Skip to content
 
If you can read this, either the style sheet didn't load or you have an older browser that doesn't support style sheets. Try clearing your browser cache and refreshing the page.

(CBS News)   Court rules Uber and Lyft drivers can now get benefits like unemployment   (cbsnews.com) divider line
    More: Interesting  
•       •       •

734 clicks; posted to Business » on 23 Oct 2020 at 10:05 PM (5 weeks ago)   |   Favorite    |   share:  Share on Twitter share via Email Share on Facebook



28 Comments     (+0 »)
 
View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest
 
2020-10-23 10:25:13 PM  
Good
 
2020-10-23 10:31:34 PM  

captainstudd: Good


More like goodbye.
 
2020-10-23 11:41:41 PM  
Its a start.
 
2020-10-23 11:43:54 PM  
Thank Christ.
 
2020-10-24 12:10:36 AM  
🎶London Bridge is falling down 🎶
 
2020-10-24 12:36:57 AM  
And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.
 
2020-10-24 9:44:42 AM  
Good

Just because you can make a profit off a particular business model doesn't mean you should. Businesses can create all they want but society decides what behavior is acceptable. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is not acceptable behavior.

If there is anything to learn from this pandemic it is this: having healthy, safe, well fed and well educated neighbors is in everyone's best interest.
 
2020-10-24 9:57:48 AM  

majestic: captainstudd: Good

More like goodbye.


Good.
 
2020-10-24 10:33:05 AM  

jjorsett: And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.


Just out of curiosity, why are you voting for it, thus ending the drivers' ability to get workers comp, unemployment, etc...?
 
2020-10-24 10:34:28 AM  

taintbaggins: Good

Just because you can make a profit off a particular business model doesn't mean you should. Businesses can create all they want but society decides what behavior is acceptable. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is not acceptable behavior.

If there is anything to learn from this pandemic it is this: having healthy, safe, well fed and well educated neighbors is in everyone's best interest.


Well, from the comment above yours, it sounds as if society is going to vote to over-rule this thing you find good.
 
2020-10-24 11:19:12 AM  

jjorsett: And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.


Why? Seriously, why should companies be able to just opt-out of emoyment protections?
 
2020-10-24 11:27:02 AM  
Uber, Lyft and door dash spend 170 million to try and convince Californians that they can't afford to treat their drivers as employees. Thankfully I know several people including myself that voted against the proposition
 
2020-10-24 12:20:07 PM  

Dr.Fey: taintbaggins: Good

Just because you can make a profit off a particular business model doesn't mean you should. Businesses can create all they want but society decides what behavior is acceptable. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is not acceptable behavior.

If there is anything to learn from this pandemic it is this: having healthy, safe, well fed and well educated neighbors is in everyone's best interest.

Well, from the comment above yours, it sounds as if society is going to vote to over-rule this thing you find good.


Doesn't really matter in the long run - neither of these companies have ever made a dime - they are a grift. Stupid Main Street 401k owners will get stuck with their stock when the con finally burns down, after ripping off their workers for as long as they can.
The bosses will run off with pockets full of cash while dumbos get stuck with the worthless stock.
This is just their attempt to make the grift a little more profitable for as long as they can keep it going.
They are, however, spending billions on a tsunami of propaganda ads trying to convince voters to give them what they want.
They're going broke in the long run, so it don't matter much. None of their victims will have jobs anyway.
 
2020-10-24 12:24:30 PM  
Do uber or lyft drivers drive full time (8hrs+)? I always thought was just part time or whenever they got a call or e-mail or whatever.

/no cellphone so just use the free cab phone if one is near.
 
2020-10-24 12:27:35 PM  

jso2897: majestic: captainstudd: Good

More like goodbye.

Good.


Good riddance.

Prop 22 (uber/lyft funded exemptions to making driver employees won't pass. They'll either leave the state or figure out how to pay people appropriately. If they leave the state someone else will step up to fill the void.
 
2020-10-24 12:31:33 PM  

weirdneighbour: Do uber or lyft drivers drive full time (8hrs+)? I always thought was just part time or whenever they got a call or e-mail or whatever.

/no cellphone so just use the free cab phone if one is near.


That was the original intent, but now that a lot of people have lost their jobs, that is their only source of income for food, rent, etc.

Problem is, at that scale, you're not so much 'working' as very slowly liquidating your vehicle; putting that much wear and tear in the car shortens its lifespan and raises maintenance costs. In some areas, that puts the actual profit at less than minimum wage.
 
