They're requesting a temporary injunction blocking the law:
Uber, DoorDash and Grubhub are suing for an injunction to stop New York City's new $18 minimum wage law for food delivery app workers, The Washington Post has reported. The app delivery platforms are asking for a temporary restraining order against the new rules, set to be implemented on July 12th. "We will not stand by and let the harmful impacts of this earnings standard on New York City customers, merchants, and the delivery workers it was intended to support go unchecked," a DoorDash spokesperson told CNN.
The Worker's Justice Project that backed the survey decried the new lawsuit. "This latest legal maneuver to prop up their business model comes at the expense of workers who can barely survive in a city facing a massive affordability crisis," director Ligia Guallpa told the Post.
New York became the first US city to mandate a minimum wage for food delivery workers, ordering platforms to pay workers $17.96 per hour, plus tips, by July 12th. The minimum wage in the city is $15 per hour, but the extra amount accounts for the fact that delivery workers are usually paid as contractors, so have higher taxes and must pay work-related expenses out of pocket. According to an estimate from the DCWP (NYC Department of Consumer and Worker Protection), NYC has more than 60,000 food delivery workers who earn an average of $7.09 per hour.
[...] App services like Uber have fought for years against regulations against the "gig worker" economy. Earlier this year, a court ruled that Uber and Lyft could keep treating drivers as contractors, rather than reclassifying them as salaried employees.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Opportunist on Sunday July 09 2023, @03:38PM (1 child)
"Our cotton farms are done for if you outlaw slavery!"
(Score: 4, Touché) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2023, @09:45PM
"Your campaign donations are done for if you don't roadblock gig services."
(Score: 5, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2023, @05:33PM (44 children)
For all their posturing as "new economy" and the like, it's pretty clear that the big tech delivery & "ride sharing" firms are just acting like any company in an unregulated/lightly_regulated labor intensive business. Trying to minimize their labor costs by shafting their workers.
This lawsuit really shows their true colors.
When we do take out meals we order directly by voice call to the restaurant, not any of the 3rd party web companies that use SEO and try to pretend they are the restaurant.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by digitalaudiorock on Sunday July 09 2023, @05:57PM (11 children)
Screw them. They've already managed to come up with a business model where they make a shit ton of money while pushing almost all the risks and liabilities off on others. Yet somehow with that advantage over all the other businesses out there they can't manage a minimum wage?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by RS3 on Sunday July 09 2023, @06:52PM (8 children)
Some years ago I looked into some of the ride share, delivery, courier, other similar services. What stopped me cold was they required fairly new cars. I have no idea why. I remember thinking, "if I can afford a fairly new car, why would I wear it out making less money than the depreciation loss from using it so much?"
(Score: 5, Insightful) by owl on Sunday July 09 2023, @08:21PM (7 children)
None of us here know the real why but I can think up a few possibilities:
I suspect #1 is more likely closer to the real reason -- wanting to project the 'status symbol' effect.
(Score: 2) by RS3 on Sunday July 09 2023, @08:59PM (2 children)
Good thinking, makes perfect sense. Any time I inquired, if I got any answer, it was always something about insurance, which didn't make sense either. Well, maybe. Maybe their liability insurance company thinks older cars are less safe. I hate generalizations.
Maybe there could be a tiered system where customers pay more for fancier cars?
(Score: 4, Informative) by owl on Sunday July 09 2023, @09:57PM
That answer sounds an awful lot like double-speak for "give them this answer, few will question it" but is otherwise a non-answer.
They have spent their entire existence trying to make their "employees" be "independent contractors" -- in which case I'd bet their 37 pages of 4point legalize "click here to accept this agreement" specifically foists all risk around insurance as to the "contractor's" vehicle fully onto the contractor and not corporate.
Plus, if it were really insurance reasons, they could just say so. As in: "must carry 1) liability (in the amount of $), 2) personal injury (in the amount of $), 3) collision (in the amount or $), and so on. And they would be up-front about it in the signup, and likely want to see one's "policy sheet" to verify one is carrying the needed coverage.
But deflecting a question on their "must have newer car" requirement with "insurance" very much sounds like a "go away and don't bother us again" type of corporate answer in this case.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Reziac on Monday July 10 2023, @02:38AM
That's at least partly true. Cars past about ten years old are more of a liability risk, or so insurance and the associated attorneys believe.
It's why my sister's (rather large international) office has no vehicle (or anything else) that's out of warranty. Because legal threw a fit.
