Jump to content

Uber allegedly bullying drivers into supporting California Prop 22 re-classifying app workers as self-employed

AlTech

Uber is allegedly bullying their drivers, previously classified as self-employed, into voting YES for California's Proposition 22 Ballot Initiative to re-classify Uber style Drivers as self-employed.

 

The Verge reports that Uber drivers are suing Uber over this alleged bullying. The drivers are complaining that Uber is bombarding their smartphones with messages encouraging them to vote for Propositon 22 and telling them what would happen if it doesn't pass.

 

Quote

Uber drivers in California are suing the ride-sharing company, claiming the “constant barrage” of messages in its app violates workers’ rights. The group of drivers is seeking up to $260 million in penalties, saying in a press release that Uber is “illegally exploiting its economic power over its California-based drivers by pressuring them to support the Yes on 22 campaign.”

 

The drivers say they have been getting messages reading “Prop 22 is progress,” and receiving in-app warnings about what would happen if Prop 22 were to fail. They have to click “OK” before they can move forward in the app. “Almost every time we log on, we are fed more one-sided information to pressure us into supporting Prop 22,” Ben Valdez, a driver for Uber and one of the plaintiffs in the case, said in a statement. That includes in-app videos of drivers speaking about why “Prop 22 would make a difference,” reinforcing Uber’s stance that the measure should pass.

 

The claim being made by Uber Drivers against Uber is that California law prohibits Uber from trying to influence their employees to vote a particular way.

 

Quote

California law prohibits employers from trying to influence employees’ political activities by threatening a loss of employment, according to the press release.

 

It is expected that if Proposition 22 fails to pass, Uber drivers in the state of California could lose their jobs permanently as Uber is unwilling and unable to pay self-employed drivers as employees.

 

I'm honestly not surprised, and frankly I was expecting Uber to use mafioso style tactics like "It'd be a shame if something happened to your job because you didn't vote for Prop 22" or something in that style. Obviously it would need to be more lowkey but Uber really needs to stop this for their own sake.

 

Anyways, good for Uber giving California the reverse Uno card.

 

Sources

https://www.theverge.com/2020/10/22/21529082/uber-drivers-lawsuit-prop-22-alerts-california-gig-workers

Judge a product on its own merits AND the company that made it.

How to setup MSI Afterburner OSD | How to make your AMD Radeon GPU more efficient with Radeon Chill | (Probably) Why LMG Merch shipping to the EU is expensive

Oneplus 6 (Early 2023 to present) | HP Envy 15" x360 R7 5700U (Mid 2021 to present) | Steam Deck (Late 2022 to present)

 

Mid 2023 AlTech Desktop Refresh - AMD R7 5800X (Mid 2023), XFX Radeon RX 6700XT MBA (Mid 2021), MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon (Early 2018), 32GB DDR4-3200 (16GB x2) (Mid 2022

Noctua NH-D15 (Early 2021), Corsair MP510 1.92TB NVMe SSD (Mid 2020), beQuiet Pure Wings 2 140mm x2 & 120mm x1 (Mid 2023),

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

6 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

Anyways, good for Uber giving California the reverse Uno card.

uhh what?

7 minutes ago, AluminiumTech said:

It is expected that if Proposition 22 fails to pass, Uber drivers in the state of California could lose their jobs permanently as Uber is unwilling and unable to pay self-employed drivers are employees.

Maybe they shouldn't base their entire business on an exploitative model then.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just now, Sauron said:

Maybe they shouldn't base their entire business on an exploitative model then.

As far as I understand the problem, the model works fine it's just that drivers can't complete enough jobs per hour to earn above minimum wage.

 

Which sounds suspiciously like the fares in California are too cheap through the Uber app.

 

I don't know what percentage of a fare Uber takes but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's at least 20%.

Judge a product on its own merits AND the company that made it.

