4 ms·
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
by 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 agoCourts can absolutely choose when to take cases
- ashtonkem 6y agoYou 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 agoAnd 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 agoThe 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...
- techslave 6y agoI detest uber. yet AB5 is an abomination, an embarrassment. sad