# AB5's zeal to regulate rideshare is harming Calif. freelancers in other industries



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
*California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.

SAN FRANCISCO - Gloria Rivera likes the freedom of freelance.

She moved to San Diego from Peru in 2005 and has a bustling career as an interpreter and translator for doctors, courts and conferences.

Now, as a new California law governing freelancers is set to take effect on Wednesday, her clients are wary. They are asking for more paperwork. Some services are hitting pause on hiring Californians at all. ..... New York Times article link


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

.....Actually, 9 Justices sit on the US Supreme Court
Tic Tok &#128514;&#129315;

"_US Supreme Court unanimously Strike Down AB5" _

https://www.courthousenews.com/judge-wont-force-uber-to-treat-california-drivers-as-employees/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Cold Fusion said:


> .....Actually, 9 Justices sit on the US Supreme Court
> Tic Tok &#128514;&#129315;
> 
> "_US Supreme Court unanimously Strike Down AB5" _
> ...


there's only "1" Gloria Rivera


----------



## Cold Fusion (Aug 28, 2019)

Tic Tok
🔥💣 AB5 🔥💣


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


was involved in a similar thread about this earlier.

my two takes are:

1- ab5 is a terrible solution to a serious problem.

2- it showed that a few people can indeed form a strike and be effective. uber/lyft are showing vulnerability. saying you will spend a billion in legal fees to fight it doesn't portray strength. it portrays fear.

if we can strike and have effect we can create a new blueprint for how gig economy workers can form unions. i am perfectly fine with paying 2% of my income to the union if it protects me from the unscrupulous plans lyft/uber have already unleashed upon us and will attempt to again and again if left unchallenged.


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Boo Hoo, I don't give an F. Do you think corporate CEOs cry for you when they send your jobs overseas to save a few bucks so they can make more money? 

This argument that we have to let Uber keep money raping pax and drivers because one translator is pissed off is nonsense.

Do you know how much money Uber is stealing from the government by paying so little that drivers can't even afford to make a profit to pay taxes or pay into the self FICA taxes.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


Read the article first. Then you will have more credibility.

*Vox Media cut more than 200 California freelancers, citing the new law. The transcription service Rev told its freelancers that it would be leaving California.*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Read the article first. Then you will have more credibility.
> 
> *Vox Media cut more than 200 California freelancers, citing the new law. The transcription service Rev told its freelancers that it would be leaving California.*


no ****ing duh...the idea is to try to make AB5 look bad even though it's helping "millions" not be exploited anymore


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Another morally superior, virtue signaling, left bias leaning journalist news/opinion website playing the ideological hypocrite card. 

Cloaks themselves within the mantle of the law, to excuse all accountability to their Progressive Left wing roots (which btw champions worker rights and union friendly agendas). Use that exploitation to screw over self employed CA workers so they can save profits to their company's bottom line. 

Yet another beautiful, hypocritical day in the Progressive Left Utopian garden of dreams. :roflmao:


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Cynergie said:


> Another morally superior, virtue signaling, left bias leaning journalist news/opinion website playing the ideological hypocrite card.
> 
> Cloaks themselves within the mantle of the law, to excuse all accountability to their Progressive Left wing roots (which btw champions worker rights and union friendly agendas). Use that exploitation to screw over self employed CA workers so they can save profits to their company's bottom line.
> 
> Yet another beautiful, hypocritical day in the Progressive Left Utopian garden of dreams. :roflmao:


VOX already had agreed to hire back atleast 20 of those exploited freelancers as employees...and I'm sure more to follow

they only try to report on the supposed negative effects to try to make it look bad


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


Obviously it's not just one person. The law of unintended consequences will probably hurt many people. And that's IF the law even stands.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


THAT is California.
We have a $1.7 Billion in reserves.
150,000 homeless.
We owe $1.3 TRILLION in debt, much of it to fund government retirement programs.
The second highest taxes in the nation.