How to setup MSI Afterburner OSD | How to make your AMD Radeon GPU more efficient with Radeon Chill | (Probably) Why LMG Merch shipping to the EU is expensive

Oneplus 6 (Early 2023 to present) | HP Envy 15" x360 R7 5700U (Mid 2021 to present) | Steam Deck (Late 2022 to present)

 

Mid 2023 AlTech Desktop Refresh - AMD R7 5800X (Mid 2023), XFX Radeon RX 6700XT MBA (Mid 2021), MSI X370 Gaming Pro Carbon (Early 2018), 32GB DDR4-3200 (16GB x2) (Mid 2022

Noctua NH-D15 (Early 2021), Corsair MP510 1.92TB NVMe SSD (Mid 2020), beQuiet Pure Wings 2 140mm x2 & 120mm x1 (Mid 2023),

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

It is a shame that everyone can't get in on this suit. I am not an Uber driver but I, too am being bombarded by Uber's campaign ads. They are everywhere, radio, tv, direct mail, etc. The emotional stress it is causing is upsetting me but I feel like some money will fix that.

 

-kp

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, AluminiumTech said:

As far as I understand the problem, the model works fine it's just that drivers can't complete enough jobs per hour to earn above minimum wage.

 

Which sounds suspiciously like the fares in California are too cheap through the Uber app.

 

I don't know what percentage of a fare Uber takes but I'm going to hazard a guess that it's at least 20%.

They keep fares low to be competitive at the expense of the driver.

 

Breakdown of Uber

 

Passenger fare
( cost varies and may be somewhat innacurate at the time of post, may also vary by city and state. Gives a general idea however )
- Ride Fee $1.70
- Booking Fee $1.20
- Additional $0.20 per minute
- Additional $0.90 per mile

 

3 Mile Trip at 15 Minutes ( seems pretty typical )
$1.70 + $1.20 + (3 x 0.90) + (15 x 0.20) = $8.06

 

Payout
(Total Cost - Booking Fee) x 80%
($8.06 - $1.2) x .80 = $5.48

 

California Average Gas Price according to energy.ca.gov
$3.047

 

Say your car gets 32MPG


15 Miles / 1 Gallon = 0.46875
$3.047 x 0.46875 = $1.43

Not including the fuel to go pickup and after drop off.

 

Payout - Fuel Expense
$5.48 - $1.43 = $4.05

 

You are also responsible for insurance, in which some cities require you to have the same insurance and paperwork as a Taxi / Cab Company.

By the time you factor in all expenses, that ride made you less than $3. Rides are never guaranteed and you may only get 1 a day.

 

The more drivers the less rides obviously. Better suited as a side gig rather than a full time gig. Still low pay regardless.

Uber also tries to avoid paying any fees it doesn't have to and tries to push it more onto the drivers responsibility, once again reducing profits.

 

I really cant see what the attractiveness of being a Uber Driver is personally.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Sauron said:

uhh what?

Maybe they shouldn't base their entire business on an exploitative model then.

Personally, I hate Uber and the tactics they use (I would prefer never to use one if I can).  With that said, drivers shouldn't be classified as employees (in my opinion).  Exploitative, maybe, but in the case of being an Uber driver that is a choice the person driving needs to make.  People should know full well what they are getting into prior to taking on Uber contracts.  Labeling them an employee kind of flies in the face of what the App was created for (and why people originally signed up).  Actually, if they are employees then Uber should be allowed to do things such as force the "employees" to not be a driver for other companies, and disallow their employees from working other jobs while on "duty"

 

e.g. I've hired contractors before that miscalculated the size of the job and ended up working for peanuts...they weren't employees and were stuck to their contract.  The fact that they were effectively working for less than minimum wage and a crazy long hours doesn't make them employees.

3735928559 - Beware of the dead beef

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

With all of Uber's history, I really try my best not to use them. They are not a friendly company to its own employees who often use this as a means to feed their families.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Prop 22 is supported by Uber huh? No wonder I always get "vOte yEs oN prOp 22" ads on youtube all the time

 

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comander said:

No one held a gun to an Uber drivers head

Yeah yeah sure, except if you don't work you starve. No real difference there. There aren't enough jobs for everyone (there literally can't be, read an economy book) so the idea that companies need to compete with one another for unskilled labour is absurd.

