so forcing companies to pay people what they are legally required to is bad policies?
They are also violating federal labor laws by not paying them as employees, thus why the IRS has always gone after these incorrect classifications for all that "tax revenue".
- - - Updated - - -
So terrible life decisions allow companies to completly take advantage of workers to the point its highly illegal and hardly even covers cost of the driver.
Ah got ya, great logic
- - - Updated - - -
and you are one of the millions of people who had to pay govt benefits to these same people because the corporation did not even come close to compensating them a fair wage and benefits
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!
I don't see how shifting them getting some help from the government to make ends meet to wholly subsisting on government assistance because they are now entirely out of work due to their jobs being eliminated by people supposedly fighting for them, is solving that problem.
Last edited by I Push Buttons; 2020-08-21 at 12:32 PM.
This would be fine if Uber paid a reasonable amount of money for gas per mile driven, which they don't.
I mean, I know when I drive somewhere FOR WORK, my work sure as shit gets receipts and reimburses me, in full, for the gas I buy for that work trip. Which Uber does not do.
Likewise, if I'm injured or get in an accident at work, my work is required to have insurance, and/or some form of worker's compensation, to make sure I'm at least somewhat taken care of. Something Uber does not do.
This is a pretty simple thing to understand: Uber is trying to re-brand wage theft as something cool-sounding, like "the gig economy," while taking no responsibility or liability to maximize profits. And it should be illegal.
Hell, until a couple years ago when women started speaking out about being raped and sexually assaulted in Ubers/Lyfts, neither company had an adequate background check for their drivers either.
Last edited by PC2; 2020-08-21 at 04:48 PM.
Ideas that are incorrect in principle will also be corroborated by repeated examples yet for some reason we should ignore when that happens and try them again and again and again. They're just ideas!
We know that the Gilded Age was a dumpster fire of economic policy so we are left with two choices:
1 - Let Uber re-enact it. Its just an idea!
2 - Kick them in the nuts until they beg for mercy. Its also an idea but one that might prevent a repeat of bad period in history.
Okay so I'm saying justify a policy based on reasons instead of history. For example you can't look at the "The Gilded Age" and say that we should either copy the policies of that era or implement the opposite policies because you'd be relying on 'correlations'. Searching for reasons is entirely superior to that methodology because it means you're learning about 'causation', which is the only thing we actually want from historical data.
Last edited by PC2; 2020-08-21 at 05:10 PM.
on one hand
uber makes no money it is basically funded at a net loss
https://www.theverge.com/2019/8/8/20...t-traffic-2019
on the other hand lots of people make much needed money through uber and lyft.
bad business model but also bad for those workers losing their income
but this will also help taxi and cab drivers. which according to the website http://www.lacitycab.com/become-a-driver/
cab drivers in LA make 1700$ a week
so that will be nice they wont have to compete with the cheap labor of ride sharers
short term no, but long term that company will be replaced with a company that will pay them as employees, i mean they existed before uber and paid well and legal wages. Maybe you forgot them, they were called Taxi companies.
BTW most of them, based on reports on average wages of ride sharing employees, were low enough that their benefits will not increase by losing their jobs.
Right now they would actually apply for unemployment and receive more than they were making with uber (even if it takes a few more weeks to get it) .
- - - Updated - - -
Well to be fair if uber is not reimbursing enough for expenses then the drivers can write off the difference between IRS per mile rate or actual expenses on their taxes.
Problem is with standard deduction these drivers are paid so low their tax liability is usually zero before they even get to mileage/expense write offs.
i know someone that makes in excess 40k a year delivering newspapers. He deducts mileage every year and his tax liability is based on 3-5k of actual income after 40-45k miles driven @ 57.5 cents ($25,875 write off on top of other standard deductions). They don't pay him enough for cost but he makes it back on not having to pay taxes on the income that he normally would have too.
Uber and those type of companies are just a huge scam.
The owners, execs and big investors are just milking their investments and rolling them over to new suckers
They will never make money and yet people keep plowing money into them.
Even automation won't help the cost of lawsuits and insurance will make it impossible to make a profit at their prices
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!
The public outcry against what the government was doing to rideshare in California was so strong that they hurriedly got this thing to an appeals court to get a judge to remove the court order just hours before it was to take effect. The California people are free to use Uber and Lyft again. The government will not make any more challenges and let it go to the November election, where prop 22 will pass and that will protect Uber and Lyft from AB5 thereafter.
https://www.usnews.com/news/top-news...vice-on-friday
LOS ANGELES/NEW YORK (Reuters) - A California appeals court ruling on Thursday avoided a shutdown of ride-hailing services Uber and Lyft in the state, effectively handing a decision over gig worker benefits and pay to voters in a November ballot measure.
The last-minute ruling, in a case with potential ripple effects across the global gig economy, means drivers can continue working as independent contractors while the appeals court considers the question of driver status.
I think there is some concern that prop 22 is going to have uber and lyft offer to pay part of some sort of health care costs and insurance costs. Those costs will ultimately be passed onto the drivers. Rideshare drivers in California will therefore earn less than their counterparts in other 49 states. Depending on how much it cuts into drivers earnings, prop 22 could cause rideshare drivers to flee California anyway, simply because they can make more money elsewhere. That means there is a chance prop 22 makes rideshare nonviable in California anyway if they can't find people willing to drive.
Please even after all their abuse and subsidies they still will never be profitable.
- - - Updated - - -
they won't be able to pass on the cost since as employees they will have to maintain wage requirements under CA law. Not to mention insurance requirements.
that is why they are fighting so hard. They don't have the money since they are running at huge losses just to feed their corporate salaries and corporate activities.
- - - Updated - - -
Whoot people will get to keep their ride sharing service!
Then complain next month when their taxes go up to pay for welfare for all those drivers, ACA subsidies, food stamps, Medicaid, etc etc.
Pay 4 dollars now for a uber only to pay 14 dollars more next month in taxes. Great job subsidizing uber CA!
Buh Byeeeeeeeeeeee !!