# San Francisco joins the fight to make Uber and Lyft drivers employees



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

The debate over how to classify gig workers heats up in California as state mulls new law.

BY
DARA KERR
http://www.twitter.com/darakerr
JUNE 28, 2019 3:49 PM PDT









3









Uber drivers protest in front of the company's San Francisco headquarters in May.
Dara Kerr/CNET
So many people showed up to a San Francisco Board of Supervisors committee hearing on Friday that the city had to open an overflow room. The topic at hand: Uber and Lyft drivers' rights.
The city's Public Safety and Neighborhood Services Committee convened to discuss a resolution that would support a proposed California state bill requiring Uber and Lyft to make their drivers employees. Currently, drivers are classified as independent contractors, sometimes referred to as gig-workers, which means they don't get benefits including Social Security, health insurance, paid sick days and overtime.
More than two dozen drivers took to the podium with similar stories. They said they've seen lower pay, higher costs and longer working hours as the cost of living has risen over the years. When they get sick, they said they can't afford to take time off.
"Since Lyft's incentives have traditionally been tied to number of rides, rather than time on the road, I'm encouraged to push myself to the limit," said Edan Alva, who's a Lyft driver in San Francisco. "I feel trapped like one of those caged hamsters running in a wheel."
They are relying on a business model that dismantles more than half a century of worker protections.
San Francisco Supervisor Rafael Mandelman
The issue of gig worker classification is nothing new. Lawsuits have been brought against both Uber and Lyft going back as far as 2013. Since then, several cities and states have examined the matter. While New York City passed minimum wage laws for drivers last December, the National Labor Relations Board said last month it believes drivers should be classified as contractors instead of employees. Under California's proposed Assembly Bill 5, drivers would be classified as employees, provided benefits and have the right to collectively organize.
Uber and Lyft appear to be opposed to AB 5. One reason why is that the companies will have to re-work their business models if they're required to turn their drivers into employees. Not only will they have to pay worker costs, they will also have to manage a workforce of tens of thousands of drivers in California.
*Driver protections*
In a rare showing of cooperation, Uber and Lyft have banded together over the issue. The CEOs of both companies wrote a joint op-ed in the San Francisco Chronicle earlier this month saying they wanted to work with the state to allow drivers to remain independent contractors. In return, the companies said they'd offer drivers a "commitment to driver pay" and let them form a "new driver association."
"It's also no secret that a change to the employment classification of ride-share drivers would pose a risk to our businesses," the CEOs wrote.
The two companies also sent messages to all California drivers saying that if they're classified as employees, they could lose their flexible work schedules. The messages encouraged drivers to contact state legislators to say what they value about their work. A Lyft spokesman said more than 30,000 emails on the topic have been sent to legislators since it sent out its message.
"Lyft is advocating for an approach in line with the interests of our driver community," the Lyft spokesman said in an email. "Our goal is to preserve drivers' independence and flexibility."
The only benefit I get with Uber and Lyft is diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol.
Al Aloudi, ride-hail driver
An Uber spokesman said the company isn't taking a position on AB 5.
"We are not seeking a carve out, rather we are seeking new legislation that would give drivers the protections and commitments that they are asking for while providing protections for our business model," the Uber spokesman said.
Nearly every driver who spoke at the committee hearing on Friday said they wanted California to pass AB 5 and they wanted San Francisco to support the bill. Many cited a May study by the Economic Policy Institute that says the average wage for a US ride-hail driver is $9.21 per hour after deducting expenses, such as gas and maintenance.
"The only benefit I get with Uber and Lyft is diabetes, high blood pressure and high cholesterol," said Al Aloudi, who has driven for the two companies since 2015. "Uber and Lyft give us messages that say AB 5 is about flexibility. AB 5 is not about flexibility, it's about our rights."
*DRIVER STRIFE*

Uber proposes $20M settlement of driver classification lawsuit
Lyft and Juno sue NYC over driver pay rules
Uber drivers protest low pay ahead of multibillion-dollar IPO
After hearing from the drivers, the four supervisors at the committee hearing all agreed more had to be done to protect gig workers. Supervisor Rafael Mandelman, who is chairman of the committee, got choked up saying how hard it was to hear their stories.
"I was thinking about the arrogance of people a decade ago that promised disruption, and boy have they delivered," Mandelman said. "In large part relying on a business model that dismantles more than half a century of advances in worker protections."
He and the other supervisors pledged to get the entire Board of Supervisors to pass the San Francisco resolution supporting AB 5. Mandelman said he'd be surprised if the resolution didn't pass unanimously.
AB 5 passed the California State Assembly on May 29 in a 53 to 11 vote. The State Senate is scheduled to hold a hearing on the bill on July 10.

iOS 13 comes with new Siri voice, dark mode, privacy features: All the new software Apple will soon deliver to your iPhone.
Best power banks and battery packs for Android devices: Looking for a pocket-size power bank for charging your Android smartphone on the go? Here are some top picks.

https://www.cnet.com/news/san-francisco-joins-the-fight-to-make-uber-lyft-drivers-employees/
Hahahahaha.

I told you Uber, I'm from the future, now get on with that full app and design revamp, go, andale!


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."

AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


Nah, other companies would take over on the spot, lol if austin being nothing got replacement within the week, imagine a gold mine like california.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> Nah, other companies would take over on the spot, lol if austin being nothing got replacement within the week, imagine a gold mine like california.


Goldmine, or cement shoes. It's all a matter of perspective.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Goldmine, or cement shoes. It's all a matter of perspective.


I think California is their highest earning state next to NY.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> I think California is their highest earning state next to NY.


California revenue is nothing compared to how much they would end up losing if AB5 is passed and starts a trend across the nation. Lose 10% of revenue by dropping California, or increase your operating expenses 300% nationwide.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> California revenue is nothing compared to how much they would end up losing if AB5 is passed and starts a trend across the nation. Lose 10% of revenue by dropping California, or increase your operating expenses 300% nationwide.


Yeah but once it passes in CA it moves to the next place, whats happening is inevitable, Borello just got replaced by Dynamex.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> Yeah but once it passes in CA it moves to the next place, whats happening is inevitable, Borello just got replaced by Dynamex.