And there is no Alkibiades to come back and save us from ourselves.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by VLM on Sunday July 09 2023, @11:20PM (3 children)
#3 some areas don't really do vehicle inspection, so much like non-HOA residential, the upkeep will depend strongly on the demographics of the owners.
I've heard NY state vehicle inspections are insanely draconian so they don't need to require new cars there regardless of the driver demographics. Some 'diverse' deep rural areas where they don't big brother the car owners, well, those cars are a bit scary to be a passenger in. I seen some stuff. Parked cars where you can see sunlight under the car because its going clean thru the rusted out roof and rusted out floor. Seatbelts? I'm not gonna crash I don't need em.
(Score: 2) by Freeman on Monday July 10 2023, @03:23PM (1 child)
Now you're talking about how I felt riding in a passenger vehicle in Romania. Stoplights are mere suggestions and it was seen as a slight to the driver, if you buckled up.
Joshua 1:9 "Be strong and of a good courage; be not afraid, neither be thou dismayed: for the Lord thy God is with thee"
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2023, @07:02PM
> it was seen as a slight to the driver, if you buckled up.
Sounds like Mexico to me, we took a taxi from one beach to another on the Pacific coast (c.1995), south of Acapulco. The car had seatbelts, but they were knotted so you couldn't use them...and on that twisty road over the coastal range I really wanted them.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2023, @07:20PM
> NY state vehicle inspections are insanely draconian
You might be thinking about PA? As I understand it, they don't pass any cars with any rust -- structural or not. Bondo sales must be good there.
I'm in NY (far from NY City) and fairly happy with the annual state inspection routine. Very few stranded or burned cars along the road, unlike other states I've been in. For example, they take off one wheel at random and check brakes, so I feel fairly secure that someone isn't going to rear-end me due to bad brakes. They also check all the signals and lights are working--it's rare to see a NY car with only one headlight.
Downside of NY, the inspectors work at the dealer or independent shop, so there is a conflict of interest right away. To make some money beyond the flat $21 allowed for the inspection, there is usually a small scam-du-jour. Years ago it was "Your headlights need aiming" and not too amazingly, it seemed that this was true every year...for another $15 or something.
More recently it's "Your wiper blades need replacing" and they will fail them for the slightest 1/8" (3mm) tear in the rubber. I've learned to buy new wiper blades in advance and "carelessly" leave the packaging on the back seat, in plain view, to avoid that little scam. Then I save the packaging and if my blades are still good, I leave it in the back seat again the next year...
I don't drive a lot of miles, so the other thing the yearly inspection is good for is a reminder to do my annual oil and filter change (and any other preventative maintenance that might be due). Since the inspection happens at an independent shop (I don't take cars to the dealer unless I have to), they do the oil/filter change at the same time.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Monday July 10 2023, @12:18AM
Yes - but - I wonder if everyone is clear on what that business model really is. Their real business only appears to be taxiing, food delivery, etc. Their real business is attracting gullible investor's money by the truck load. Everyone gets to assume risks in this business, from the drivers to the investors.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Tuesday August 08 2023, @11:23PM
They could manage it just fine before the City pushed it up. I find the assumptions of this remark interesting. You assume that minimum wage is low no matter what it is.
Of course, I see no need for a minimum wage at all. People don't work for free. The market already solves this problem.
(Score: 2, Troll) by DadaDoofy on Sunday July 09 2023, @07:13PM (31 children)
How are the workers being "shafted" if they choose to work there of their own free will? If the wages being paid are too low, how do these companies manage to maintain the workforce necessary to run their businesses? Yeah, it's easy to cry about things being "unfair", but none of those crying ever seem to have the answers to these fundamental questions.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by tekk on Sunday July 09 2023, @07:47PM (12 children)
Because these companies rely on their workers not understanding the actual costs of the work. For example most of them are more than enough to cover gas, but don't actually cover how much sooner your car is expected to break down or die due to the extra wear.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2023, @09:21PM (11 children)
Another example of not having answers to the fundamental questions. So what happens a few weeks in when workers do have understanding of the actual costs of the work? What's your excuse then?
The huge labor factor ignored in this hate-on is that gig work is flexible (working around your life, like a primary job) and uses gear, like cars, that you would otherwise poorly use. It's great as a second job. It allows you to do productive things with your expensive car.
Meanwhile New York City's taxi medallion scheme has crashed costly a bunch of influential people a lot of money. I bet that there's a bunch of rich people looking to make bank on this law. That's the real driving force.
