SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
California Democrats are poised to pass landmark employment legislation over the objections of two of the companies that would be most affected: Silicon Valley ride-sharing giants Uber Technologies Inc. and Lyft Inc.
The bill already passed the State Assembly 59-15 and is expected to be voted on in the state Senate before the legislative session ends on Friday, possibly as soon as Monday night. Democratic Gov. Gavin Newsom has said he would sign the bill, which intends to force companies that rely on “gig workers” to reclassify them as employees, likely upending the business model of those companies.
Uber and Lyft have spent much of the year pushing lawmakers to alter the bill or exempt them. That effort has failed against opposition from labor unions and a large Democratic majority in Sacramento. The companies have argued the bill would introduce new costs and logistical challenges that would be bad for them and many of their employees, who prefer job flexibility. If the measure becomes law, it is expected to have national repercussions given California’s economic importance and history of creating precedent-setting business regulations.
(Score: 5, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Tuesday September 10 2019, @10:28PM (4 children)
If the business could only exist because of unicorn drug-addled investors dumping billions into it, then it's going to die anyway.
If there's sufficient demand to employ people at a fair wage without unicorn money, then the business will continue to exist even after the employees are classified as such.
If the only way your business model can survive is to exploit loopholes and people, you deserve to die, same as any other business that tries to get ahead by, say, avoiding taxes by taking cash payments, not paying required permits, not meeting safety codes, skipping required maintenance, etc.
It's like the Tim Hortons here that don't want to pay a higher wage, and are now operating as drive-thru only. Other franchisees are paying the higher wages and getting the customers that they are losing. Yes, there are fewer employees overall, but the ones who are working in the full-service locations are making more money.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 2) by HiThere on Tuesday September 10 2019, @11:00PM (3 children)
The problem is that cities have traditionally limited the number of taxi's allowed on the streets. This allowed the taxi drivers to make a living wage, which was inconvenient to those who wanted rides. It also allowed the requirements of bonding and insurance, which the Uber and Lyft drivers have ignored.
Is this good or bad? Well, both. I'm not actually sure I believe those studies that claim that, when you count depreciation, wear, and gas, the Uber drivers are losing money with each fare (it was Uber that was studied, not Lyft), but I do accept that it's close enough to be plausible.
OTOH, many people certainly do find Uber and Lyft to be convenient.
Javascript is what you use to allow unknown third parties to run software you have no idea about on your computer.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by barbara hudson on Wednesday September 11 2019, @12:00AM (1 child)
Try getting a ride-share at a reasonable price during a crisis. Taxi fares are fixed - no surge pricing.
Competition ensured that there were enough cabs around at a low enough price that everyone benefits. The drivers could earn a living, and the people needing a ride were able to get one.
People are getting fed up with what are basically "job-sharing/destroying apps". I submitted a story earlier today about one city's solution to Airbnb not paying business taxes, etc. - they dug up the driveways, sewers, and water supplies until the hosts paid their business taxes.
If you're going to compete, do it fairly. People are fed up with this crap.
SoylentNews is social media. Says so right in the slogan. Soylentnews is people, not tech.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday September 11 2019, @02:32AM
This is not a bug, it's a feature called free market. Number of rideshares is limited, if you want to be served, pay more or serve others and get rewarded for the help. Taxis, on the other hand, are always in crisis, and you always pay more. Taxi licenses are a source of corruption in some cities, as a mere mortal cannot get one. But the mayor's nephew can, and he then leases the privilege to the driver, earning money out of thin air. For that reason alone artificial cab constraints should be cast away and forgotten as a bad dream.
Hard to disagree. Unfortunately cab companies would rather keep their own sandbox with their own rules. How about just declaring statewide that any licensed driver can take passengers for a fee? His only duty will be to pay taxes. Insurance? That can strangle any good idea; make it optional - this will keep the prices low, but still motivate drivers to buy insurance that will shield them from a large expense in case of an accident. Uber and Lyft and many others will then work for drivers by connecting passengers and drivers via their software. But the driver must be able to work without them if he wants to.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by c0lo on Wednesday September 11 2019, @01:07AM
The problem is that cities have traditionally limited the number of taxi's allowed on the streets.
Then address that problem.
Why should a predatory comercial entity get a... ummm... free ride on it?
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=aoFiw2jMy-0 https://soylentnews.org/~MichaelDavidCrawford