If California passed AB5 and Uber/Lyft bailed, ZERO other states would adopt similar legislation. (and certainly not red, right to work states)

It's like amputating a dead limb to save your life. It may not be very palatable, but you'd do it if your life depended on it.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> If California passed AB5 and Uber/Lyft bailed, ZERO other states would adopt similar legislation. (and certainly not red, right to work states)
> 
> It's like amputating a dead limb to save your life. It may not be very palatable, but you'd do it if your life depended on it.


When Uber attempted the same thing in Austin, they failed, no one cares if they leave, other companies take over.

States will adopt the new test because:

The gig economy is proving to be an exploit of laws created in almost 100 years.

Untaxed skimmers tend to be parasitic and not distributional, either you feed the worker right or you feed the government their hand outs, that's all the government cares about, none of which is on uber's interest, this is why they buy and lobby people nonstop.

Uber no longer has a face, from hacking to breaking the law while laughing out of the building, obsessed lawmakers tend to detest such companies, they also cannot be bought and given the climate, they will go all out on such companies.

Uber is done unless they use the same design that made them all that money abusing contracting, this time to allow them at least time to come up with something new.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> When Uber attempted the same thing in Austin, they failed, no one cares if they leave, other companies take over.
> 
> States will adopt the new test because:
> 
> ...


Austin tried to regulate. Uber left. Austin backed down. Nobody followed. That's the cycle.

Laws are exploited and workers get screwed, but Wall St. doesn't care about ethics or workers rights. Nobody cares about workers. They care about MONEY.


----------



## peteyvavs (Nov 18, 2015)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


? you're so funny, California generates more revenue for Uber in one day then Texas does in a month.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

peteyvavs said:


> ? you're so funny, California generates more revenue for Uber in one day then Texas does in a month.


AB5 would cost the rideshare companies more than the revenue generated in California, and set a precedence that could bankrupt both. California ain't worth that.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Austin tried to regulate. Uber left. Austin backed down. Nobody followed. That's the cycle.
> 
> Laws are exploited and workers get screwed, but Wall St. doesn't care about ethics or workers rights. Nobody cares about workers. They care about MONEY.


Austin regulated, Uber was kicked rather than "left", though they made it look like they pulled, a week later "ride Austin" popped out and everyone was making good money, months after... Uber lobbied and pushed for state law to undo Austin's changes, eventually they came back because they knew no one cared about their absence and they were losing income.

That's just about what happened, in California, it will be even less than a week to replace them.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> in California, it will be even less than a week to replace them.


It's doubtful that anyone would be willing to take on that risk with AB5.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> It's doubtful that anyone would be willing to take on that risk with AB5.


All you have to do is design based on skirting such law, as long as your "contractors" approve, you are Gucci.

AB5 would never work if they:

Got rid of rating that results in deactivation (control).

Changed the way you see the contracts (open destinations).

Allowed people to set their prices and even haggling ( contracting 101).

Just by changing those 3 things you already stopped AB5.

But you can always pull out or pay, either way I'm sure someone is already doing this form of design, no wait... they already did! and are just waiting to fill Uber's hole.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

The Entomologist said:


> The debate over how to classify gig workers heats up in California as state mulls new law.
> 
> BY
> DARA KERR
> ...


While they're fixing Uber and Lyft maybe they can also take care of all the poop on their streets.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Entomologist said:


> All you have to do is design based on skirting such law, as long as your "contractors" approve, you are Gucci.
> 
> AB5 would never work if they:
> 
> ...


Uber will never ditch ratings. It's their only "quality control" to weed out the morons. All of the other things I can agree with you on. Others *could* try to step in, but who has the resources to hire tens of thousands of EMPLOYEES demanding benefits, and be willing to be the rideshare guinea pig in the most expensive US state?


----------



## GoldenGoji (Apr 30, 2018)

If drivers weren't paid in terms of CENTS per mile, then this wouldn't have ballooned up to this kind of situation. No driver's expecting to become a millionaire driving for Uber or Lyft. Most drivers only want to make enough money to be able to pay living expenses, pay the cost of vehicle maintenance and daily gas use, and have some extra money to save. When you're being paid in CENTS, you need to drive a lot of passengers around to even break $100 a day (without the cost of gas and whatever taken out yet), especially if you're in an area where people only take short trips and you rarely get medium length ones, and gas is $4 per gallon. If Uber and Lyft decide to raise the per mile rate to maybe $2 or $3, then at least personally to me, it would seem like a hard day's work would actually be decent. People who do this full time will benefit greatly, while those who do it part time won't feel like they just got screwed in the ass by Uber or Lyft's spiked bat.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


If I were CEO of these companies I'd drop Seattle down to 60 cents a mile.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

observer said:


> If I were CEO of these companies I'd drop Seattle down to 60 cents a mile.


Sounds like talking about hypothetical "solutions" hit a nerve.

Dropping Seattle that far would almost certainly cause Washington to pass their version of AB5, thus compounding the problem. Unlike Newsom, our idiot governor wouldn't hesitate at all to sign this ASAP.

Unfortunately, people here don't want to talk about what could realistically happen, just what people want to happen.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> Uber will never ditch ratings. It's their only "quality control" to weed out the morons. All of the other things I can agree with you on. Others *could* try to step in, but who has the resources to hire tens of thousands of EMPLOYEES demanding benefits, and be willing to be the rideshare guinea pig in the most expensive US state?


It's not quality control but plain control, the morons are actually the ones who look at it and keep it high.

You already can get deactivated via reports for drinking, sex abuse, etc, the rating system only enables Uber to control your actions outside being a driver ( water bottles, stops, wait times, conversations), being that displeasing the pax in any way may cause you to get closer to deactivation, this is PRIMARILY how they control drivers actions.

If the won't get rid of it, I'm sure the next rideshare will figure it out.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fozzie said:


> Sounds like talking about hypothetical "solutions" hit a nerve.
> 
> Dropping Seattle that far would almost certainly cause Washington to pass their version of AB5, thus compounding the problem. Unlike Newsom, our idiot governor wouldn't hesitate at all to sign this ASAP.


Not really, I don't drive Uber or Lyft so it doesn't affect me personally, yet.

To me this is about stopping the rights of employees from being slowly eroded by companies that only care about profit and screw their workers. Doesn't matter if they are independent contractors or employees, they are getting screwed.

