fairity

53 ms·

481.
by fairity 6y ago
> It might cost more, but it wouldn't be much more. It will cost substantially more. Employment taxes and benefits alone add another 30% to Uber's cost structure. On top of that, paying drivers for downtime (which will be inev
482.
by fairity 6y ago
Some differences that come to mind: no scheduled shifts, no uniform, much less control over how workers service customers, ability to set your own rate. I'm sure there are more.
483.
by fairity 6y ago
While it's true that the law doesn't force companies to assign shifts to employees, in practice, it's always the case. The reason is because ultimately, scheduling shifts is going to be both easier to manage and more cost eff
484.
by fairity 6y ago
His point is that they're not "wage slaves". They can freely move to another minimum wage job. The fact that they don't indicates that Uber is a better deal.
485.
by fairity 6y ago
What's your point? Yes, these carveouts all fall back to a version of the law that is much more lenient on the definition of an independent contractor. That should be obvious...if there wasn't any pre-existing law that defined co
486.
by fairity 6y ago
There's more to it than you're giving him credit for. You call it erratic. Others see it as eccentric. And, that draws eyeballs.
487.
by fairity 6y ago
There's more to life than trying to improve the human condition. People value different things, and it's very possible he will proudly look back on his time spent on CircleUp. Put another way, not everyone wants to do the same th
488.
by fairity 6y ago
>> There is absolutely nothing wrong with knowing about, and discussing who it is You should keep in mind that the investor may actually be innocent here. Imagine if the CEO was a sociopath who is both adept at manipulating public op
489.
by fairity 6y ago
> Keeping the info private does nobody any good. I'm saying that we should keep the identifying info private until the accusations are substantiated. The internet mob is merciless, and will very likely ruin this guy's reputatio
490.
by fairity 6y ago
I don't see this as a case where a weak party is unable to fairly attack the powerful. Even without outing the investors, many founders are currently doing the necessary research to identify the investor and will blacklist him. I think
491.
by fairity 6y ago
> Keeping information in a quiet private forum makes it inaccessible to people at large. This means the next CEO who runs up against this investor is mostly completely unaware of their past actions. I agree this is the downside of my pro
492.
by fairity 6y ago
There are a couple options that come to mind: 1) Contact the accused party and ask him for a written response. By giving him the opportunity to defend himself, you get a more balanced view and decrease the likelihood of cruel & unusual
493.
by fairity 6y ago
I agree that the problematic investor shouldn't be outed here. The investor isn't here to defend himself, and outing him will cause him irreparable (and perhaps undue) reputational damage. [edit] Is giving the accused a platform