Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing.
Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
Poor management of investments on Uber/Lyft’s end is a burden the lower classes should not be forced to take on.
That strikes me as a pretty condescending point of view. Shouldn't adults be allowed to make their own decisions on what is best for their own lives?
i get it, gig jobs are not perfect -- but for a lot of people, it's the only job they have. do california lawmakers think that no job is better than a shitty job?
California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.
Your proposition that if one person makes more money then other people are worse off has an element of truth to it, since, sure, more demand for a given item (like housing) will tend to increase its price, all else equal. But I think that's the wrong way to think about the situation. Wealth creation is not zero sum.
Uber/Lyft business model has just been deemed illegal. let's see if it now can be both legal and sustainable.
Uber/Lyft only existed up until now because they were violating employment laws.
Uber has spent their entire existence dancing in legal gray areas. It's hard to have a ton of sympathy for them when their over-generous re-interpretations of the law bite them in the ass on occasion.
> Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
This is the argument used against every single labor law ever passed. It's not even an argument.
Our government and current economy is poorly equipped to handle the gig-economy. This decision doesn't really help it, but maybe it will motivate some lawmakers to try and address it longer term.
True. But it's also hard to have sympathy for taxi medallion companies.
> It's not even an argument.
? It is, though. It's an argument that adults should be able to agree to whatever they want to agree to (or not). It's an argument for freedom.
Because constituents voted for that government which gave them the power to vote employment laws that apply to Uber/Lyft. Or are you contesting the legitimacy of the democratic process, and California's constitution?
Uber/Lyft are free to move their business to another state.
> Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement
Irrelevant, not all "arrangements" are legal. By that logic slavery should be legal as well, if the slave enters in a slave agreement willingly, to settle a debt for instance.