I'm more worried about what will happen to my kids and their children if we don't stop these predatory companies from spreading their "gig" economy BS.

Your point of view would certainly change (as you have stated in another thread) if Seattle (your market) dropped from 1.10 per mile down to what most markets are paying. Some markets are getting half of what you are getting paid.

You are the exception not the rule. Of course you don't want things to change. You are in one of the best markets for drivers. But you are in a bubble precisely because the cities in WA saw that Uber/Lyft were operating unlawfully and started to regulate them.

I, like you, am mostly retired. I've done OK. I don't need the income so I never started driving. It just rubs me the wrong way that no one has stepped up and stopped these companies from abusing their workers.

Until now.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


Ubers share price becomes 5 dollars and Ola and Didi Chuxing are replacing Uber immediately. Lyft would also be grateful.

Note Uber says "could effect drivers flexibly" call BS on that as well. Uber can bluster as it likes it has no choice but to go along with the new regulations start making plans for similar regulations in other states.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

that's all uber and lyft can do....... threaten people



observer said:


> Not really, I don't drive Uber or Lyft so it doesn't affect me personally, yet.
> 
> To me this is about stopping the rights of employees from being slowly eroded by companies that only care about profit and screw their workers. Doesn't matter if they are independent contractors or employees, they are getting screwed.
> 
> ...


i'm sick of their abuse too


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

observer said:


> Not really, I don't drive Uber or Lyft so it doesn't affect me personally, yet.
> 
> To me this is about stopping the rights of employees from being slowly eroded by companies that only care about profit and screw their workers. Doesn't matter if they are independent contractors or employees, they are getting screwed.
> 
> ...


What irritates me is that drivers in California want to totally redefine EVERYONES job description to match their vision of employment utopia. If you want to drive. If you want to be a W2 employee. If you don't care about setting your own hours or schedule flexibility, go drive a damn taxi and leave my job alone. I value TIME. I value FLEXIBILITY. I value being a self employed 1099 driver. All of these are very much in jeopardy.

If you work a W2 job and you don't like the pay, or you're mad about the lack of benefits, you either suck it up or you get up off your ass and find a job that offers what you want. Drivers already have that ability. If they're unhappy, find another job that they'll be happy doing. Is that really too much to ask?


----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

I don't want a "living wage." I want production and productivity financial incentives: Like: Extra pay for seniority. A COLA for when gas increases, as its doing in Ohio due to a 10cent/gallon state tax hike starting next week. Perks for seniority: Like extra pay, bonuses, and ride preferences. A two-year-plus driver with a 4.3 or higher rating should get a semi-annual bonus, or ride preferences, maybe increases in gas discount perks without having to give more rides. Give a new driver something to work toward and look forward to. And keep an older, established driver in the fold and happily rewarded.

All this "living wage' turns out to be "barely living wage" when all is said and done. I want better than "living wage." I want incentives that give me the chance to earn more money because I'm on the job longer than the average driver and have an outstanding rating therefore Im providing outstanding customer service. Reward me for THAT.

About that sign up there: "We deserve a living wage." Actually, no you don't "deserve" a living wage.


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


RIght to work states does not equate to the right to pay below minimum wage. California will be better for it if they pass AB5 and hopefully it will set a precedent that will eventually make its way across the country. As for Texas, I have lived there and yes, they could care less about the workers or quality of life so UL would fit right into their culture.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

nouberipo said:


> RIght to work states does not equate to the right to pay below minimum wage. California will be better for it if they pass AB5 and hopefully it will set a precedent that will eventually make its way across the country. As for Texas, I have lived there and yes, they could care less about the workers or quality of life so UL would fit right into their culture.


If they were to move to TX, drivers would remain 1099 contractors, not W2 employees. Minimum wage laws wouldn't apply. Further, would California be better off? Drivers would go from bad pay to no pay at all. Hardly an improvement IMO.

If you're not happy with the pay offered by the rideshare companies, refuse the work and walk away, not try to redefine the company to fit you idea or workplace utopia.

Want to drive, be a W2 employee and have benefits? You can already do that. I'm sure there's a cab company in your area offering those things.


----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

Why does California have this incessant need to dictate to the rest of the country what it thinks we should all be doing, how we should all be living, how much all our jobs should be paying, etc.? i don't want the government telling me how much I should earn. That's what the Old Soviet Union did: Determined who would work where and how much they would earn. I mean, look at the state, today, after half a century of well-intended socialist policies, tax and spend, and over-reaching government. It's pathetic. And they think the rest of us want to be like California? We don't.There. I said it. With love. Clean up your act, California. Remember when you used to be special? We do. And we're waiting on you to pull yourselves together and be special again.


----------



## Gtown Driver (Aug 26, 2018)

LOL. The dude on the left looks like Dara.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fozzie said:


> What irritates me is that drivers in California want to totally redefine EVERYONES job description to match their vision of employment utopia. If you want to drive. If you want to be a W2 employee. If you don't care about setting your own hours or schedule flexibility, go drive a damn taxi and leave my job alone. I value TIME. I value FLEXIBILITY. I value being a self employed 1099 driver. All of these are very much in jeopardy.
> 
> If you work a W2 job and you don't like the pay, or you're mad about the lack of benefits, you either suck it up or you get up off your ass and find a job that offers what you want. Drivers already have that ability. If they're unhappy, find another job that they'll be happy doing. Is that really too much to ask?


Let's flip this around, you stated expenses were higher in Seattle that's why your house cost 850,000 dllrs, your car registration transfer from Florida was a thousand dllrs etc.

Why did you move to a place that cost so much to live in. Go find a job that is not Uber and pay for it. It is not California drivers fault that YOU moved to an area with such high living expenses.

Drivers in California value their TIME and FLEXIBILITY too. Why should they conform to a job description that benefits YOU and not them?

Come back and talk when Uber drops your pay by 50% and tell us how you feel.