What's ignored in this theater of greed are the customers. Gig economy has worked great for them. They get affordable rides and other services when they need them. They didn't have that with the old taxi oligopolies.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by owl on Sunday July 09 2023, @10:08PM (1 child)
For many, they still won't have a true idea of the true actual costs of performing the work a few weeks in. Nearly all will not have had a major car repair happen, due to the extra usage, after only a few weeks. So they can't price in needing new tires sooner or needing to have their brake pads replaced sooner, because nothing will yet have needed replacement.
And even once they do need new tires, or new brake pads, unless they have also been careful to track mileage for Uber et al. vs. personal usage, they still will not be able to accurately accrue the costs of the repair to the Uber et al. job vs. their personal usage. They will just have an $800 brake job repair bill, and have no idea how much of that should be allocated to the Uber et al. usage.
(Score: 2, Interesting) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2023, @10:59PM
I think what's ridiculous about this line of argument is that somehow the solution to a minor education need is to abuse the power of regulation. Here's another approach: have the gig worker use [gigworker.com] a web search engine:
Some key advice? Hustle for multiple gig services. The author specifically mentioned Lynx and Uber Eats. Provide service "above and beyond" like snacks and water bottles, and a cell phone charger.
Tracking expenses was another standard tip from that website. Sounds like this need is covered.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by VLM on Sunday July 09 2023, @11:33PM
The stereotypical example of why people can't do "gigs" as a full time job, is they're competing with people like me.
My last W2 job before I went contractor I had to drive 20 miles each way to get downtown to an old fashioned butts in seats office, from the burbs. I'm driving down there to get paid regardless if I have a fare or not in my passenger seat. If I take a fare it'll only cost me maybe an extra mile or two on each end. Lets say someone would pay me $20 to get from my burb to the curb of their office. $20 might even be cheaper than them driving themselves. I'm getting $10 for going a mile outta my way near home, and maybe another $10 for going another mile outta my way downtown. I'll take $10/mile any day. It would be a total fail for me to try to be a taxi driver at $1/mile, I would go broke fast. But since I'm taking the 20 mile trip in the middle of the fare anyway, and I have to drive there regardless if I have a fare or not, may as well pay me ... I never did this, but its the impression I get.
Another example if I'm going to do take out, well, I'm already driving past the restaurant on the way home from work, so for me the pickup for myself is "free". Now if I pick up some other idiot's dinner and deliver it to them, it might be a whole mile out of my way near home, but I don't care if I'm getting $15. I'll take $15/mile to deliver food any day. In a way, delivering food for some idiot might pay a third of the cost of feeding my family the same takeout the idiot is eating, kind of cool deal for me. Like getting a huge discount on my own food for delivering some neighbor's food. OK with me. Now I admit, there's no way I can "make a living" delivering food ten miles away for $15. But as a side gig? Hell, yeah?
(Score: 4, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday July 10 2023, @12:31AM (7 children)
Okay, I'll bite. How exactly will requiring a minimum wage for a bunch of poor people going to "make bank" for a bunch of "rich people."
How would that work? How does that "bunch of rich people" "make bank" on this?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 2, Disagree) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @12:33AM (6 children)
Because tax medallions don't get a minimum wage, much less an elevated one. But competitors that had been driving down the value of those medallions will.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by NotSanguine on Monday July 10 2023, @12:37AM (5 children)
This has absolutely nothing to do with taxis. It's food delivery workers [engadget.com] that are getting a wage increase.
So I'll ask again, who are these "rich folks" and how, exactly are they going to "make bank" on this?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 0, Offtopic) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @12:41AM (4 children)
It's Uber. Their costs are being driven up. It affects all their business not just food delivery.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday July 10 2023, @04:23AM (3 children)
You still haven't answered my question.
You said: "I bet that there's a bunch of rich people looking to make bank on this law."
Who, specifically, are those people, and how, specifically, are they going to "make bank"?
I'm just asking you to clarify your own assertion. Is that too difficult for you?
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @04:49AM (2 children)
We already have one group which I already mentioned - taxi medallion holders. Another are the corrupt labor unions and associated parts of organized crime.
The story talks about a group called the "Worker's Justice Project". It is an initiative [legalaidnyc.org] of a non-profit, The Legal Aid Society [legalaidnyc.org]
The Legal Aid Society is in turn is New York City's "primary service provider" for indigent criminal defense services.
Peculiar how legal defense groups attack gig economy businesses?
