask where you're going before you get in), or the driver doesn't like something about your look (clothing, group, color, etc), etc.
- jjulius 6y agoIf Lyft isn't shutting down, I'm sure they'd love to have Uber's former drivers onboard.
- dexterdog 6y agoI'm sure 99% of them are already on both
- dclusin 6y agoDefinitely sucks for the driver. If this new proposition they have cooked up does indeed fail to pass, I suspect they will come up with some sort of "innovation" that will allow them to operate their service with employees collecting W2s. Most likely in the form of a higher price for users.
- SketchySeaBeast 6y agoI can't see a time in our future where some portion of the population aren't going to need to rely on the gig economy for employment, can you?
- ceejayoz 6y agoIf Uber hasn't been preparing internally for the possibility of losing this suit, they've been irresponsible in the hopes that California would go "oh shit, they're gonna shoot the hostage".
- stingraycharles 6y agoMaybe I’m interpreting the sarcasm incorrectly, but I think the grandparent means the drivers, not the Uber employees.
- ceejayoz 6y agoThe drivers (and customers) are the hostages. Uber should've been spending the last few months preparing for the possibility of this ruling being enforced. (I suspect they have been, and "oh we'll have to shut down!" is a negotiating tactic.)
- stingraycharles 6y agoYeah, I’m totally with the drivers on this. Far too often “disruption” actually is a very predatory undertaking, with far too little benefit to society. The organizations behind this are typically very low on FTE, and maximizing shareholder value and profits and “democratizing” the suppliers (ie a race to the bottom for the drivers). You see it all over the place, and I for one hope that this trend is reversed in the next decade. It’s not good for society as a whole.
- mixedCase 6y agoOk. Uber closes down because it's not lucrative anymore. Drivers are out of a job. Are they better off having no income?
- stingraycharles 6y agoOf course not, that’s the “hostage” part of the grandparent. I’m saying that taxi drivers and delivery services were better off before being “disrupted”. And I’m not talking about CA per se, but generally all western countries Uber operates in. They may have a case in developing nations, I am not very familiar with the systems over there pre-Uber so I can’t comment on that.
- badlucklottery 6y agoYeah, it seems like Uber should have had a plan B in place for if they lost this case. Unless "take what you can carry then shut down in CA" was the plan.
- ivraatiems 6y agoI think that was exactly the plan. Now they get to blame CA's government for their firing workers.
- brippalcharrid 6y agoI thought that their longer-term plan had been not to need any employees or contractors as drivers in any jurisdiction, and that they were counting on their self-driving technology having matured before this inevitable face-off happened. Although if they had succeeded with introducing something workable, perhaps the state would have blocked it with regulation or legal injunctions in light of the political ramifications of it displacing cab drivers from the job market.
- ignoramous 6y ago> Sounds like a great outcome for the people who are relying on that work for income right now. Are alternatives like Lyft closing down in California, too?
- stefan_ 6y agoThe people that got paid unemployment benefits and have for months now? From funds that Uber never contributed a cent towards? I'm sure they are fine, but we must now ensure this scenario can not ever repeat.
- Ijumfs 6y agoSame could be said about human traffickers and crack dealers. Won't somebody think of these "workers?"
- abvdasker 6y agoThis doesn't make sense. It sounds like you are equating Uber drivers to human traffickers and crack dealers.
- Ijumfs 6y agoThey're all just trying to make a living. And let me remind you that Uber drivers have been caught providing drugs, being prostitutes, and even going on serial murder sprees. All while behind the wheel.
- derkster 6y agoYour comment history is super questionable. Every time I see you commenting on HN, I wonder if you're one of the Russian boogiemen people talk about, or if you're an example of what happens when someone believes too much of what they read on the internet.
- Ijumfs 6y agoThe Internet isn't your personal safe space and it never will be. Recent EO's to this effect should make you take pause. If you don't want to read things outside your bubble, feel free to go back to Reddit.
- derkster 6y agoCitation Needed...
- DanBC 6y agoProbably don't feed the obvious trolls, and flag / downvote instead.
- cft 6y agoI applaud the CEO for this decision. It forces at least a glimpse of understanding on the local voters that one cannot combine ideological utopia and a functional economy.
- fooey 6y agoIt'll force local municipalities to take care of their transportation needs directly instead of outsourcing it to disloyal mercenaries. The cities that will be hurt are the ones that over relied on a parasitic business instead of investing in essential infrastructure.
- chucknthem 6y agoI think your views of local municipalities ability to provide transportation in california are way too optimistic. San Francisco currently operates the most expensive bus stop ever built https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Transbay_Transit_Center
- cft 6y agoWhat is parasitic about it? That they are using public roads?
- fooey 6y agoThey operate under illegal business models to produce impossibly low costs, driving out all legitimate competitors, including municipal infrastructure. The Uber business plan has always been to break the law at a massive enough scale that they can buy new laws before enforcement catches up with them.
- SpicyLemonZest 6y agoI'm just not convinced this is a thing that's happened. Which cities have avoided investing in municipal infrastructure just because Uber exists?
- 6y ago
- usrusr 6y agoSure, it's a threat. Like "human shields" is a threat. Uber surely isn't slavery, but that doesn't make this threat not a parallel to the "food and shelter" slaveowner defense.
- Jare 6y agoLet's hope someone figures out a new way to transfer money from VCs to people's pockets that is legal this time.