Rosalita said:


> I don't want a "living wage." I want production and productivity financial incentives: Like: Extra pay for seniority. A COLA for when gas increases, as its doing in Ohio due to a 10cent/gallon state tax hike starting next week. Perks for seniority: Like extra pay, bonuses, and ride preferences. A two-year-plus driver with a 4.3 or higher rating should get a semi-annual bonus, or ride preferences, maybe increases in gas discount perks without having to give more rides. Give a new driver something to work toward and look forward to. And keep an older, established driver in the fold and happily rewarded.
> 
> All this "living wage' turns out to be "barely living wage" when all is said and done. I want better than "living wage." I want incentives that give me the chance to earn more money because I'm on the job longer than the average driver and have an outstanding rating therefore Im providing outstanding customer service. Reward me for THAT.
> 
> About that sign up there: "We deserve a living wage." Actually, no you don't "deserve" a living wage.


You can't get all that, you are an employee.

Independent contractors can negotiate everything you are asking for but you are an independent contractor in name only.



Rosalita said:


> Why does California have this incessant need to dictate to the rest of the country what it thinks we should all be doing, how we should all be living, how much all our jobs should be paying, etc.? i don't want the government telling me how much I should earn. That's what the Old Soviet Union did: Determined who would work where and how much they would earn. I mean, look at the state, today, after half a century of well-intended socialist policies, tax and spend, and over-reaching government. It's pathetic. And they think the rest of us want to be like California? We don't.There. I said it. With love. Clean up your act, California. Remember when you used to be special? We do. And we're waiting on you to pull yourselves together and be special again.


Obviously you don't live in California.

We don't dictate to other states what to do. We set an example and other states *choose* to follow our example or not.

We are special.

I love living here.

In California.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

observer said:


> Let's flip this around, you stated expenses were higher in Seattle that's why your house cost 850,000 dllrs, your car registration transfer from Florida was a thousand dllrs etc.
> 
> Why did you move to a place that cost so much to live in. Go find a job that is not Uber and pay for it. It is not California drivers fault that YOU moved to an area with such high living expenses.
> 
> ...


I made the decision to move to Washington in 2001 because it offered a climate and atmosphere that I enjoyed, but if it weren't within my budget, I'd have gone elsewhere to a place where I could afford to live. I wouldn't have expected other to change to fit my inadequacies.

NOBODY is forcing California drivers to drive. The drivers choose to do it. Don't like the terms? Go elsewhere. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?

If Uber holds up a $20 bill and asks who wants to drive someone to the airport for twenty bucks, you can either snag the cash and do the job, or you can decline and let someone else take it. You don't demand that they pay you more, give you additional benefits or offer other additional perks. You take it or you leave it.

FWIW, California is ok, but I'd rather sell my property in Oceanside than live there again.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fozzie said:


> I made the decision to move to Washington in 2001 because it offered a climate and atmosphere that I enjoyed, but if it weren't within my budget, I'd have gone elsewhere to a place where I could afford to live. I wouldn't have expected other to change to fit my inadequacies.
> 
> NOBODY is forcing California drivers to drive. The drivers choose to do it. Don't like the terms? Go elsewhere. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
> 
> ...


The thing is we can't all run away to some other state. People have their families here. Their family has other jobs here. Families don't need to be uprooted because "gig" companies think they are exempt from long established rules of employment.

The same goes for Uber. No one is forcing them to break the law. They can play by the same rules as every other company in California that has employees.

Someone has to take a stand. Wages are dropping because no one fights back.

Uber has ZERO credibility. From the start they broke every law they could. Better to ask forgiveness than permission.

"Because we can" remember that?

They thought they could become to big to fail. Rome thought the same thing.

If they can't play by the rules they will cease to exist and another company will come in and follow the rules.

How bout drivers at least get paid 1.10 per mile? Not any more, not any less than you are getting paid.

My daughters best friend lives in Oceanside. I've driven her there a few times. I honestly thought it was kinda bland. Not sure why, maybe the overcast weather or lack of vegetation where she lives. Not quite sure why.

Washington is beautiful. I've been there many, many times on family driving vacations.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

The Entomologist said:


> The debate over how to classify gig workers heats up in California as state mulls new law.
> 
> BY
> DARA KERR
> ...


You can't pay your rent? America, blame the people that become successful on your poor life management. 
CA: Going to ruin this for the rest of the country.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Ssgcraig said:


> You can't pay your rent? America, blame the people that become successful on your poor life management.
> CA: Going to ruin this for the rest of the country.


Nah, let's just watch Uber burn in a blaze.


----------



## Demon (Dec 6, 2014)

Rosalita said:


> Why does California have this incessant need to dictate to the rest of the country what it thinks we should all be doing, how we should all be living, how much all our jobs should be paying, etc.? i don't want the government telling me how much I should earn. That's what the Old Soviet Union did: Determined who would work where and how much they would earn. I mean, look at the state, today, after half a century of well-intended socialist policies, tax and spend, and over-reaching government. It's pathetic. And they think the rest of us want to be like California? We don't.There. I said it. With love. Clean up your act, California. Remember when you used to be special? We do. And we're waiting on you to pull yourselves together and be special again.


I know, right? It's crazy that people in California want the law to be upheld.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rosalita said:


> Why does California have this incessant need to dictate to the rest of the country what it thinks we should all be doing, how we should all be living, how much all our jobs should be paying, etc.? i don't want the government telling me how much I should earn. That's what the Old Soviet Union did: Determined who would work where and how much they would earn. I mean, look at the state, today, after half a century of well-intended socialist policies, tax and spend, and over-reaching government. It's pathetic. And they think the rest of us want to be like California? We don't.There. I said it. With love. Clean up your act, California. Remember when you used to be special? We do. And we're waiting on you to pull yourselves together and be special again.


California has no authority to tell Indiana what to do.

It sounds more like you are telling California what to do.

And it sounds like Uber and Lyft are paying you to do just that.


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

Demon said:


> I know, right? It's crazy that people in California want the law to be upheld.


Just the laws that they feel at the moment they want upheld.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

We need another city to join this gangbang.


----------



## Rosalita (May 13, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> California has no authority to tell Indiana what to do.
> 
> It sounds more like you are telling California what to do.
> 
> And it sounds like Uber and Lyft are paying you to do just that.