1 hour ago, comander said:

Irrelevant. In fact that makes it worse - imagine exploiting people for the sake of a business model that doesn't even make you money.

1 hour ago, comander said:

In fact there's plenty of websites and forums that explain the dynamics of the business and if it's right for them. 

Again, not everyone can chose not to take the first job opportunity they get.

1 hour ago, comander said:

Giving people an extra choice is not exploitive.

Read below to learn how that's not what they're doing at all.

 

Also I could literally make the same argument to defend slavery - surely it's just an extra "opportunity" to have the ability to sell yourself to a slaver in exchange for food and shelter, right..?

 

Taking advantage of your economic power to force people into unfavorable contracts with you is exploitation.

3 hours ago, AluminiumTech said:

As far as I understand the problem, the model works fine it's just that drivers can't complete enough jobs per hour to earn above minimum wage.

By treating workers as though they were self employed Uber gets around a whole lot of taxes and they don't have to provide the most basic job security to their workers. In places like the US you can add health ensurance and so on. Even if they got a fair wage they'd still be royally screwed compared to people working similar positions as regular employees.

 

Also their presence can heavily affect competing businesses which don't exploit their workers as much, which means that people with an objectively better job get shoved out of it - it's not really a net benefit on local employment rates and opportunities.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, Shreyas1 said:

Prop 22 is supported by Uber huh? No wonder I always get "vOte yEs oN prOp 22" ads on youtube all the time

And if uber supports it, it's bad for the rest of us.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, comander said:

Uber is generally quite good to their employees. Think $200,000+ pay packages for 20 something engineers, all you can eat food, etc. 

 

They are hard to get into. Rigorous interview process at a level similar to say Google, very selective. 

 

I have friends from grad school who basically say Uber >> Deloitte. 

----

People who claim they're employees who hit "sure why not" on an app are in a different category - I'm willing to bet most have no idea where the nearest Uber office is. Historically they've been classified as contractors and in most parts of the world they are not legally considered employees - though California is trying to change the nature of that relationship. 

Except we aren't talking about their 20 or so engineers...we're discussing the thousands (if not millions) of drivers out there.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Just don't use Uber or Lyft

My Laptop: A MacBook Air 

My Desktop: Don’t have one 

My Phone: An Honor 8s (although I don’t recommend it)

My Favourite OS: Linux

My Console: A Regular PS4

My Tablet: A Huawei Mediapad m5 

Spoiler

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

1 minute ago, comander said:

Alright, so we've established that Uber reduces starvation.

Actually no, you've established no such thing. Do you have any data correlating Uber presence with lower rates of starvation or even just unemployment? Also again, technically slavery did that... relative to not being a slave in a world where you're expected to be one.

3 minutes ago, comander said:

It depends on how you define jobs. I could make a "job" for myself by planting seeds in an abandoned lot. My grand parents grew their own food during the great depression and WW2 and they were compensated by the fruits of their labor - literally.            

Yeah, I wonder why people don't do that anymore. Maybe it's because a lot of people don't even own the home they live in, let alone enough ground to cultivate their own food. And of course if they ever tried to make a living selling the fruit of their garden they'd be instantly outcompeted by gigantic corporations paying pennies on the dime to their workers.

6 minutes ago, comander said:

If they were paid 1000x as much I doubt you'd call it exploitative.

If they were paid 1000x as much Uber would no longer hold economic power over them - at that point they really could just do something else or nothing at all for the rest of their lives (as long as there isn't a major societal collapse but that's another topic).

8 minutes ago, comander said:

The main difference is that your own subjective standards aren't being met. 

One way of phrasing it is "this makes me feel icky so I want it destroyed" - that's incredibly judgmental and arguably elitist.

Elitist? I don't think that means what you think it means.

9 minutes ago, comander said:

Something something, two consenting adults...

