47 ms·

Well this just sucks. As a frequent SF visitor, Uber/Lyft used to be my primary way of moving around. I don't drive. I also don't see who benefits from this. Y

Well this just sucks. As a frequent SF visitor, Uber/Lyft used to be my primary way of moving around. I don't drive. I also don't see who benefits from this. You had a well functioning service for the users that will be disrupted. You had a flexible way to earn for drivers that will be disrupted. I chat with drivers a lot (to practise my English) and lots of drivers really like chatting too ( A lot of them were recent immigrants as well and perhaps like to practise their English with a non native). Many drivers were doing this as a part time thing. Or doing this before they went on to better things. One for example was studying Architecture. I have even had a Porsche pick me up and the driver just wanted to get out of his house. A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense.

Daishiman 6y ago
Society didn't fail if it turns out that the externalities caused by cheap rides go above the tally of what you're paying for said ride.
Barrin92 6y ago
> also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.
- coffeemug 6y ago
  It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.
  - 3gg 6y ago
    This comment has no ethical basis either. The relationship between Uber and its employees is described as a "perfectly reasonable contract between consenting adults", as if the employees were on equal grounds to make demands and the company were not exploiting them in the first place.
    - coffeemug 6y ago
      How could Uber possibly be exploiting them when it offers a better opportunity than literally everyone else?
- doopy-loopy2 6y ago
  Yeah, now they will shut down.
- jjcon 6y ago
  I agree with you but I also think that they should have waited. Right now is a terrible time to wipe out the gig economy. So many people are turning to it and it is creating value. Economic/employment changes like this one are best suited when the market is strong because people job mobility is higher etc.
  - jonahhorowitz 6y ago
    There was no choice to "wait". AB5 was passed to fix the law because of a court decision [0]. Had they (the CA Legislature) not passed AB5, the court finding in Dynamex would be just as bad for Uber. The court doesn't have an option to "wait" just because it's a recession. Uber doesn't have a choice to "wait" because this ruling is going to go into effect in ~10 days unless the stay is extended. [0] - https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...
    - jjcon 6y ago
      Courts can absolutely choose when to take cases
      - ashtonkem 6y ago
        You do not want courts adjusting when they take cases specifically because of the economy. Doing that is to explicitly make the court an economic actor rather than a legal arbiter, which is a really bad idea.
        jjcon 6y ago
        And on the balance I think that would be preferable to an entire section of the California economy getting wiped out during record unemployment
    - diebeforei485 6y ago
      The authors of AB5 took the liberty of exempting certain professions (presumably influential voter blocs and donors) from Dynamex.[1] If you drive delivering beverages, whether you're an employee or contractor under AB5 depends on whether or not that beverage is milk. I don't see why they couldn't have anything in there for rideshare. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
- mlrtime 6y ago
  DeBlasio is a clown and is ruining NYC.
  - Barrin92 6y ago
    That's a legitimate point of view but that in no way or case justified what Uber did. For context[1], when NYC passed legislation that would have adversely affected the business, they put a "de Blasio's Uber" button into the app encouraging people to contact the mayor's office, basically spamming the office with mail. And before you think that's because they're staunch believers of civic protest, as the article points out in China they did the opposite and discouraged drivers, as to not anger authorities. A private company trying to sort of ddos the mayor with spam mail is ridiculous, regardless where you stand on the politics of the particular case. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/uber-injects-more-politics-into-its-app-with-a-feature-mocking-new-york-city-mayor-de-blasio https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/uber-inje...
    - gjs278 6y ago
      oh no, not a heckin email or a piece of letter. I'm sure he read absolutely zero of them.
    - diebeforei485 6y ago
      This sort of stuff is great. It's similar to when talk radio hosts tell people to call their representatives and give the phone number of that representative's office. I see nothing wrong in this.
    - mysterEFrank 6y ago
      I don't see the problem here
    - DeonPenny 6y ago
      Seems fair and within their rights
SrslyJosh 6y ago
> A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Uber ignored local laws to force their way into the taxi market without having to compete on the same terms as existing businesses. Uber also classified their drivers as contractors to avoid having to pay fair wages and provide benefits. They've been criticized for this (and many other things) for years. They could have changed course any time, but they didn't want to. They were too busy using internal tools to avoid scrutiny from regulators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball), threatening journalists who wrote articles they didn't like (https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casually-threatens-sarah-lacy-with-smear-campaign https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casual...), and trapping drivers with predatory auto loans (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-loan-program-debt https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-l...). This is 100% Uber's fault.
- bgorman 6y ago
  Drivers aren't forced to drive for Uber. Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so. What makes something a fair wage?
  - doomrobo 6y ago
    This is too general an argument. Why did people work in factories where they'd lock the door during the day? Or where there were machines that sometimes ripped people's arms off? Why did this spur regulations on workplace conditions?
    - brippalcharrid 6y ago
      Possibly because the legal industry hadn't yet become commoditized or otherwise widely available or well-disposed to the people getting their arms ripped off in such a way as meant that they could sue the pants off factory owners that failed in their reasonable duty of care. The other less egregious examples would likely have improved gradually over time in line with general standards of living amongst the population, spurred on by competition between employers as they retooled and automated, and sought higher-skilled labor.
orky56 6y ago
Uber/Lyft aren't too big to fail. They do provide a convenience that went unmet with traditional players. However they had a choice to operate within the confines of the law and chose not to. Venture capital artificially accelerated the traction for this business category before regulators could sustainably address the consequences.
apta 6y ago
It just reeks of incompetence and laziness, not to mention failing to go after the real problem of not having proper healthcare and other benefits that is the job of the government to provide. They could easily survey drivers to determine how many hours a day they work, who's doing it full time, and if they are, why. However, it's just easy to make a new broken law to add to the already broken laws.
julianozen 6y ago
A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense. I think this is a good point and is correct. But if society has failed the drivers, shouldn't new regulation be the solution?
- eddieplan9 6y ago
  If the new regulation targets the root of the problem - which is lack of economic opportunities - then yes. Regulation targeting patchwork solution, then it's the definition of virtual signaling.
  - SomewhatLikely 6y ago
    *virtue