Oh, Honey, I guarantee you I'm not paid by Lift to debate you on the subject of "living wage." lol California can do what it wants. But it doesn't seem happy confining it's crazy to just California. The last strike orginating in California with Uber and Lyft drivers they were out here in other states, like mine, soliciting our participation. But each driver can do what he or she wants. Unfortunately, some people won't be happy until they have socialized the entire country, our jobs, and our paychecks. Equally poor, equally miserable, and equally ignorant.



observer said:


> The thing is we can't all run away to some other state. People have their families here. Their family has other jobs here. Families don't need to be uprooted because "gig" companies think they are exempt from long established rules of employment.
> 
> The same goes for Uber. No one is forcing them to break the law. They can play by the same rules as every other company in California that has employees.
> 
> ...


Americans have been moving for better jobs, better lifestyles, to try out new places, to settle new places since the 1600's. Actually, the current situation has been the LEAST mobile in a long, long time. My parents moved for better jobs. I moved for better jobs. What's your missing here is that you don't have a right to sit in one place and expect the rest of the world to bend to your whims. Want job security, where mediocrity pays off in spades, where you can practically never be fired for incompetence, indifference, or anything else? Work for the government.



Fozzie said:


> If they were to move to TX, drivers would remain 1099 contractors, not W2 employees. Minimum wage laws wouldn't apply. Further, would California be better off? Drivers would go from bad pay to no pay at all. Hardly an improvement IMO.
> 
> If you're not happy with the pay offered by the rideshare companies, refuse the work and walk away, not try to redefine the company to fit you idea or workplace utopia.
> 
> Want to drive, be a W2 employee and have benefits? You can already do that. I'm sure there's a cab company in your area offering those things.


Your post is right on, Fozzie. All this free stuff, "living wage," etc. sounds so delightful until the reality sets in. And reality always sets in. We already have experiments in rewarding mediocrity, laziness, and guaranteeing people jobs and paychecks. They're called government employees. Try to fire one or take away a pay increase for bad job performance.

What's going on with the entire California thing is a symptom of a greater illness. The unwillingness of some people to take individual responsibility along with their individual freedom. Do we need policies and laws that protect employees from work place abuses? Certainly. We've done a great job of that for the last 100 years starting with child labor laws, etc. Is a minimum wage okay? Yes, it is and there's never been any evidence of a minimum wage *increase by the Fed government* resulting in the loss of jobs. But this "guaranteed income thing" and "living wage" is a different animal. No one who doesn't work & who is able-bodied should be "guaranteed" an income.

The entire effort for government to dictate wages to a business is absurd. The Fed government established a minimum wage across the board for the entire country. Most companies, right down to the Dollar Store employee who operates the cash register, already pay more than an a state's minimum wage. In full employment, wages increase as businesses compete for fewer available workers. Uber and Lyft are not traditional businesses. They have few competitors therefore they don't experience labor shortages or compete for drivers or workers in the traditional labor pool. As a matter of fact, drivers play one company off the other and drive for both.The solution isn't to force them to do anything. The solution is for more companies to enter the market. Uber and Lyft don't change because their competitors don't force them into changes. They're stale, static, basically inflexible in their business model - and already extinct.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Rosalita said:


> Oh, Honey, I guarantee you I'm not paid by Lift to debate you on the subject of "living wage." lol California can do what it wants. But it doesn't seem happy confining it's crazy to just California. The last strike orginating in California with Uber and Lyft drivers they were out here in other states, like mine, soliciting our participation. But each driver can do what he or she wants. Unfortunately, some people won't be happy until they have socialized the entire country, our jobs, and our paychecks. Equally poor, equally miserable, and equally ignorant.
> 
> 
> Americans have been moving for better jobs, better lifestyles, to try out new places, to settle new places since the 1600's. Actually, the current situation has been the LEAST mobile in a long, long time. My parents moved for better jobs. I moved for better jobs. What's your missing here is that you don't have a right to sit in one place and expect the rest of the world to bend to your whims. Want job security, where mediocrity pays off in spades, where you can practically never be fired for incompetence, indifference, or anything else? Work for the government.
> ...


nobody is being "socialized" by ab5


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Rosalita said:


> Oh, Honey, I guarantee you I'm not paid by Lift to debate you on the subject of "living wage." lol California can do what it wants. But it doesn't seem happy confining it's crazy to just California. The last strike orginating in California with Uber and Lyft drivers they were out here in other states, like mine, soliciting our participation. But each driver can do what he or she wants. Unfortunately, some people won't be happy until they have socialized the entire country, our jobs, and our paychecks. Equally poor, equally miserable, and equally ignorant.
> 
> 
> Americans have been moving for better jobs, better lifestyles, to try out new places, to settle new places since the 1600's. Actually, the current situation has been the LEAST mobile in a long, long time. My parents moved for better jobs. I moved for better jobs. What's your missing here is that you don't have a right to sit in one place and expect the rest of the world to bend to your whims. Want job security, where mediocrity pays off in spades, where you can practically never be fired for incompetence, indifference, or anything else? Work for the government.
> ...


Really? You think upholding worker rights, and correct classifications is socialism?

Uber shouldn't exist, it's a parasite here to exploit loopholes in the laws through technology, what do you think is the first thing they thought when AB5 was inevitable? Redesign the app in a way it would be more contractor friendly and less employee? no, they:

1. Tricked their drivers into opposing it.

2. Hired a huge lawfirm to fight it.

3. Attempted to make deals with unions to find loopholes.

If those aren't the actions of a criminal hiding behind legit business, I don't know what is, stop defending these parasites and their ponzi.


----------



## Stephen Uno (Jan 17, 2018)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


Sounds ignorant. What's your definition of a independent contractor? You think other state won't follow through?


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

Stephen Uno said:


> Sounds ignorant. What's your definition of a independent contractor? You think other state won't follow through?


Ignorant? Says the ant that drives UberEats in the ****ing desert. yeah, ok.

If this "I want to be a minimum wage employee" sickness spreads here, I'd be out, but hopefully people will learn from California's mistake before it's too late.


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Fozzie said:


> If you don't care about setting your own hours or schedule flexibility, go drive a damn taxi and leave my job alone. I value TIME. I value FLEXIBILITY.


Why would you necessarily have to lose flexibility as an employee though? There is nothing in the bill that says that employees must work rigid shifts. This whole "you'd lose your flexibility as an employee" lark is disinformation spread by Uberlyft with no basis in fact.