Here's my take. Uber has cost NYC political patrons a lot of money, possibly even some of these politicians. NYC has to respond to that to protect its bribery stream. But it can't do it directly - using public funds would be bad optics. But it can fund attacks indirectly using public funds funneled through non-profits that have the appearance of independence from the city.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Monday July 10 2023, @05:18AM (1 child)
The law (actually a city code change) has nothing to do with taxis. It deals only with food delivery workers. Who, at least in NYC, mostly ride bikes or e-bikes and don't drive cars or transport passengers *ever*.
I'd also point out that the while the food delivery workers do have advocacy groups, they are not unionized. At all. How then, exactly, are labor unions who aren't involved at all and don't collect union dues from these workers going to "make bank"?
As for "medallion holders," I can't tell you how many times I got into a taxi and it smelled like the driver was living in the car -- because they were -- because they couldn't afford to pay rent/mortgage on a home because they were paying $3000/month on a mortgage for their medallion. Yeah, those fabulously wealthy folks living their taxis are *totally* going to make a killing on this! How, exactly, are these folks going to "make bank"?
You're ignorant of both the regulation change and the situation, yet you still spout off. You go, girl! Sigh.
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr
(Score: 1, Offtopic) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @06:17AM
A city code change is a law.
Second, it harms Uber ride hailing significantly. For example, in another post, I linked to a webpage discussing how Uber drivers could earn more. An important tip was running other services at the same time - such as Uber Eats. A law like that of the story that disrupts seamless driver switching between Uber and Uber Eats will hurt Uber a lot. You are no longer an Uber driver who does food delivery on the side. They have all this bullshit to deal with. And yes, I think that was by design.
Because those guys aren't medallion holders. They are medallion renters - paying $3000 a month so you claim to a predatory lender [cityandstateny.com]. And in NYC, medallions were a significant investment opportunity for non-taxi drivers.
In 2014, NYC medallions were worth over $1 million and there were 14k of them. I gather the peak capitalization of the market hit $16 billion at one point then. As of late 2021, it's around $80k per medallion [documentedny.com] with a slight decline in the number of medallions (to 13.5k). A return to old ways would net over $10 billion. It's not rocket science.
Should I google for food delivery unions in NYC to see how baldly wrong you are? Like this story [thecity.nyc]?
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Sunday July 09 2023, @09:52PM (17 children)
Because, Ayn Rand, jobs are not so easy to come by. Workers need money to survive, but a crappy wage is still better than no wage at all. So, workers end up tolerating bad pay, bad conditions, bad security etc in order to feed their families. The sort of environment this creates is incredibly damaging for the individual and a society as a whole too (low income creates all sorts of knock-on effects elsewhere).
There was an article in SN some years ago about how approx 80% of Walmart workers rely on food stamps to survive. That's a broken model. In effect, you the taxpayer are paying out extra in order to ensure that Walmart has low salary costs and makes more profit. Better to mandate a livable wage than to have Walmart in effect become a direct beneficiary of welfare payments. That may mean that Walmart either makes less money, or charges higher prices - either way the workers should be able to survive on the salaries they earn, and the government should not be a top-up slush fund to cover the wage gap.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2023, @11:04PM (4 children)
This. You could have stopped right there.
This model doesn't sound even slightly broken to me. You're subsidizing behavior you claim to want - employing poor people. But I suppose it somehow seems better to you to make a bunch of poor people unemployable than to do something, like Walmart does, that makes their lives better.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Mykl on Sunday July 09 2023, @11:30PM (2 children)
Nice try, but we both know that you don't want to provide that Government subsidy that Walmart relies upon. Instead, my guess is that you'd prefer that Walmart workers enjoy a sub-living-standard wage with no top-up from the Government at all. If they don't like it they can just stop being poor!
I agree that there are cases in which it makes sense to provide a Government subsidy to employ someone (people with intellectual disabilities in particular, because of all of the benefits that provides to the individual, the family and to society). But I disagree that Government should be propping up the business models of Uber, Walmart et al.
Funny thing is, paying a living wage actually benefits the rich too. Have a look at the experience of other Western countries. Lower poverty means lower crime, which means that the rich remain safer.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @12:10AM (1 child)
Should we similarly disregard your comments because you want said subsidy? Wait, you didn't want that subsidy either.
I have ideas for lowering cost of living too so that the wage in question is no longer "sub".
You already acknowledged that I disagree as well. There's no disagreement in that aspect. What I disagree with is the ideological cowardice. Here, failing to own up to the consequences of providing an extensive social safety net. Your subsidy model always subsidize someone - there will always be someone who pays near minimum wage no matter how high you choose to set minimum wage or what other roadblocks you put in front of employment.