It's not consent if one will starve if they don't agree while the other won't. Try applying that logic to other forms of consent, consider how that would sound...

10 minutes ago, comander said:

If I told you my first job paid probably half of what I could have gotten, you'd have told me to go do something better.

You're assuming I'd say a lot of things, you've been wrong every time so far. I'd have told you you were being screwed over and that your employer was a scumbag. No matter how naive or irrational you think you were being - someone intentionally took advantage of it and that is on them.

12 minutes ago, comander said:

For laughs - expound on this argument. 

I'm assuming you define competing businesses as traditional taxi cab companies - which were known for poor services and bad pricing along with tasks like pizza delivery. 

For the sake of argument I'll take marginally worse service if it means the workers are treated better.

 

What improvements Uber provides in terms of technology and organization don't depend in any way on the workers being treated like shit. Let Uber die and let someone who can offer the same service without being as much of a dick take their place.

14 minutes ago, comander said:

Couldn't you argue that those business models were not as consumer friendly? The prices were higher, the service was worse (not as timely, limited food selection, etc.) and this effectively limited the choice to well-off people. 

Also stuff like taxis should entirely be taken care of through public transport. Taxi services themselves are also guilty of some of Uber's bad practices and if anything they're a great argument against the privatization of important public services and utilities in general. In many parts of the world public transport already is cheaper and fairly reliable, giving people who aren't "well off" more or less the same mobility as those who can afford a taxi. Where I live you don't call a taxi or an Uber because it's cheap.

22 minutes ago, comander said:

Should the economy be built on solely servicing the rich and leaving the poor and working class excluded? Does that notion not make you feel icky?

You're literally arguing that it's fine for a corporation to treat their workers like shit just because they didn't sign the contract under direct threat of violence. You don't get to spin this as though you're on the side of the working class.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Actually no, you've established no such thing. Do you have any data correlating Uber presence with lower rates of starvation or even just unemployment? Also again, technically slavery did that... relative to not being a slave in a world where you're expected to be one.

Yeah, I wonder why people don't do that anymore. Maybe it's because a lot of people don't even own the home they live in, let alone enough ground to cultivate their own food. And of course if they ever tried to make a living selling the fruit of their garden they'd be instantly outcompeted by gigantic corporations paying pennies on the dime to their workers.

If they were paid 1000x as much Uber would no longer hold economic power over them - at that point they really could just do something else or nothing at all for the rest of their lives (as long as there isn't a major societal collapse but that's another topic).

Elitist? I don't think that means what you think it means.

It's not consent if one will starve if they don't agree while the other won't. Try applying that logic to other forms of consent, consider how that would sound...

You're assuming I'd say a lot of things, you've been wrong every time so far. I'd have told you you were being screwed over and that your employer was a scumbag. No matter how naive or irrational you think you were being - someone intentionally took advantage of it and that is on them.

For the sake of argument I'll take marginally worse service if it means the workers are treated better.

 

What improvements Uber provides in terms of technology and organization don't depend in any way on the workers being treated like shit. Let Uber die and let someone who can offer the same service without being as much of a dick take their place.

Also stuff like taxis should entirely be taken care of through public transport. Taxi services themselves are also guilty of some of Uber's bad practices and if anything they're a great argument against the privatization of important public services and utilities in general. In many parts of the world public transport already is cheaper and fairly reliable, giving people who aren't "well off" more or less the same mobility as those who can afford a taxi. Where I live you don't call a taxi or an Uber because it's cheap.

You're literally arguing that it's fine for a corporation to treat their workers like shit just because they didn't sign the contract under direct threat of violence. You don't get to spin this as though you're on the side of the working class.

They are not employees. Uber doesn't dictate their hours or when they have to work or how many vacations they can take they get to choose that themselves. Saying they are employees is like saying that people on fiver should be considered employees of fiver and be given health insurance etc by fiver. If uber was making tons of money I might be more inclined to agree with you but no they are making massive losses and the same with lyft and any other ride share company. The business model itself just doesn't work. And maybe yes those companies should die but then we are back at square one with no ride share jobs available for those people.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

They are not employees.

