34 ms·

This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would n

by Jommi 6y ago

This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would never make any new decisions.

kemiller2002 6y ago
No, a small thing is blowing a tire, or fixing an engine. Being sued for pain and suffering because an accident occurred that wasn't your fault, that's not small. Things like that literally ruin your life. You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that there are attorneys that spend their entire career focusing on things like this. When dealing with insurance there is no, "Well it's ok, I'm insured." It's, "I'm insured if I can prove I didn't break any of the insurance contract rules," and the people on the other side, they're all better at this than you are. Most people who drive for Uber, etc. have no idea this is how it really is. The driving companies have pushed all this off to individuals, because they know the consequences of them getting involved, and this is why there needs to be laws surrounding things like this.
- Jommi 6y ago
  This really seems to be a common trend on these Uber discussions. Americans bringing up cracks in the terribly terribly faulty infrastructure/systems (such as the legal system or the healthcare system) and try to find a way to blame it on Uber/gigwork. It's quite incredible really.
  - kemiller2002 6y ago
    No it's not that incredible. Workers have rights. That's been true for over 100 years. The fact that Uber is trying to skirt it, and they've been getting away with it is incredible.
    - randompwd 6y ago
      The only failing of Uber(maybe the legal system) is that there's either no legal requirement to check the driver has the correct insurance before allowing them on the platform and that doesn't exist because there's no law that requires it of Uber(w.r.t OPs comment) That's a a failing of your local/state/federal legislators not the company.
  - ShroudedNight 6y ago
    The American social contract delegated the role of filling those 'cracks' to the employment relationship. It might not be ideal, but it's not obvious to me why its any less legitimate than other arrangements. Gig work is new, and doesn't fit cleanly into the existing framework. Uber et al.'s patch for reconciling gig-work appears to many to be essentially a wholesale rejection of the spirit of the agreement, thus opening up new existential risks for those of small means. While those arguments may land short of the complete truth, they do appear to hold some merit; Maybe it's simply ignorance, but I'm not aware of Uber advocating for a comprehensive review of how California provides life-support benefits to residents in a way that ensures their service providers are not unduly at risk relative to the general population. Instead, proposition 22 appears to be as close to 'I've transacted profitably; fuck your life, it's not my problem.' as they could hope to achieve.

by Jommi 6y ago

This is a terrible argument. If every single small thing that could happen to you was explained to you before you made any decision, I can guarantee you would never make any new decisions.

kemiller2002 6y ago

No, a small thing is blowing a tire, or fixing an engine. Being sued for pain and suffering because an accident occurred that wasn't your fault, that's not small. Things like that literally ruin your life. You can make the argument, "Well, they should know better, and if not it doesn't matter." I find that weak. The legal system is amazingly complex around business and fault during accidents. It's so complex, that there are attorneys that spend their entire career focusing on things like this. When dealing with insurance there is no, "Well it's ok, I'm insured." It's, "I'm insured if I can prove I didn't break any of the insurance contract rules," and the people on the other side, they're all better at this than you are. Most people who drive for Uber, etc. have no idea this is how it really is. The driving companies have pushed all this off to individuals, because they know the consequences of them getting involved, and this is why there needs to be laws surrounding things like this.

Jommi 6y ago
This really seems to be a common trend on these Uber discussions. Americans bringing up cracks in the terribly terribly faulty infrastructure/systems (such as the legal system or the healthcare system) and try to find a way to blame it on Uber/gigwork. It's quite incredible really.
- kemiller2002 6y ago
  No it's not that incredible. Workers have rights. That's been true for over 100 years. The fact that Uber is trying to skirt it, and they've been getting away with it is incredible.
  - randompwd 6y ago
    The only failing of Uber(maybe the legal system) is that there's either no legal requirement to check the driver has the correct insurance before allowing them on the platform and that doesn't exist because there's no law that requires it of Uber(w.r.t OPs comment) That's a a failing of your local/state/federal legislators not the company.
- ShroudedNight 6y ago
  The American social contract delegated the role of filling those 'cracks' to the employment relationship. It might not be ideal, but it's not obvious to me why its any less legitimate than other arrangements. Gig work is new, and doesn't fit cleanly into the existing framework. Uber et al.'s patch for reconciling gig-work appears to many to be essentially a wholesale rejection of the spirit of the agreement, thus opening up new existential risks for those of small means. While those arguments may land short of the complete truth, they do appear to hold some merit; Maybe it's simply ignorance, but I'm not aware of Uber advocating for a comprehensive review of how California provides life-support benefits to residents in a way that ensures their service providers are not unduly at risk relative to the general population. Instead, proposition 22 appears to be as close to 'I've transacted profitably; fuck your life, it's not my problem.' as they could hope to achieve.