6 ms·

If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors. If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims tha

If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors. If Lyft and Uber want to back up their claims that they aren't livery services but simply a technology platform, then there should be no problem with eliminating the independent contractor drivers. The fact that they have to "shut down" only proves they were misrepresenting drivers for as long as they have existed.

frockington1 6y ago
They are providing a platform for independent contractors. If the state makes it so that there are no users of the platform, they can't do business as their is nobody to use their platform. It seems pretty reasonable that when a state attacks your platforms users, you remove the platform from said state
ztratar 6y ago
They just said they could operate, if you wanted to destroy jobs and the entire innovation of dynamic schedules/hours. Why do you think they couldn't operate?
horsawlarway 6y ago
> If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors. This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc. And yes, the business absolutely can operate without any given independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all. Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time. So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.
- NotHereButThere 6y ago
  "Depend heavily" is different then, "can't operate without". Uber and Lyft would have zero revenue if you took away their "independent contractors". Literally zero. Uber and Lyft have always lied about the nature of their business. The first lie was that the passenger was, "sharing a ride". This lie was necessary to support the second lie which was that, "were not a Taxi service" but a "technology platform". Your Uber or Lyft driver was not planning on going to your destination until you "hailed" them to do so. So it's not "ride sharing". It's a livery service. But by lying both companies could ignore existing laws. If it's ok for people to lie about what it is they do so they can skirt existing laws than I guess robbing banks could be classified as "undeclared venture capital opportunities". Also why aren't predatory business laws ever used against VC backed businesses? Why is it ok for ultra wealthy people to destroy businesses by offering products and services at below what it costs to provide them? And to do this not for short periods of time but for over a decade? In international trade this would be called, "dumping" and the US complains and files trade disputes about it constantly. Why? Because it destroys good paying jobs. But apparently if your a VC backed Unicorn and just so damn hip and sexy then everyone is supposed to just look the other way and praise you for "your genius". I hope whatever you do for a living gets undermined in the same way, perhaps then you'll reevaluate what's actually legal, just and sustainable for a nation of people

frockington1 6y ago

They are providing a platform for independent contractors. If the state makes it so that there are no users of the platform, they can't do business as their is nobody to use their platform. It seems pretty reasonable that when a state attacks your platforms users, you remove the platform from said state

ztratar 6y ago

They just said they could operate, if you wanted to destroy jobs and the entire innovation of dynamic schedules/hours. Why do you think they couldn't operate?

horsawlarway 6y ago

> If you can't operate your business without independent contractors, then they aren't independent contractors. This makes no sense. There are industries ALL over that depend heavily on independent contractors - it's incredibly common in construction, agriculture, trade services, etc. And yes, the business absolutely can operate without any given independent contractor, but it cannot operate without access to any independent contractors at all. Hell, what do you think a "general contractor" does on a job site? Because the answer is basically organize a bunch of independent contractors. They also couldn't exist if legally they had to hire every plumber/painter/electrician/drywaller/roofer/framer etc full time. So while I think uber/lyft DO need legislation to address, I think hamfisting them into the legal model of full time employment is... fucking dumb.

NotHereButThere 6y ago
"Depend heavily" is different then, "can't operate without". Uber and Lyft would have zero revenue if you took away their "independent contractors". Literally zero. Uber and Lyft have always lied about the nature of their business. The first lie was that the passenger was, "sharing a ride". This lie was necessary to support the second lie which was that, "were not a Taxi service" but a "technology platform". Your Uber or Lyft driver was not planning on going to your destination until you "hailed" them to do so. So it's not "ride sharing". It's a livery service. But by lying both companies could ignore existing laws. If it's ok for people to lie about what it is they do so they can skirt existing laws than I guess robbing banks could be classified as "undeclared venture capital opportunities". Also why aren't predatory business laws ever used against VC backed businesses? Why is it ok for ultra wealthy people to destroy businesses by offering products and services at below what it costs to provide them? And to do this not for short periods of time but for over a decade? In international trade this would be called, "dumping" and the US complains and files trade disputes about it constantly. Why? Because it destroys good paying jobs. But apparently if your a VC backed Unicorn and just so damn hip and sexy then everyone is supposed to just look the other way and praise you for "your genius". I hope whatever you do for a living gets undermined in the same way, perhaps then you'll reevaluate what's actually legal, just and sustainable for a nation of people