2020-10-24 12:48:43 PM  
This is a good thing for the drivers, but I feel that it really is a symptom of the larger problem that the US needs to decouple health coverage from employment with single payer. If we had a decent healthcare system the status of an employee wouldn't be such an issue, and it would be easier for people to do contract work.

I'm really surprised more companies haven't started pushing for single payer so they can just stop dealing with having to provide health benefits altogether.

I personally do some gig work on the weekends for extra cash putting together furniture for people through TaskRabbit. It pays about $35-$50 an hour, which is a great way to make some extra money without spending a lot of time. I'd prefer to NOT be an employee because I often need to take a weekend off for personal matters or because I have a big project coming up with my main job. But then again, my gig job is extra money and not something that keeps a roof over my head, so my mileage varies.
 
2020-10-24 12:53:13 PM  

Sim Tree: weirdneighbour: Do uber or lyft drivers drive full time (8hrs+)? I always thought was just part time or whenever they got a call or e-mail or whatever.

/no cellphone so just use the free cab phone if one is near.

That was the original intent, but now that a lot of people have lost their jobs, that is their only source of income for food, rent, etc.

Problem is, at that scale, you're not so much 'working' as very slowly liquidating your vehicle; putting that much wear and tear in the car shortens its lifespan and raises maintenance costs. In some areas, that puts the actual profit at less than minimum wage.


Plus the hourly pay is kind of shiat for that job. You'd honestly do better working at Target (which starts people out at $15 an hour in my area).
 
2020-10-24 1:04:27 PM  

Mad_Radhu: This is a good thing for the drivers, but I feel that it really is a symptom of the larger problem that the US needs to decouple health coverage from employment with single payer. If we had a decent healthcare system the status of an employee wouldn't be such an issue, and it would be easier for people to do contract work.

I'm really surprised more companies haven't started pushing for single payer so they can just stop dealing with having to provide health benefits altogether.


I'm baffled by that too. Like, why a major employer like Disney for example, isn't screaming from the rooftops that we need to get away from companies being the major medical providers. Because as much as they do to avoid providing that for their employees they still do it for a lot of them. Or hell, a small business person should want universal health care but you see all these "small business" people who vote Republican because they may have to pay taxes.

The only reason I've ever seen given is they don't want it to be easy for employees to go from job-to-job, but that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense if you can at least partially reduce your (normally) 2nd largest operating expense
 
2020-10-24 1:17:13 PM  

TDWCom29: Mad_Radhu: This is a good thing for the drivers, but I feel that it really is a symptom of the larger problem that the US needs to decouple health coverage from employment with single payer. If we had a decent healthcare system the status of an employee wouldn't be such an issue, and it would be easier for people to do contract work.

I'm really surprised more companies haven't started pushing for single payer so they can just stop dealing with having to provide health benefits altogether.

I'm baffled by that too. Like, why a major employer like Disney for example, isn't screaming from the rooftops that we need to get away from companies being the major medical providers. Because as much as they do to avoid providing that for their employees they still do it for a lot of them. Or hell, a small business person should want universal health care but you see all these "small business" people who vote Republican because they may have to pay taxes.

The only reason I've ever seen given is they don't want it to be easy for employees to go from job-to-job, but that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense if you can at least partially reduce your (normally) 2nd largest operating expense


It's not just that they want to keep people tied down - it's that major corporate employers like Disney use health insurance as a way to attract "the best of the best." It's still stupid - there are other, technically cheaper perks that you could offer - but I've worked for 2 Fortune 500 companies and both used their very good (comparatively, they still stink on ice) health insurance benefits to reel high-level recruits in.
 
2020-10-24 1:43:33 PM  

taintbaggins: Good

Just because you can make a profit off a particular business model doesn't mean you should. Businesses can create all they want but society decides what behavior is acceptable. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is not acceptable behavior.

If there is anything to learn from this pandemic it is this: having healthy, safe, well fed and well educated neighbors is in everyone's best interest.


Thing is, they don't even make profit with the business model they have now. They've been selling a dollar for 50 cents since the beginning -- and this law had nothing to do with it.

Making their drivers employees will now force them to actually make their business work, rather than slowly bleed their investors and drivers dry. If they fail, well, bye.
 
2020-10-24 2:37:38 PM  

Dr.Fey: jjorsett: And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.