Not if people can't be legally employed at said wage. And I'll point out that there's a number of Western countries working hard to drop out of developed world status - PIGS for example. We don't need to follow their example.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday July 11 2023, @01:43PM
How about you come back to us when they actually work. You conservatives will try anything to avoid just fixing wages and the tax inequality.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2023, @05:55AM
As a fat capitalist - with the waistline to prove it - but not American,
In effect, you the taxpayer are paying out extra in order to ensure that Walmart has low salary costs and makes more profit.
No, A thousand times, no!
These total shits are my competitors, using taxation to steal money from your company to subsidise their exploitation of the weak - and most probably
claiming to be Christians as they do it.
In civilised countries, the peasants would rise up and burn the place down.
(Score: 4, Informative) by DadaDoofy on Sunday July 09 2023, @11:33PM (5 children)
Karl Marx, you should start by fact checking those faulty memories of yours. Walmart says they have 1.6 million employees in the US.
https://corporate.walmart.com/askwalmart/how-many-people-work-at-walmart [walmart.com]
The Washington Post says only 14,500 of those employees, or just .9062% of Walmart employees receive food stamps.
https://www.washingtonpost.com/business/2020/11/18/food-stamps-medicaid-mcdonalds-walmart-bernie-sanders/ [washingtonpost.com]
(Score: 3, Touché) by Mykl on Monday July 10 2023, @02:20AM (4 children)
I think you need to check your reading comprehension.
The second article you point to actually says:
I'll grant you that my memory is faulty and the figure nationally is likely less than my claimed 80% (as I said, it was a few years ago and may have actually been related to a single state rather than the whole country), but you've managed to mis-report numbers that you just looked up and posted minutes ago.
In any case, the above data shows that Walmart is a shitty employer who clearly doesn't pay a liveable wage to many of their employees. Walmart posted a "net income" (profit) of $5.1 billion [nwaonline.com] for a single quarter in FY20 (off revenue of $134.7 billion) - this was linked from your own article. Tell me that the Waltons (whose collective worth is now estimated at $215 billion) would pack up and cease business if those profits took a small hit due to paying better wages.
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @05:38AM (2 children)
I find it interesting how given half a century counterevidence, that in the face of substantially higher labor costs where employees did indeed employ less people and even pack and cease, we still have these claims made. What do you think offshoring was? Or job loss to automation/AI?
As to being an allegedly "shitty" employer, compared to what?
But as I noted before, I think the greatest folly of this thing is your insistence that Walmart is doing something wrong by employing poor people. It remains a shining example of the pathology in this area. My take on this is either get rid of the benefits that are causing this drama or suck it up and accept that someone is going to employ these people at wages you don't like. While it's typical to just blame these faults on rich people, it never helps anyone.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Mykl on Monday July 10 2023, @07:44AM (1 child)
Walmart isn't "employing poor people" - they're making their employees poor by underpaying them and pocketing the profit. There's a difference.
Government benefits are not supposed to be there to help large corporations keep wages low - they are intended to help those who cannot take on a regular full-time job (perhaps due to disability), or to temporarily help those who have been affected by the loss of the workplace (perhaps due to fire, flood etc). The Walmarts of the world have taken advantage of Government largesse to permanently subsidise the employees that, frankly, the company can afford to pay more. I am OK with my taxes going toward helping a needy person. I am not OK with my taxes effectively going to help the Waltons buy an extra Lear Jet this year.
The same goes for the USA's restaurant tipping culture. It was created during the Great Depression as a temporary measure to keep some restaurants in business, but has remained on as yet another example of financial sleight-of-hand. If you were to increase salaries and eliminate tips then the worker would end up with the same pay, the customer would pay the same money for dinner, and the restaurant owner would still end up with the same profit (after increasing prices to accommodate the increased wage). Why create this 'begging culture' where customers feel obliged to shell out extra money because the restaurant owner is a tightwad who refuses to pay a livable wage?
(Score: 2, Informative) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @12:31PM
Then what's the difference between these alleged circumstances aside from your use of negative connotation words? Sounds to me like a conveniently intractable grievance that applies to anyone who dares employ poor people. For example, you have presented zero evidence that this is happening - merely the bald fact that Walmart employs poor people, that it helps some of its employees acquire government benefits, and that it makes a profit. Everything else you have asserted is mere fabrication. In particular, there's no mechanism by which Walmart can force employees to be poor. To the contrary, you acknowledge that Walmart not only pays them, but also helps them find government benefits - that makes their employees less poor.
