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
(Score: 1) by khallow on Thursday January 02 2020, @12:22AM (4 children)
Ok, so what other reason could there be for being an Uber driver that doesn't ultimately involve at least partially monetary reward?
So what? Sorry, but I think a better solution here is to get rid of federal minimum wage.
If Uber can keep up this "illegal dumping" forever, then that's fine with me. Funny how the "race to the bottom" involves making critical services like transportation cheaper.
And now some apologism for the taxi cartels. It was fine for the taxi industry, not so fine for the people getting robbed by the taxi industry. Apparently, Uber and company are showing that taxi service isn't as expensive to provide as you claim.
The thing missing here is that jobs aren't magic. You need to provide something of value in order to be paid by employers and customers. The more obstacles that are provided to employing people, the lower quality the jobs that will be available. Something like Uber helps a huge category of poor people and provides a considerable value to people who use those ride hailing services.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @07:59PM (1 child)
Oh my, abolish the federal minimum wage so we can go back to company towns and unabashed wage slavery?
You're such a fuckwit, you base your entire view of reality on baseless assumptions about some ideal version of capitalism. I pity you, though it is tempered by the damage your worldviews do unto others.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 03 2020, @05:53AM
Because if your government masters aren't holding your hand, you'll work for peanuts?
Which happens to be the real world, let us note. Nothing ideal about it.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday January 02 2020, @08:14PM (1 child)
> Apparently, Uber and company are showing that taxi service isn't as expensive to provide as you claim.
From what I've read, Uber has poured (is still pouring?) their huge pile of venture capital into unsustainable fares. This is a traditional monopolist play--kill the competition by undercutting it. Once the competition has folded (as have many local taxi companies around the USA) those low rates will be ancient history. At that point there won't be any competition left to "let capitalism work its magic" and the fat cats will have the taxi market to themselves.
Thus regulation is needed to maintain some kind of "free market".
(Score: 1) by khallow on Friday January 03 2020, @05:50AM
And when the unsustainable goes on long enough Uber goes out of business. Sorry, I don't buy that they'll last long enough to become a "monopoly".
Funny how "regulation" is about keeping the taxi cartels.