Just out of curiosity, why are you voting for it, thus ending the drivers' ability to get workers comp, unemployment, etc...?


1) The state legislature, in the original AB5 and in subsequent legislation passed recently, exempted or imposed much less stringent requirements on some wide categories of workers such as physicians, surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, psychologists, veterinarians, insurance brokers, lawyers, architects and engineers, private investigators, accountants, and writers. Cutting such wide slack for so many industries implies that this law is targeted pretty specifically at just a few. If protections are needed to keep workers from being exploited, why are we letting so many skate?

2) Prop 22 provides new benefits for drivers, including guaranteed minimum earnings,
medical and disability coverage for on-the-job injuries, and funding for health benefits.

3) Most drivers surveyed want to remain independent, and drivers can always go do something else if they feel ill-used. They'll probably have to anyway if Prop 22 fails, because the companies will either pull out of California altogether or the restrictions imposed will drive up the costs and wait times so much that usage will fall off drastically and fewer drivers will be needed.
 
2020-10-24 2:56:27 PM  

jjorsett: If protections are needed to keep workers from being exploited, why are we letting so many skate?


It's about keeping low-wage workers from being exploited. The other categories you list are high-paying occupations where people have needed skills to negotiate high wages.
 
2020-10-24 3:57:54 PM  

jjorsett: Dr.Fey: jjorsett: And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.

Just out of curiosity, why are you voting for it, thus ending the drivers' ability to get workers comp, unemployment, etc...?

1) The state legislature, in the original AB5 and in subsequent legislation passed recently, exempted or imposed much less stringent requirements on some wide categories of workers such as physicians, surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, psychologists, veterinarians, insurance brokers, lawyers, architects and engineers, private investigators, accountants, and writers. Cutting such wide slack for so many industries implies that this law is targeted pretty specifically at just a few. If protections are needed to keep workers from being exploited, why are we letting so many skate?

2) Prop 22 provides new benefits for drivers, including guaranteed minimum earnings,
medical and disability coverage for on-the-job injuries, and funding for health benefits.

3) Most drivers surveyed want to remain independent, and drivers can always go do something else if they feel ill-used. They'll probably have to anyway if Prop 22 fails, because the companies will either pull out of California altogether or the restrictions imposed will drive up the costs and wait times so much that usage will fall off drastically and fewer drivers will be needed.


Don't worry. The cabbies will be there. They're taking hammers to the credit card machines as we speak, and gently misting the back seats of the Prius* with sticky residue spray.

* remember when they at least had full size cars as taxis?  I'm not a 7 year old. If I'm getting into a compact, I'm sitting up front. It'll take a lot more body odor than that scare me off!
 
2020-10-24 4:53:07 PM  

taintbaggins: Good

Just because you can make a profit off a particular business model doesn't mean you should. Businesses can create all they want but society decides what behavior is acceptable. Privatizing profits and socializing costs is not acceptable behavior.


I mean, the fact that you don't appear to realize that you cannot, in fact, make a profit off of this business model is kind of a good illustration of the failure of the overall system, here.  Because Uber and Lyft's business model is called "sharecropping", it's existed since at least the mid-1800s, and it's been explicitly illegal since the early 1900s, for various reasons of which the felony fraud they commit by falsely attesting that their full-time employees are actually temporary contractors is only one.

I'm not saying you're stupid, I'm saying that lack of regulation means the government missed this despite it being super-obvious upon even casual inspection, legal loopholes allow companies to get away with shiat that's really illegal by making those laws effectively unenforceable, and social loopholes allow large businesses to literally just blatantly act in open defiance of the explicit law by just making up their own buzzwords and pretending they innocently don't understand that they just renamed something that already had a name... and was illegal.

// That last one is the same thing that a number of banks used in the leadup to 2007 to crash our farking economy, much of that behavior was likewise flat-out illegal but allowed because the government was some mix of apathetic and corrupt and simply chose not to enforce or even monitor it.
 
2020-10-24 5:04:02 PM  

semiautomagic: TDWCom29: Mad_Radhu: This is a good thing for the drivers, but I feel that it really is a symptom of the larger problem that the US needs to decouple health coverage from employment with single payer. If we had a decent healthcare system the status of an employee wouldn't be such an issue, and it would be easier for people to do contract work.

I'm really surprised more companies haven't started pushing for single payer so they can just stop dealing with having to provide health benefits altogether.