Yes, that's literally the point. Uber found a loophole to get the benefits of employing people without actually employing them and having to give them the benefits that come with being employed.

17 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

Saying they are employees is like saying that people on fiver should be considered employees of fiver and be given health insurance etc by fiver.

Yes. You do know part-time employment is a thing, right?

15 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

how many vacations they can take

Since they make very little per hour they can only take as much vacation as they can afford, which is often 0 if they work typical 8 hour days.

11 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

If uber was making tons of money I might be more inclined to agree with you but no they are making massive losses and the same with lyft and any other ride share company.

Their success doesn't matter to this conversation in the slightest. An unsuccessful exploiter is just as bad as a successful one.

 

Plus modern startups don't actually need to make money to be "successful" by the usual standards. They just need to secure enough investment to pay themselves a lot of money and never work another day in their lives - whether the investors make their money back is irrelevant to them. Twitter didn't make any money for years and yet its founders are now billionaires.

19 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

The business model itself just doesn't work.

Great, so maybe don't do it? While we're at it let's legislate against it so it doesn't come up and do further harm in the future...

20 minutes ago, spartaman64 said:

And maybe yes those companies should die but then we are back at square one with no ride share jobs available for those people.

I strongly advocate for those people to be hired in public transport, but even by strictly market based logic if there's a demand for it someone will provide that service while also respecting the new boundaries. Companies have been doing fine employing workers directly for quite a while, I don't think this must be the exception.

Don't ask to ask, just ask... please 🤨

sudo chmod -R 000 /*

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Sauron said:

Yes, that's literally the point. Uber found a loophole to get the benefits of employing people without actually employing them and having to give them the benefits that come with being employed.

Yes. You do know part-time employment is a thing, right?

Since they make very little per hour they can only take as much vacation as they can afford, which is often 0 if they work typical 8 hour days.

Their success doesn't matter to this conversation in the slightest. An unsuccessful exploiter is just as bad as a successful one.

 

Plus modern startups don't actually need to make money to be "successful" by the usual standards. They just need to secure enough investment to pay themselves a lot of money and never work another day in their lives - whether the investors make their money back is irrelevant to them. Twitter didn't make any money for years and yet its founders are now billionaires.

Great, so maybe don't do it? While we're at it let's legislate against it so it doesn't come up and do further harm in the future...

I strongly advocate for those people to be hired in public transport, but even by strictly market based logic if there's a demand for it someone will provide that service while also respecting the new boundaries. Companies have been doing fine employing workers directly for quite a while, I don't think this must be the exception.

part time employees dont get to freely decide when to come to work and when to leave work. most people ive seen driving for uber uses it as a means to make some extra money when they are off work. how do you legislate against this without getting a lot of other similar models like youtube, fiver, freelance writing services caught up in it? i agree uber shouldnt be bailed out when they fail but them failing wont change anything except those worker no longer being able to make some extra money driving for uber. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

There is kind of same debate currently in Finland but for Foodora and Wolt. For now all their deliverers have been "sub-contractors" as in entrepreneurs and not employees but now the ministry of employment and the economy has ruled that they are (no matter their contracts) employees because their job does fulfill the employees description.

 

The big difference between the two is that entrepreneurs do not enjoy any benefits of employees as in Foodora and Wolt aren't responsible to offer them insurances, no work time laws apply to them and they need to handle all their taxes and other costs that are normaly handled by the employer by themselves and there isn't even legal protection for them (as in if it was employer and employee there's certain legalities that need to be in the contracts that do bind both sides, like the insurances and compensations for overtimes and generally the contract cannot be one-sided and it needs to be fair, but when it's contract between "companies" it's completely tabula rasa, anything goes and nothing is ruled by the laws). So the cap between entrepreneur and employee is quite a huge one and the companies haven't even been all that clear about that in their contracts and they say a lot of shit that makes it sound like a great deal to work for them... Only if you had delivery after delivery and they were right next to each other. All the costs are pressed to the deliverers and some of them didn't even have a glue that they were now entrepreneurs which meant certain legalities applied to them (like the mandatory insurance/retirement fund, which isn't cheap and sounds extremely expensive if you aren't ready for it). [I'm not completely sure, the companies might handle the "YEL"-cost and income taxes for their deliverers because those two are the firsts that would really fuck up your life if you weren't ready for them and give out that you have been fucked.]

