5 ms·

Good for them.

BoorishBears 4y ago
AB5 should not be repealed. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber and co were indirectly funding this effort. In fact after writing that I decided to investigate my suspicions, and one of the first results that turns up is the trucking organization spearheading this (Caltrux) hosting Uber Freight for a seminar... Seeing as Caltrux has pages listing access to their audience as a sponsorship benefit, how much do you want to guess Uber managed to funnel through that?
- jamiequint 4y ago
- vinay427 4y ago
  Ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft already won an exception to AB5, mostly through funding what ended up the most expensive ballot measure in the state's history, just to have that apparently struck down by the Alameda County Superior Court [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Prop-22-the-gig-worker-exemption-for-Uber-and-16401915.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Prop-22-the-gig-wor...
  - anon291 4y ago
    It's crazy to me a court can strike down a voter proposition that is otherwise not unconstitutional.
    - vinay427 4y ago
      What do you mean by “otherwise not unconstitutional?” I suppose the point of the ruling is its unconstitutionality, and the state of California is one of the only places in the world in which voters are free to change that through a constitutional referendum.
  - BoorishBears 4y ago
    I don't get what this comment is trying to say? > I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose. Directly targeting rideshare users isn't orthogonal to "indirectly" funding truckers fighting AB5 when "Uber Freight" is a thing and Prop 22 already failed (which was their attempt at reaching users directly). They can (and would) do both.
    - vinay427 4y ago
      It’s easier to interpret without starting with the assumption that comment replies are for disagreements. It sounds like you more or less rephrased what I said.
bergenty 4y ago
Why? Do they like paying for their own healthcare, repairs and working for no benefits?
- deleted 4y ago
  [deleted]
- smeej 4y ago
  Probably. Contractors typically get paid significantly more, like 50%+ more, than employees, and then can make their own decisions about how they want to repair their equipment, what kind of insurance is worth having, and how they want to save and invest their money. When I worked as an employee, my company got to decide how much to spend on repairs. It was never economical. I could absolutely have saved 30-40% on the cost, easily. I also only had a short list of health insurance plans available to me, all of which were expensive, none of which were well-tailored to my needs. And my retirement "benefits" included a 401(k) with such high fees I'd have been better off socking away money in a literal sock. And all this was combined with the fact that they paid me significantly less. As a contractor, I take home MUCH more money, I have my repairs done by people I trust who do good work at fair prices (rather than those that have formal agreements with the company), I have healthcare that suits me, and I am investing significantly more money for retirement in much better plans. People who would rather operate as employees and settle for the crummy options their employers provide because they don't want to or don't think they could do the work to make better arrangements on their own should be free to do so. But what possible right do they have to hold me back, to tell me I shouldn't get to make my life better by working independently and running my work as a business I control?
  - EricE 4y ago
    Thank you. The real problem is all of the above advantages you cite only happened because you thought for and took care of yourself. Most people can't seem to be bothered. They think that if only "the government" would do it for them then they could be happy doing other stuff. Ha!
    - 4y ago

Good for them.

AB5 should not be repealed. I wouldn't be surprised if Uber and co were indirectly funding this effort. In fact after writing that I decided to investigate my suspicions, and one of the first results that turns up is the trucking organization spearheading this (Caltrux) hosting Uber Freight for a seminar... Seeing as Caltrux has pages listing access to their audience as a sponsorship benefit, how much do you want to guess Uber managed to funnel through that?

jamiequint 4y ago
vinay427 4y ago
Ridesharing companies such as Uber and Lyft already won an exception to AB5, mostly through funding what ended up the most expensive ballot measure in the state's history, just to have that apparently struck down by the Alameda County Superior Court [1]. I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose. [1] https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Prop-22-the-gig-worker-exemption-for-Uber-and-16401915.php https://www.sfchronicle.com/tech/article/Prop-22-the-gig-wor...
- anon291 4y ago
  It's crazy to me a court can strike down a voter proposition that is otherwise not unconstitutional.
  - vinay427 4y ago
    What do you mean by “otherwise not unconstitutional?” I suppose the point of the ruling is its unconstitutionality, and the state of California is one of the only places in the world in which voters are free to change that through a constitutional referendum.
- BoorishBears 4y ago
  I don't get what this comment is trying to say? > I wouldn't be surprised if they're funneling money into these protests/strikes as well, but I assume they would be willing to directly target rideshare users for this purpose. Directly targeting rideshare users isn't orthogonal to "indirectly" funding truckers fighting AB5 when "Uber Freight" is a thing and Prop 22 already failed (which was their attempt at reaching users directly). They can (and would) do both.
  - vinay427 4y ago
    It’s easier to interpret without starting with the assumption that comment replies are for disagreements. It sounds like you more or less rephrased what I said.

bergenty 4y ago

Why? Do they like paying for their own healthcare, repairs and working for no benefits?

deleted 4y ago
[deleted]
smeej 4y ago
Probably. Contractors typically get paid significantly more, like 50%+ more, than employees, and then can make their own decisions about how they want to repair their equipment, what kind of insurance is worth having, and how they want to save and invest their money. When I worked as an employee, my company got to decide how much to spend on repairs. It was never economical. I could absolutely have saved 30-40% on the cost, easily. I also only had a short list of health insurance plans available to me, all of which were expensive, none of which were well-tailored to my needs. And my retirement "benefits" included a 401(k) with such high fees I'd have been better off socking away money in a literal sock. And all this was combined with the fact that they paid me significantly less. As a contractor, I take home MUCH more money, I have my repairs done by people I trust who do good work at fair prices (rather than those that have formal agreements with the company), I have healthcare that suits me, and I am investing significantly more money for retirement in much better plans. People who would rather operate as employees and settle for the crummy options their employers provide because they don't want to or don't think they could do the work to make better arrangements on their own should be free to do so. But what possible right do they have to hold me back, to tell me I shouldn't get to make my life better by working independently and running my work as a business I control?
- EricE 4y ago
  Thank you. The real problem is all of the above advantages you cite only happened because you thought for and took care of yourself. Most people can't seem to be bothered. They think that if only "the government" would do it for them then they could be happy doing other stuff. Ha!
  - 4y ago