In fact, back in 2016 and Uberlyft had its hourly guarantees of $30 per hour, I picked and chose the hours I worked. If I wanted to work 3 hours from 10pm to 1am and earn $90, I did. If I wanted to work the next day 2 hours from 9pm to 11pm and earn $60, I did. There's no statutory requirement whatsoever for hourly-paid employees to work fixed, rigid schedules.

Uberlyft claiming that employee status will force them to limit flexibility, they may as well say, "if AB5 passes then we'll be forced to whip you all with rubber hoses". It's a nonsense; the former has nothing to do with the latter.

Uberlyft may well choose to impose inflexible schedules on their employees post-AB5, but it will be because they choose to, not because of AB5.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Fozzie said:


> If they were to move to TX, drivers would remain 1099 contractors, not W2 employees. Minimum wage laws wouldn't apply. Further, would California be better off? Drivers would go from bad pay to no pay at all. Hardly an improvement IMO.
> 
> If you're not happy with the pay offered by the rideshare companies, refuse the work and walk away, not try to redefine the company to fit you idea or workplace utopia.
> 
> Want to drive, be a W2 employee and have benefits? You can already do that. I'm sure there's a cab company in your area offering those things.


uber loves you.

cab companies are hiring? oh. I thought they barely survive nowadays.



Rosalita said:


> Why does California have this incessant need to dictate to the rest of the country what it thinks we should all be doing, how we should all be living, how much all our jobs should be paying, etc.? i don't want the government telling me how much I should earn. That's what the Old Soviet Union did: Determined who would work where and how much they would earn. I mean, look at the state, today, after half a century of well-intended socialist policies, tax and spend, and over-reaching government. It's pathetic. And they think the rest of us want to be like California? We don't.There. I said it. With love. Clean up your act, California. Remember when you used to be special? We do. And we're waiting on you to pull yourselves together and be special again.


lol what state are you from??



Fozzie said:


> I made the decision to move to Washington in 2001 because it offered a climate and atmosphere that I enjoyed, but if it weren't within my budget, I'd have gone elsewhere to a place where I could afford to live. I wouldn't have expected other to change to fit my inadequacies.
> 
> NOBODY is forcing California drivers to drive. The drivers choose to do it. Don't like the terms? Go elsewhere. Why is that such a hard concept to grasp?
> 
> ...


you and rosalita sound a bit like my colleague. he HATES the idea of government telling people what they can or cannot do. he believes in pure capitalism where government should only lightly touch their pinky toe to the water...and that's it.

he had the same argument/reasoning with me when it came to the small businesses and rent control situation in SF.

my point is, and maybe you'll be open minded enough to digest--is that if the government was completely hands off (and why wouldn't we want that ideally).. the smaller businesses cannot compete with the larger businesses. the larger businesses having already establish their infrastructure and relationship/contracts with factories and vendors...they will ALWAYS win against the small businesses because they can undercut their prices and essentially drive them out of the market by buying in bulk with the war chest they've accumulated..

and so smaller businesses cannot afford the overhead without having higher prices for their goods, to make economical sense in order to keep running.

so if the government doesn't step in and the smaller businesses do not have the capability to compete with the larger businesses simply due to the lack of negotiating power--what do you think happens? big boxes pop up..oh there are city ordinances keeping from a certain size of the big box within x miles radius of another? lets build a city version of it that is smaller and fits within code *cough*bribeI*cough*.

and then the smaller businesses one by one eventually fall by the wayside..

and consumers have less options to choose from for their purchasing power.

sounds familiar?

why do people not shop small businesses so this doesn't happen? similar to why people won't spend more to hire a personal driver via craigslist to cut out the middleman--because uber/lyft has gotten so big they can basically undercut any businesses and hell, even taxis.

so yeah, tell these folks they don't have to work for uber/lyft...they can just go drive for...

wait are cabs hiring?

edit to add--by the way when I explained that above^ as to why it's critical for the government to step in and protect/nurture the small businesses...the first time in a long time he looked dumbfounded. just for a second but it was enough.


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

The Gift of Fish said:


> Why would you necessarily have to lose flexibility as an employee though? There is nothing in the bill that says that employees must work rigid shifts. This whole "you'd lose your flexibility as an employee" lark is disinformation spread by Uberlyft with no basis in fact.
> 
> In fact, back in 2016 and Uberlyft had its hourly guarantees of $30 per hour, I picked and chose the hours I worked. If I wanted to work 3 hours from 10pm to 1am and earn $90, I did. If I wanted to work the next day 2 hours from 9pm to 11pm and earn $60, I did. There's no statutory requirement whatsoever for hourly-paid employees to work fixed, rigid schedules.
> 
> ...


Do you think they wouldn't follow through on the threat of loss of flexibility if they get stuck with hundreds of thousands of employees?

Would they have to be dicks about it? No, but if it's forced on them, they'd probably do it to just for putting them in that predicament.

Again, if you want to work for minimum wage, that's on you. I just think this legislation will kill the business and put people in a worse predicament than they're already in.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> If this "I want to be a minimum wage employee"


lmao....you seem to be confusing minimum wage with maximum wage in your zeal to shill for your boys Uber and Lyft

all minimum wage means is thats the lowest you can make

that means the people making less than minimum wage no longer make less than minimum wage...and for employees that means after expenses are deducted

try harder



Fozzie said:


> Do you think they wouldn't follow through on the threat of loss of flexibility if they get stuck with hundreds of thousands of employees?
> 
> Would they have to be dicks about it? No, but if it's forced on them, they'd probably do it to just for putting them in that predicament.


the law has no impact whatsoever on drivers ability to go online when they want nor is there anything whatsoever in the bill that mandates it


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

sellkatsell44 said:


> uber loves you.


Not even close. They hate me and I hate them. We just need to work together sometimes to protect our interests. 


> cab companies are hiring? oh. I thought they barely survive nowadays.


Cabs ARE hiring, and their business is getting better the more Uber and Lyft screw drivers.



> you and rosalita sound a bit like my colleague. he HATES the idea of government telling people what they can or cannot do. he believes in pure capitalism where government should only lightly touch their pinky toe to the water...and that's it.


