3 ms·

The move seems to be specifically in response to the recent court order: > Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday [August 10, 2020] that Lyft and Ube

by aazaa 6y ago

The move seems to be specifically in response to the recent court order: > Superior Court Judge Ethan Schulman ruled Monday [August 10, 2020] that Lyft and Uber's thousands of contract drivers should be given the same protections and benefits under labor law as other employees of the ride-hailing companies. > The judge said Uber and Lyft have refused to comply with a California law passed last year that was supposed to make it harder for companies in the state to hire workers as contractors, so gig economy workers such as drivers for the ride-hailing companies would receive health insurance, workers' compensation and paid sick and family leave. As independent contractors, Uber and Lyft drivers are not provided these benefits. https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-orders-uber-and-lyft-to-consider-all-drivers-employees https://www.npr.org/2020/08/10/901099643/california-judge-or...

Shivetya 6y ago
Interesting how cities are being allowed to violate the same by not holding their own taxi services into account[0] that they regulate thereby letting them skirt the law. This is likely because these companies tend to put good money into local political campaigns. This law is impacting people outside of Uber and Lyft but those two are highlighted because it thwarted the lock down many municipalities had over cab companies and they did not want to give up the side benefits of that cash into their political coffers. Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities and you can see the entirety of the political graft that was being upended. If you want more you just jump into that this is part of undoing decades of jobs bounded up in occupational licensing which only serves to protect vested interest who again are quick to maintain their political donations. If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it. [0]https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gig-work-law-targets-Uber-and-14565001.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...
- tdeck 6y ago
  > Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities No they weren't. It's called "mass transit" for a reason - replacing trains and buses with masses of individuals riding in separate cars is not an effective alternative. While Uber and Lyft are more convenient for certain trips, mass transit still has a place due to capacity constraints. > If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it. Such as what? Strengthening collective bargaining rights? Oh wait, you don't like unions either.
- modeless 6y ago
  This is what I don't get about the outrage against Uber/Lyft. Where is the outrage against regular taxi companies? They were using contractors long before and still are. Not to mention the corrupt medallion systems.

by aazaa 6y ago

Shivetya 6y ago

Interesting how cities are being allowed to violate the same by not holding their own taxi services into account[0] that they regulate thereby letting them skirt the law. This is likely because these companies tend to put good money into local political campaigns. This law is impacting people outside of Uber and Lyft but those two are highlighted because it thwarted the lock down many municipalities had over cab companies and they did not want to give up the side benefits of that cash into their political coffers. Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities and you can see the entirety of the political graft that was being upended. If you want more you just jump into that this is part of undoing decades of jobs bounded up in occupational licensing which only serves to protect vested interest who again are quick to maintain their political donations. If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it. [0]https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gig-work-law-targets-Uber-and-14565001.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/business/article/California-s-gi...

tdeck 6y ago
> Then throw in that Uber and Lyft were truly effective alternatives to unionized mass transit lines operated in many cities No they weren't. It's called "mass transit" for a reason - replacing trains and buses with masses of individuals riding in separate cars is not an effective alternative. While Uber and Lyft are more convenient for certain trips, mass transit still has a place due to capacity constraints. > If they were out to protect workers they had many more ways to do it. Such as what? Strengthening collective bargaining rights? Oh wait, you don't like unions either.
modeless 6y ago
This is what I don't get about the outrage against Uber/Lyft. Where is the outrage against regular taxi companies? They were using contractors long before and still are. Not to mention the corrupt medallion systems.