 

The biggest thing is the worktime laws which get thrown into the trash bin the first. As entrepreneur you don't have breaks written in the law (IIRC lunch break is one of the biggest that is enforced and it's like 8 hour work day you have the right to keep 1 hour lunch break which isn't paid but is counted to the shift same as 2-3 "coffee breaks"), there is no mandatory rules for overtimes and compensations for them, no compensations for weekends or exceeding 5 day workweek, no rules for vacations or vacations bonuses and sugar in the cup is that Foodora and Wolt aren't respecting any of that in their contracts, your breaks are how long it takes you to get from the last delivery to the next pickup, you can get punished for not accepting the offered delivery (you aren't offered deliveries for hours or you get some really long trips) or you take a day off because the app lists you as "inactive".

 

Yeah, they are cheap for the customer but apparently for a reason that the companies have moved the biggest costs to the "sub-contractors" that can't even negotiate their rates or contracts. Stuff like insurance for entrepreneurs aren't cheap and if you don't know about that and you think your normal everyday consumer insurances cover your worktime accidents, you gonna be in deep trouble if something happens. Not to mention the jungle of legal things like termination of contract and compensations for that (employees have quite strong firing covers and contract termination compensations, sub-contractors have what their contracts says and I would be really surprised if Foodoras or Wolts contract includes compensation for contract termination).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

damn y'all supposed to lick the boot not deepthroat it

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Wouldn't be anywhere near as much of an issue if we just slashed taxes massively and cut wasteful government spending.

 

Either way Uber shouldn't be doing this.

Ketchup is better than mustard.

GUI is better than Command Line Interface.

Dubs are better than subs

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

@comander Genuine question for you. Why do you think employment laws exist? I want to see your answer before i explain why i'm asking.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

I drove for Uber during a transition between jobs. There are few other places where one can work for a short while whenever somebody wants. CA passed a law at the behest of Uber's competitors and unions to force Uber drivers to be permanent employees. The good thing is that this is a state law and people can choose to move to another state, which is happening often. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Well, if no one drives for Uber, they can't bully anyone into anything...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

The whole situation isn’t fair to the drivers. The thing is, providing the benefits is hugely expensive and while Uber is a huge company it has never been profitable. In the past few years it has lost tens of millions. Increasing its costs in California would likely cause the company to stop operating there, cause the cost of Uber to greatly increase in California, or limit drivers to working under full time hours.
 

Uber has always positioned itself as a side hustle job and I don’t think it can afford the extra costs. I would love to say yea, they need to provide all this crap for their workers but I don’t see how they can afford it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

10 hours ago, comander said:

I think the current set of laws (as in what had been passed which explicitly changed how Uber drivers, truckers, etc. we're classified) can be explained by politicians acting in rent seeking manners (i.e. being more concerned with electability [and popularity within progressive social circles] than being a good leader)

 

To paraphrase California's then governor, Jerry Brown - "this does not make economic sense, it is done for moral reasons"

 

If you want me to find a video of him saying that before signing a bill into law on employment regulation I can. 

 

--------

 

Basically popularity contest, not technocratic debate. 

 

I'm going to assume you didn't;t intend to dodge my question.

 

I didn't ask about the specific law thats affecting Uber, i asked about employment laws in general. I.e. the whole body of them of all kinds.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Look I‘m exploiting myself for Uber 

I‘m a businessman I‘ll be the next Jeff Bezos

I‘m very critical towards „ new innovative „ companies that have a business model based on gig-economy 

Hi

 

Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler
Spoiler

hi

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

×