I never insinuated that my beliefs were driven by blind belief in "pure capitalism." My beliefs are based on what I think would be best for drivers. (Like me)



> my point is, and maybe you'll be open minded enough to digest--is that if the government was completely hands off (and why wouldn't we want that ideally).. the smaller businesses cannot compete with the larger businesses. the larger businesses having already establish their infrastructure and relationship/contracts with factories and vendors...they will ALWAYS win against the small businesses because they can undercut their prices and essentially drive them out of the market by buying in bulk with the war chest they've accumulated..
> 
> and so smaller businesses cannot afford the overhead without having higher prices for their goods, to make economical sense in order to keep running.
> 
> ...


FWIW, **** I DO BELIEVE THAT THE GOVERNMENT NEEDS TO REGULATE RIDESHARE **** I just don't think that this is the right way of doing so. Cap the number of drivers on the road and you'll force these companies to stop treating drivers like disposable trash.



uberdriverfornow said:


> lmao....you seem to be confusing minimum wage with maximum wage in your zeal to shill for your boys Uber and Lyft


I've driven 17 trips this week. How about you? If you're driving more for these "evil companies," then you're the shill in bed with them



> all minimum wage means is thats the lowest you can make


And as is the case with fast food, minimum wage is also about the most that you'll make. 


> that means the people making less than minimum wage no longer make less than minimum wage...and for employees that means after expenses are deducted


If you're not breaking $12 driving in California, you're doing it wrong and need to reassess your strategy. 


> the law has no impact whatsoever on drivers ability to go online when they want nor is there anything whatsoever in the bill that mandates it


No the law doesn't regulate drivers ability to go online. That's what EMPLOYERS do, and that's what Uber and Lyft are saying will happen.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> Not even close. They hate me and I hate them. We just need to work together sometimes to protect our interests.
> 
> Cabs ARE hiring, and their business is getting better the more Uber and Lyft screw drivers.
> 
> ...


by your own admission you're also in bed with Uber

in-n-out managers make over $100k a year








In-N-Out managers make $160,000 per year


The burger chain "is just eons above everybody else,” a food labor researcher told 'The California Sun'



www.usatoday.com





not all drivers are making more than minimum wage in california....ab5 ensures that all drivers throughout california are making minimum wage and, again, that is after expenses are deducted

all that matters is that the law doesn't mandate drivers to have set schedules....since that is not the case there is literally no reason for uber and lyft to try to set schedules since they won't have any drivers and it couldn't work anyhow since the dynamics of rideshare has drivers constantly overlapping several cities during a shift


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> by your own admission you're also in bed with Uber
> 
> in-n-out managers make over $100k a year


My recommendation: Apply as a manager at In and Out.



> not all drivers are making more than minimum wage in california....ab5 ensures that all drivers throughout california are making minimum wage and, again, that is after expenses are deducted


 $12 after expenses is still HORRIBLE earnings. You wouldn't be earning any more than a McDonalds employee, who makes $12 /hr. 


> all that matters is that the law doesn't mandate drivers to have set schedules....since that is not the case there is literally no reason for uber and lyft to try to set schedules since they won't have any drivers and it couldn't work anyhow since the dynamics of rideshare has drivers constantly overlapping several cities during a shift


The law doesn't mandate drivers having to set schedules. That law doesn't address that at all, meaning Uber and Lyft will still be free to do what they want. Do you work more than 30 hrs a week? That'll go away if AB5 passes. You'll work holidays, nights and weekends, events, etc.

When they want, where they want. (All for minimum wage)


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> $12 after expenses is still HORRIBLE earnings.


but it's more than those in rural areas of california are currently making after expenses


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> but it's more than those in rural areas of california are currently making after expenses


Then driving rideshare in those areas may not be the best career choice.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> Then driving rideshare in those areas may not be the best career choice.


nah, we'd rather mandate that uber and lyft follow the law


----------



## Fozzie (Aug 11, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> nah, we'd rather mandate that uber and lyft follow the law


You mean you'd rather write a law to fit your agenda.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> You mean you'd rather write a law to fit your agenda.


I'm in California where this law applies. What state are you in ?


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

Fozzie said:


> Do you think they wouldn't follow through on the threat of loss of flexibility if they get stuck with hundreds of thousands of employees?


Of course they would. That's not related to the point I was making, though.


> Would they have to be dicks about it? No, but if it's forced on them, they'd probably do it to just for putting them in that predicament.


This is my point. The legislature will also see straight through the claim that loss of flexibility is an inevitable result of employee classification. They will see it for the threat it appears to be - "if you (legislature) make us employ these workers, then we will take away their flexibility". I don't think that such threats will have the desired effect on lawmakers. This is typical, however, of Uber's arrogant and bolshie MO. It appears they're about to get schooled.


> Again, if you want to work for minimum wage, that's on you. I just think this legislation will kill the business and put people in a worse predicament than they're already in.


The race to the bottom is not over. As fake ICs, the pay cuts are not over. Uberlyft has confirmed this and promised it to its investors in its IPO S1 documents. We're not yet at minimum wage + benefits, but we're not far from it in many areas such as LA and SF.

And I think you're right - if these businesses cannot remain in business while fulfilling the obligations that all companies have towards their employees then maybe they should not survive. I think that "we can only stay in business if we're given special exemptions from the law" doesn't cut it.


----------



## SFOspeedracer (Jun 25, 2019)

Am I the only one in the San Francisco Bay Area that does *NOT *want this stupid assembly bill to pass. Jesus ****ing Christ, you all are gonna be the same people posting weeks after it passes about how docked in hours you are or how you got kicked out the app as soon as it became official and you tried to apply and you can't because they no longer need the millions of ant infestations, since there's no way the saturation in this states large cities is gonna allow everyone to receive all the rainbows and butterflies you think you will get with two of the most *greedy* companies in the free world. And so many people are confusing and interchangeably assuming terms and benefits of employee status with *WELFARE STATUS.*

12-15 an hour in the Bay Area would not cut it, I still make double that after expenses playing my market right. The stupid ants doing pool and living out of the airport is why this is become an uproar in LAX and SFO. Thank god I can walk away from this, but the flexibility to work no hours or work 20 is why I signed up in the first place

The only thing I can stand on common ground with is that yes, Uber and Lyft could of just made things 100000x simpler by setting a fair per mile per minute rate, I like the next guy despise the ridiculous rate decreases, but if they can't even do that, what makes anyone think that they will make things simple for you as an employee? Labor laws or not, people in other companies under w2s still @@@@@ about how their company finds loopholes to @@@@ them over. You really think U/L won't fight back in the mud until they pull out completely? Please get real