I'm baffled by that too. Like, why a major employer like Disney for example, isn't screaming from the rooftops that we need to get away from companies being the major medical providers. Because as much as they do to avoid providing that for their employees they still do it for a lot of them. Or hell, a small business person should want universal health care but you see all these "small business" people who vote Republican because they may have to pay taxes.

The only reason I've ever seen given is they don't want it to be easy for employees to go from job-to-job, but that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense if you can at least partially reduce your (normally) 2nd largest operating expense

It's not just that they want to keep people tied down - it's that major corporate employers like Disney use health insurance as a way to attract "the best of the best." It's still stupid - there are other, technically cheaper perks that you could offer - but I've worked for 2 Fortune 500 companies and both used their very good (comparatively, they still stink on ice) health insurance benefits to reel high-level recruits in.


I always thought they were indirectly profiting off of it themselves.You have these major conglomerates that own a little bit of everything. Disney isn't just in the business of making cartoons anymore. Then you have the CEOs and board members with stock portfolios that are likely include stocks from healthcare companies. So people running a company that should have a vested interest in getting rid of that major expense has people serving on the board that make money personally from those sources. I know there's probably supposed to be laws preventing that kind of thing, but who's really enforcing those these days?
 
2020-10-24 6:29:33 PM  

jjorsett: Dr.Fey: jjorsett: And by "now" subby means "in 30 days," which will be after voters decide whether to pass Prop. 22, which would end this move by California to reclassify those workers. I'll be voting for it, and I'm betting so will the majority of Californians.

Just out of curiosity, why are you voting for it, thus ending the drivers' ability to get workers comp, unemployment, etc...?

1) The state legislature, in the original AB5 and in subsequent legislation passed recently, exempted or imposed much less stringent requirements on some wide categories of workers such as physicians, surgeons, dentists, podiatrists, psychologists, veterinarians, insurance brokers, lawyers, architects and engineers, private investigators, accountants, and writers. Cutting such wide slack for so many industries implies that this law is targeted pretty specifically at just a few. If protections are needed to keep workers from being exploited, why are we letting so many skate?


AB5 was always targeted directly at the Gig economy.  After I passed they realized the impact it would have on solo proprietors and made exceptions for them.

2) Prop 22 provides new benefits for drivers, including guaranteed minimum earnings,
medical and disability coverage for on-the-job injuries, and funding for health benefits.


Mainly as a small compromise to get people to vote for it.  Having them be employees would offer the drivers far more protections and benefits which is why the Gig Economy is against it.

3) Most drivers surveyed want to remain independent, and drivers can always go do something else if they feel ill-used. They'll probably have to anyway if Prop 22 fails, because the companies will either pull out of California altogether or the restrictions imposed will drive up the costs and wait times so much that usage will fall off drastically and fewer drivers will be needed.

60% of 450 drivers of one survey support it.

Also: A major supporter of it outside of the gig economy is the Republican Party.  That should tell you something right there.
 
2020-10-25 12:26:44 AM  

TDWCom29: Mad_Radhu: This is a good thing for the drivers, but I feel that it really is a symptom of the larger problem that the US needs to decouple health coverage from employment with single payer. If we had a decent healthcare system the status of an employee wouldn't be such an issue, and it would be easier for people to do contract work.

I'm really surprised more companies haven't started pushing for single payer so they can just stop dealing with having to provide health benefits altogether.

I'm baffled by that too. Like, why a major employer like Disney for example, isn't screaming from the rooftops that we need to get away from companies being the major medical providers. Because as much as they do to avoid providing that for their employees they still do it for a lot of them. Or hell, a small business person should want universal health care but you see all these "small business" people who vote Republican because they may have to pay taxes.

The only reason I've ever seen given is they don't want it to be easy for employees to go from job-to-job, but that doesn't make a heck of a lot of sense if you can at least partially reduce your (normally) 2nd largest operating expense


I suspect the only reason you're not seeing it is that you haven't looked.  Or you are expecting way too much in terms of a public message.
 
Displayed 28 of 28 comments

View Voting Results: Smartest and Funniest

This thread is closed to new comments.

Continue Farking





On Twitter



  1. Links are submitted by members of the Fark community.

  2. When community members submit a link, they also write a custom headline for the story.

  3. Other Farkers comment on the links. This is the number of comments. Click here to read them.

  4. Click here to submit a link.