As a result, I think the above is simply brain noise made words and has no bearing to the real world.
So what? This wouldn't be the first time unintended consequences happen. But I think it's utterly ridiculous because it sure looks to me like expected circumstances. The very first thing you wrote in this discussion:
That's the stark choice you keep ignoring. It remains better that Walmart employs poor people than if these people weren't employed at all. And here, we have an employer not only paying its employees, but helping them find benefits. Sounds to me like things are working even better than you expect. In what ideologies does something working too well cause problems that have to be corrected? Not mine.
(Score: 2, Touché) by DadaDoofy on Monday July 10 2023, @03:50PM
As I've often said to people with your philosophy, start your own company and pay all your employees a million dollar annual salary. And of course, you never do. It's much easier to criticize those who have built the most successful corporations in the world, demanding they do what you say they should do, than to build your own successful corporation and give it's profit away.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by epitaxial on Monday July 10 2023, @12:19AM (5 children)
Conservatives can't seem to grasp that their taxes are subsidizing all the Walmart employees on government assistance. But hey they're really pwning those libs!
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @12:36AM (2 children)
Is that a thing?
(Score: 2) by epitaxial on Tuesday July 11 2023, @01:40PM (1 child)
Yes, Walmart pays people peanuts and hands out information on how they can receive additional government benefits. Why pay people more when you can get the government to do it for you? Walmart isn't stupid.
(Score: 1) by khallow on Wednesday July 12 2023, @12:22PM
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Captival on Monday July 10 2023, @01:42AM (1 child)
I love that you're fucking stupid enough to still post this 24 HOURS AFTER the guy above you who completely rebutted it, with citations.
(Score: 2) by Mykl on Monday July 10 2023, @02:22AM
Less than 24 hours later, and his citations were faulty. Try again.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Sunday July 09 2023, @07:14PM (3 children)
Since Uber's whole business model is to evade laws about who can operate a taxi, it's basically an exchange-traded criminal syndicate.
It's right up there with the health care system in terms of things that I don't understand why they're allowed to exist in their current form; it just hasn't been going on as long.
As for the food delivery services, they're not evading laws, they're just scummy.
(Score: 2, Touché) by khallow on Sunday July 09 2023, @09:51PM (2 children)
Except, of course, being legal. Much like the highly profitable, criminal taxi cartel that existed before Uber and company crashed that scheme.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Monday July 10 2023, @04:28AM (1 child)
That may well have been true in many places, but not in New York City. Which is the place we're talking about. And Uber did break the law in NYC and lots of other places (with even more egregious lawbreaking elsewhere) too, and there wasn't before and isn't now a "criminal taxi cartel" in NYC.
You must be thinking of somewhere else. Try to keep things straight. I know that's a lot to ask, so I won't hold my breath
(Score: 1) by khallow on Monday July 10 2023, @05:40AM
We'll see what comes of that lawsuit. I wouldn't be surprised to see this return to normal legality.
So show us where this lawbreaking allegedly happened or stop wasting our time. My point about "criminal taxi cartel" was that when something is legal, then it is not criminal. Even when it should be illegal, like said NYC taxi cartel.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by mcgrew on Monday July 10 2023, @06:43PM (2 children)
The "culture wars" were started by the very rich to distract us from the fact that they have been waging a class war against workers since Ronald Reagan. Those evil bastards are bitching about $18?
In 1965 the minimum wage was $1.50. It would buy exactly ten McDonald's 15¢ hamburgers. To match 1965's minimum wage it would have to be $24.90. I was 13 in 1965. Only single parents needed child care, there were no homeless, and no billionaires. Who do you think REALLY earned all that money for the Waltons?
That's not the only front they've waged war against us on. In 1940 you had to earn over four times the median income to owe any taxes at all. By that metric, nobody earning less than a quarter million dollars a year should have to pay federal taxes.
Half the people I know think it's because all 535 congressmen are crooks, but that seems incredibly statically unlikely. Rather, there are 535 victims of extortion. "Nice campaign ya got there, Senator, shame if I was to give your opponent a hundred million instead of fifty million to each campaign."
The system is corrupt, not the politicians.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org
(Score: 2) by cmdrklarg on Monday July 10 2023, @09:09PM (1 child)
Why not both?
The world is full of kings and queens who blind your eyes and steal your dreams.
(Score: 2) by mcgrew on Thursday July 13 2023, @12:40AM
Many certainly are, but statistics say that for all of them to be corrupt is incredibly unlikely.
mcgrewbooks.com mcgrew.info nooze.org