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

[SpaceGhostC2C]

On 10/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Sorenson said:

 

 

On 10/24/2020 at 2:41 PM, Sorenson said:

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.

They is entre whole point: uber presented itself as "an innovative company" that could offer cheaper and more convenient transportation, but what was this "innovative" competitive advantage all about? Basically the not-so-new strategy of not acknowledging the actual costs of driving people around for profit. 

 

Uber will always fight the attempts to make it play by the same rules because it basically has nothing special to offer in a leveled playing field. 

 

[dizmo]

I don't see any issue with how it's set up now. Want to drive for them? Go for it. Don't like it? Don't do it. Simple.

These people are crying about a company that they're not technically employed by not doing what they think they should. It's selfish.

As for them being threatened about losing their jobs? I'm pretty sure that's not a threat, it's more of a statement of fact. I don't think Uber will stay in California if it can't operate the way it has been. Uber is also no worse than taxi companies, which in themselves are horribly flawed.

[CarlBar]

1 hour ago, dizmo said:

I don't see any issue with how it's set up now. Want to drive for them? Go for it. Don't like it? Don't do it. Simple.

These people are crying about a company that they're not technically employed by not doing what they think they should. It's selfish.

As for them being threatened about losing their jobs? I'm pretty sure that's not a threat, it's more of a statement of fact. I don't think Uber will stay in California if it can't operate the way it has been. Uber is also no worse than taxi companies, which in themselves are horribly flawed.

 

As i did with commander i'm going to ask you the question: Why do you think employment laws exist?

[wanderingfool2]

6 hours ago, CarlBar said:

 

As i did with commander i'm going to ask you the question: Why do you think employment laws exist?

An analogy that I think might fit.  Do you think that YouTube or Twitch user's (who are trying to make a living with it, but failing) should be considered employees?  One could argue that if Uber drivers are considered employees, Twitch streamers should be considered employees.

[dizmo]

18 hours ago, CarlBar said:

As i did with commander i'm going to ask you the question: Why do you think employment laws exist?

To protect employees. What does that have to do with anything?

Uber is essentially an open market employer. If people don't see themselves making enough, they can leave, and there will be more work for the rest of those who want it. I know Uber drivers that easily make enough to live on. My friend drove for UberEats, and made a very decent wage at it.

[BlueChinchillaEatingDorito]

27 minutes ago, dizmo said:

Uber is essentially an open market employer. If people don't see themselves making enough, they can leave, and there will be more work for the rest of those who want it. I know Uber drivers that easily make enough to live on. My friend drove for UberEats, and made a very decent wage at it.

Do they offer support if you get into an accident while driving for Uber? I could imagine a driver easily getting screwed if they get into an accident and the passenger decides to sue them. The drivers' insurance isn't going to pay out since they would consider the vehicle use as "Business" related and I bet most Uber drivers only pay for "Pleasure" driving rates. Nor do most drivers have the appropriate licenses that are mandated by their respective jurisdiction. 

 

Here in BC for instance you need a Commercial driver's license to drive for Uber. I bet you only a handful of drivers here have one.