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SFOspeedracer said:


> Am I the only one in the San Francisco Bay Area that does *NOT *want this stupid assembly bill to pass. Jesus @@@@ing Christ, you all are gonna be the same people posting weeks after it passes about how docked in hours you are or how you got kicked out the app as soon as it became official and you tried to apply and you can't because they no longer need the millions of ant infestations, since there's no way the saturation in this states large cities is gonna allow everyone to receive all the rainbows and butterflies you think you will get with two of the most *greedy* companies in the free world. And so many people are confusing and interchangeably assuming terms and benefits of employee status with *WELFARE STATUS.*


ya thats fair to drivers in other parts of the state that are making less than minimum wage to not help them by passing this bill

ya keep burying your head in the sand thinking that Uber isn't going to keep cutting our rates and implementing things on a whim like "uber comfort" that tells you what you can and can't do in your own car during a ride and still call you an independent contractor

keep dreaming because Uber can not, under any circumstances, be trusted not to screw you by making you agree to do something tomorrow or you can't drive anymore or go online tomorrow

tomorrow you go online and Uber can make you drive for 5 cents a mile on a whim and you think that's fair to other drivers in the country that have bought cars and quit jobs to do this job and wake up to a serious pay cut ?

you think that's fair ? this bill says they can not cut wages below a set minimum and must give us benefits to compensate us for treating us like employees for both now and previous years


----------



## SFOspeedracer (Jun 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> ya thats fair to drivers in other parts of the state that are making less than minimum wage to not help them by passing this bill
> 
> ya keep burying your head in the sand thinking that Uber isn't going to keep cutting our rates and implementing things on a whim like "uber comfort" that tells you what you can and can't do in your own car during a ride and still call you an independent contractor
> 
> ...


I'm not burying my head in the sand, I like 110% of people know and hate the rate decreases, but the Picasso portrait everyone's trying to paint with employee status is not feasible and disappointment awaits from this fake party you think Uber's going to throw to provide benefits to the infestation of riders. Even with flat rate, it still surges high in San Francisco and I don't even have to be downtown to make way more than 15 net .. I blame Uber for not playing fair, yes, but I also blame people for their horrible head math and making this their primary source of income in a state that *is known for being very costly to reside.*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SFOspeedracer said:


> I'm not burying my head in the sand, I like 110% of people know and hate the rate decreases, but the Picasso portrait everyone's trying to paint with employee status is not feasible and disappointment awaits from this fake party you think Uber's going to throw to provide benefits to the infestation of riders. Even with flat rate, it still surges high in San Francisco and I don't even have to be downtown to make way more than 15 net .. I blame Uber for not playing fair, yes, but I also blame people for their horrible head math and making this their primary source of income in a state that *is known for being very costly to reside.*


too bad, not everything revolves around us SF bay area drivers

but that's cool....you keep only worrying about yourself and let the adults care about others


----------



## SFOspeedracer (Jun 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> too bad, not everything revolves around us SF bay area drivers


No ones saying everything has to revolve around SF bay lol .. it's simple common figures one can pull together to know that this would flop .. but I'll leave it to the cess pool of drivers who will come here and ***** if/when it passes


----------



## The Gift of Fish (Mar 17, 2017)

It's not just the $15 per hour floor; it's the other benefits too. Unemployment benefit, health insurance, worker's comp etc. Maybe Uber would make us all part time in order to not pay some of these, but something is better than nothing.

AB5 or no AB5 I think that Uberlyft from a driver's point of view is dead in the water with only a very limited amount of viability left in it in the Bay Area. In LA I think it is already a waste of time. I don't know how or why drivers drive down there in that traffic for even lower rates than here.

Everyone has their own opinion on this, but I think one thing that we can all agree on is that, with its constant chipping away at driver earnings and conditions, Uberlyft brought AB5 upon itself.


----------



## kdyrpr (Apr 23, 2016)

Fozzie said:


> If I were the CEO of these companies, I'd schedule a press release on Monday morning: "*Uber/Lyft shift corporate headquarters to Austin, TX and will immediately cease all rideshare operations in the State of California*."
> 
> AB5 would instantly be DOA in Sacramento, and they'd be safer doing business in a red right to work state. This would also serve as a warning to all other states as to what will happen if they try the same path that California pursued. (This would also be MUCH cheaper than eating the huge losses that would be associated with AB5) I'd also bet that Wall Street would applaud the move.


25% of LYFTs revenue is from California.


----------



## sellkatsell44 (Oct 25, 2015)

Fozzie said:


> Not even close. They hate me and I hate them. We just need to work together sometimes to protect our interests.
> 
> Cabs ARE hiring, and their business is getting better the more Uber and Lyft screw drivers.
> 
> ...


That's what you believe.

In my market they aren't










Besides nyc I can't think of another market that has cabs thriving.

You didn't but your post pretty much is of a capitalist who doesn't realize that in that world someone else is looking out for their best interest as well and that leads to low fare, low pay and a mentality of its ok because I can sign on when I want and sign off when I want-not realizing that the market will dictate those hours unless you're not dependent on making a good pay.


----------



## SFOspeedracer (Jun 25, 2019)

The Gift of Fish said:


> It's not just the $15 per hour floor; it's the other benefits too. Unemployment benefit, health insurance, worker's comp etc. Maybe Uber would make us all part time in order to not pay some of these, but something is better than nothing.
> 
> AB5 or no AB5 I think that Uberlyft from a driver's point of view is dead in the water with only a very limited amount of viability left in it in the Bay Area. In LA I think it is already a waste of time. I don't know how or why drivers drive down there in that traffic for even lower rates than here.
> 
> Everyone has their own opinion on this, but I think one thing that we can all agree on is that, with its constant chipping away at driver earnings and conditions, Uberlyft brought AB5 upon itself.


I can agree with that to an extent, everyone would of backed off from striking had they just made adjustments, or kicked out 1000 of the pointless corporate officials/positions I see they hire on their website .. if they thought they couldn't still pull revenue by just setting the per mile a dollar and adjust it + from there, they are shit


----------

