Stories
Slash Boxes
Comments

SoylentNews is people

posted by janrinok on Wednesday January 01 2020, @03:21AM   Printer-friendly
from the goes-for-popcorn dept.

Uber sues California to block gig-worker law going into effect this week:

Ride-hailing service Uber filed a lawsuit Monday against the state of California, alleging a landmark gig-worker law set to go into effect is unconstitutional. The lawsuit seeks to block AB 5, which has the potential to upend gig economy companies such as Uber and Lyft.

The complaint, which also lists Postmates as a plaintiff, argues that the law unfairly targets workers and companies in the on-demand economy, treating them differently than traditional employees and threatening their flexibility.

In September, California became the first state to pass a law aimed at protecting gig worker rights, which forces Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates and other gig economy companies reclassify their workers as employees. Using independent contractors allows the companies to shift many costs to the workers.

The lawsuit says the law arbitrarily exempts dozens of occupations, including direct salespeople, travel agents, grant writers, commercial fishermen and construction truck drivers, among others.

"There is no rhyme or reason to these nonsensical exemptions, and some are so ill-defined or entirely undefined that it is impossible to discern what they include or exclude," says the complaint (see below), which was filed in a Los Angeles federal court.

Postmates and Uber v State of California on Scribd


Original Submission

 
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.
Display Options Threshold/Breakthrough Mark All as Read Mark All as Unread
The Fine Print: The following comments are owned by whoever posted them. We are not responsible for them in any way.
  • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01 2020, @06:18PM (5 children)

    by Anonymous Coward on Wednesday January 01 2020, @06:18PM (#938309)

    (in reply to khallow) You're an idiot.

    No. he's actually quite intelligent. The problem is that he is a feudalist. His new aristocracy is the rich, and his subservient attitude is that they have the god-given right to trample the peasants under the wheels of their carriages. In fact, the peasants should organize themselves so that the fatter ones are lying in the pot-holes, so that their betters have a smoother ride.

  • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 02 2020, @01:05AM (4 children)

    by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 02 2020, @01:05AM (#938443) Journal

    The problem is that he is a feudalist.

    Sorry, you're not even on the right planet with that accusation. And gig economy businesses where contractors/employers come and go at will are pretty damn far from a system where the labor is tied down to a plot of land.

    • (Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:46AM (3 children)

      by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @03:46AM (#938485)

      You do have a genius for missing the point. Your feudalism is your craven bootlicking attitude towards the aristocracy, not the literal tying of a peasant to a plot of land.

      • (Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:07AM (2 children)

        by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Thursday January 02 2020, @04:07AM (#938489) Journal

        Your feudalism is your craven bootlicking attitude towards the aristocracy, not the literal tying of a peasant to a plot of land.

        Then it's not feudalism. Carry on.

        • (Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:02PM (1 child)

          by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:02PM (#938777)

          Huh, finally you admit to being a little bitch for rich people. Didn't think you had the capacity for honest reflection.

          • (Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 03 2020, @12:54AM

            by khallow (3766) Subscriber Badge on Friday January 03 2020, @12:54AM (#938892) Journal
            Defeating an argument in context doesn't imply that I believe in the context.