Daishiman 6y ago

Society didn't fail if it turns out that the externalities caused by cheap rides go above the tally of what you're paying for said ride.

Barrin92 6y ago

> also don't see who benefits from this. Long term society by establishing that Uber doesn't get to write the law and dodge their responsibility as an employer. It's about time they get knocked down a notch after their campaign against DeBlasio.

coffeemug 6y ago
It's the other way around. The government is infiltrated by socialists who pass unjust laws that interfere with perfectly reasonable contracts between consenting adults. Nobody in their right mind believes gig workers are employees-- the economics doesn't work, it doesn't fit prima facie, and no one wants it. Uber needs to win this thing to keep the government from writing laws that have no ethical basis whatsoever.
- 3gg 6y ago
  This comment has no ethical basis either. The relationship between Uber and its employees is described as a "perfectly reasonable contract between consenting adults", as if the employees were on equal grounds to make demands and the company were not exploiting them in the first place.
  - coffeemug 6y ago
    How could Uber possibly be exploiting them when it offers a better opportunity than literally everyone else?
doopy-loopy2 6y ago
Yeah, now they will shut down.
jjcon 6y ago
I agree with you but I also think that they should have waited. Right now is a terrible time to wipe out the gig economy. So many people are turning to it and it is creating value. Economic/employment changes like this one are best suited when the market is strong because people job mobility is higher etc.
- jonahhorowitz 6y ago
  There was no choice to "wait". AB5 was passed to fix the law because of a court decision [0]. Had they (the CA Legislature) not passed AB5, the court finding in Dynamex would be just as bad for Uber. The court doesn't have an option to "wait" just because it's a recession. Uber doesn't have a choice to "wait" because this ruling is going to go into effect in ~10 days unless the stay is extended. [0] - https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-inc-v-superior-court-34584 https://scocal.stanford.edu/opinion/dynamex-operations-west-...
  - jjcon 6y ago
    Courts can absolutely choose when to take cases
    - ashtonkem 6y ago
      You do not want courts adjusting when they take cases specifically because of the economy. Doing that is to explicitly make the court an economic actor rather than a legal arbiter, which is a really bad idea.
      - jjcon 6y ago
        And on the balance I think that would be preferable to an entire section of the California economy getting wiped out during record unemployment
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    The authors of AB5 took the liberty of exempting certain professions (presumably influential voter blocs and donors) from Dynamex.[1] If you drive delivering beverages, whether you're an employee or contractor under AB5 depends on whether or not that beverage is milk. I don't see why they couldn't have anything in there for rideshare. https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtml?bill_id=201920200AB5 https://leginfo.legislature.ca.gov/faces/billTextClient.xhtm...
mlrtime 6y ago
DeBlasio is a clown and is ruining NYC.
- Barrin92 6y ago
  That's a legitimate point of view but that in no way or case justified what Uber did. For context[1], when NYC passed legislation that would have adversely affected the business, they put a "de Blasio's Uber" button into the app encouraging people to contact the mayor's office, basically spamming the office with mail. And before you think that's because they're staunch believers of civic protest, as the article points out in China they did the opposite and discouraged drivers, as to not anger authorities. A private company trying to sort of ddos the mayor with spam mail is ridiculous, regardless where you stand on the politics of the particular case. [1]https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/uber-injects-more-politics-into-its-app-with-a-feature-mocking-new-york-city-mayor-de-blasio https://www.bloomberg.com/news/articles/2015-07-16/uber-inje...
  - gjs278 6y ago
    oh no, not a heckin email or a piece of letter. I'm sure he read absolutely zero of them.
  - diebeforei485 6y ago
    This sort of stuff is great. It's similar to when talk radio hosts tell people to call their representatives and give the phone number of that representative's office. I see nothing wrong in this.
  - mysterEFrank 6y ago
    I don't see the problem here
  - DeonPenny 6y ago
    Seems fair and within their rights

