3 ms·

The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if t

The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws. The narrative that Uber was always violating the law is false -- if that was true, a new law would not have been needed. The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal.

ramshorns 6y ago
Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?
- macspoofing 6y ago
  No they haven't. That's the point. This 'misclassification' only came in via this new law.
  - ramshorns 6y ago
    A court ruling isn't a new law, it's an interpretation of an existing one. But okay, I hadn't heard about AB5 which is from last year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...
ardy42 6y ago
> The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws.... > The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal. You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed. Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.

ramshorns 6y ago

Haven't they been misclassifying employees the whole time?

macspoofing 6y ago
No they haven't. That's the point. This 'misclassification' only came in via this new law.
- ramshorns 6y ago
  A court ruling isn't a new law, it's an interpretation of an existing one. But okay, I hadn't heard about AB5 which is from last year. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(2019) https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/California_Assembly_Bill_5_(...

ardy42 6y ago

> The law was written to target Uber, because Uber was in compliance with the existing laws.... > The state wasn't able to get the result it wanted in cases against Uber, so it changed the rules. I don't see how a company can be expected to be in compliance when the state is determined to pass laws that make its business model illegal. You could say the same thing about the laws that banned companies from dumping so much pollution into the environment that rivers would catch on fire (e.g. https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire https://ohiohistorycentral.org/w/Cuyahoga_River_Fire). Many, if not all, those polluters were likely in compliance with all the laws and rules that were in effect at that time, then they found themselves out of compliance when the law changed. Laws are changed when an undesirable result is observed that happens to be in compliance with all current laws. The bug is patched with a new law, and the companies have to either figure out how to make their current business comply, or pivot into a new business because of the changed environment.