The article was short on details⌠so what exactly does this mean for areas like the US Virgin Islands that have strictly controlled taxi associations, with things like medallions?
Team âdisruptiveâ is going to be supremely petulant about this; but itâs hard to imagine ruling any other way. If Uber drivers are contractors in anything other than name, you could classify just about anyone as a âcontractorâ with a few slight edits.
My limited understanding is that under CA law it is MUCH more difficult to use the âcontractorâ dodge to get out of paying employee benefits than in most statesâŚ
I just heard on the radio, that there are 22,000 drivers signed up for Uber, in San Francisco aloneâŚ
I think itâs weird to say that this has âserious implications for the on-demand economyâ. Uber is a far cry from say, Craigslist. If theyâre going to treat âfreelancersâ like employees, they should be facing the appropriate regulation on that level. This is not to say that they couldnât make adjustments to appropriately get their drivers to function as contractors.
Itâs almost comical to see thereâs nothing so effective and so popular that California Govt interference canât fuck it up.
Uber is wildly popular for a reason. It puts the decision to engage in services squarely where it belongs: with the consumer. Now, here comes the geniuses of Sacramento to destroy any progress or reimagining of a paradigm.
Thatâs all part of the plan. Labour laws and consumer protections are just another thing to be âdisruptedâ and âinnovatedâ away in the name of profit.
When you use âCAâ in a headline, itâs difficult to know whether you are abbreviating California or Canada. In this case I thought it was slightly more likely that Canada would produce such a ruling than that California would.
("Ontario, CA: is ambiguous, too. Thanks, CA).
Absolutely. We need to just let companies freely break the laws and do whatever they want. After all, they like it - and isnât that what really matters?
Popularity isnât an argument for doing whats right. The âreimagining of a paradigmâ you want just screws over low-level employees, stripping them of protections and rights.
Canada will henceforth be referred to as âCanuckistan.â Clarity is important. Thank you.
And as we all know, screwing over employees is morally right as long as the product is popular. Thatâs why everyone loves sweatshops!
(For bonus points, you could explain how you think Uber treating its employees better will somehow destroy the quality of the cab service, because I think you were unclear about that bit.)
I think itâs a little tricky. I donât own a car, so I rent cars a lot from neighbors through RelayRides. (RelayRides is a lot more like AirBnB than Uber, in that you are paying an owner of car to borrow their car for a few hours or days, and itâs all paid and insured through the companyâs website.)
In that situation, the people renting their cars on RelayRides â or people renting their houses on AirBnB â hardly seem like âemployeesâ of the company. The company is just matching suppliers and demanders.
So when the supplier decides instead to drive you himself, instead of just letting you rent his car, is there a significant difference?
It seems that this case rested more on specifics of how tightly Uber manages its drivers (setting rates for them, giving them phones, etc.), rather than any a priori intrinsic aspect of a generic ride-sharing platform.
(Note, as a pro-labor person, I hate any idea of a company trying to cheat its employees by calling them âcontractors.â I just think, however, that this case is a difficult question, which will have to be settled case-by-case, instead of assuming this means that anyone who makes money from the âsharing economyâ is really an employee. In the case of Uber, though, it may well be that the drivers should be considered employees.)
alternately, with adjustments, they could appropriately compensate their employees.
just sing the opening bars next time.
Iâd rather have the distinction between exploiter and exploited disrupted.
I donât see how Uber is under compensating any employees, you sign up knowing you may not get any passengers if there is a surplus of drivers online or a shortage of passengers. In many states cab drivers are not guaranteed minimum wage (Boston is an example). I fail to see how Uber is operating any differently than cab companies other than not limiting the number of total cabs operating.
This is just a California court, so it only applies there, Iâd assume.
I love a good olâfashioned race to the bottom while corporate demigods reap billions.
[quote=âGrimRyan, post:17, topic:59870â]
I donât see how Uber is under compensating any employees
[/quote] Then clearly you should read more.