SrslyJosh 6y ago

> A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Uber ignored local laws to force their way into the taxi market without having to compete on the same terms as existing businesses. Uber also classified their drivers as contractors to avoid having to pay fair wages and provide benefits. They've been criticized for this (and many other things) for years. They could have changed course any time, but they didn't want to. They were too busy using internal tools to avoid scrutiny from regulators (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Greyball), threatening journalists who wrote articles they didn't like (https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casually-threatens-sarah-lacy-with-smear-campaign https://www.theverge.com/2014/11/18/7240215/uber-exec-casual...), and trapping drivers with predatory auto loans (https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-loan-program-debt https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2019/dec/05/uber-l...). This is 100% Uber's fault.

bgorman 6y ago
Drivers aren't forced to drive for Uber. Anyone driving for Uber is doing it because they want to do so. What makes something a fair wage?
- doomrobo 6y ago
  This is too general an argument. Why did people work in factories where they'd lock the door during the day? Or where there were machines that sometimes ripped people's arms off? Why did this spur regulations on workplace conditions?
  - brippalcharrid 6y ago
    Possibly because the legal industry hadn't yet become commoditized or otherwise widely available or well-disposed to the people getting their arms ripped off in such a way as meant that they could sue the pants off factory owners that failed in their reasonable duty of care. The other less egregious examples would likely have improved gradually over time in line with general standards of living amongst the population, spurred on by competition between employers as they retooled and automated, and sought higher-skilled labor.

orky56 6y ago

Uber/Lyft aren't too big to fail. They do provide a convenience that went unmet with traditional players. However they had a choice to operate within the confines of the law and chose not to. Venture capital artificially accelerated the traction for this business category before regulators could sustainably address the consequences.

apta 6y ago

It just reeks of incompetence and laziness, not to mention failing to go after the real problem of not having proper healthcare and other benefits that is the job of the government to provide. They could easily survey drivers to determine how many hours a day they work, who's doing it full time, and if they are, why. However, it's just easy to make a new broken law to add to the already broken laws.

julianozen 6y ago

A lot of drivers were sure forced to drive for Uber for lack of other alternatives but that is not Uber's problem. They did not add to the problem. Society failed there. This law helps no one and is a clear example of no skin in the game virtue signalling trumping common sense. I think this is a good point and is correct. But if society has failed the drivers, shouldn't new regulation be the solution?

eddieplan9 6y ago
If the new regulation targets the root of the problem - which is lack of economic opportunities - then yes. Regulation targeting patchwork solution, then it's the definition of virtual signaling.
- SomewhatLikely 6y ago
  *virtue