And, they're doing everything they can do to keep jobs down, keep 'the people' dependent on the gov't.
I gotta get out of here.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Obviously it's not just one person. The law of unintended consequences will probably hurt many people. And that's IF the law even stands.


So far only 200 supposed freelance jobs are reported to have been "threatened" to be taken away....however Vox simultaneously already agreed to hire 20 of them back on as employees.

Here, let me help you out. You really need to do a little research if you want to have any credibility.

www.forbes.com/sites/jackkelly/2019/12/18/vox-media-cuts-hundreds-of-jobs-as-a-result-of-the-california-assembly-bill-5/amp/

"Vox intends to replace the freelance writers with roughly 20 new part-time and full-time staffers. "

AB5 is already doing its job


----------



## Uberdriver2710 (Jul 15, 2015)

UberBastid said:


> THAT is California.
> We have a $1.7 Billion in reserves.
> 150,000 homeless.
> We owe $1.3 TRILLION in debt, much of it to fund government retirement programs.
> ...


Meanwhile prices rise and earnings fall, indefinitely.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
> *California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
> A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.
> 
> ...


State of California is a joke in every level & idiot leadership can't find their asses with both hands.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So far only 200 supposed freelance jobs are reported to have been "threatened" to be taken away....however Vox simultaneously already agreed to hire 20 of them back on as employees.
> 
> Here, let me help you out. You really need to do a little research if you want to have any credibility.
> 
> ...


"Vox had prior issues with its workers. A class action lawsuit was filed by over 100 SB Nation site managers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. One plaintiff alleged that she was required to work up to 40 hours per month and only paid a $125.00 stipend. In June, workers at Vox walked out of their offices in protest. The company and its employees could not come to terms over a contract. Subsequently, both parties agreed to union contract."

The real reason Vox is terminating those jobs.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> "Vox had prior issues with its workers. A class action lawsuit was filed by over 100 SB Nation site managers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. One plaintiff alleged that she was required to work up to 40 hours per month and only paid a $125.00 stipend. In June, workers at Vox walked out of their offices in protest. The company and its employees could not come to terms over a contract. Subsequently, both parties agreed to union contract."
> 
> The real reason Vox is terminating those jobs.


Yep, because they don't want to pay for benefits.

Companies have been trying to skirt the law for years. This is nothing new.

That's a good find. &#128077;


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

"In a blog post entitled, “California’s terrible AB5 came for me today, and I’m devastated,” Rebecca Lawson, editor-in-chief of Mavs Moneyball lamented, “As with many of my colleagues today, because I live in California, I was just told that I can no longer hold a paid position with SB Nation. This means that I will be forced to step down as editor-in-chief of Mavs Moneyball as of March 31."

Rebecca Lawson complains about not being able to hold a "paid position with SB Nation" yet loves her blogging job so much, she's going to continue doing it for FREE.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> "In a blog post entitled, "California's terrible AB5 came for me today, and I'm devastated," Rebecca Lawson, editor-in-chief of Mavs Moneyball lamented, "As with many of my colleagues today, because I live in California, I was just told that I can no longer hold a paid position with SB Nation. This means that I will be forced to step down as editor-in-chief of Mavs Moneyball as of March 31."
> 
> Rebecca Lawson complains about not being able to hold a "paid position with SB Nation" yet loves her blogging job so much, she's going to continue doing it for FREE.


lmao so brainwashed into practically already working for free

these stories are contrived to just make AB5 look bad


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Ohhh and btw Lawson is also an attorney who was against the Vox site managers class action lawsuit. She was actually on Voxs side against the workers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> Ohhh and btw Lawson is also an attorney who was against the Vox site managers class action lawsuit. She was actually on Voxs side against the workers.


exactly, just a fake story they made up just to make AB5 look bad


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://news.bloomberglaw.com/class...ers-editors-win-class-status-in-overtime-suit
~~~~~


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So far only 200 supposed freelance jobs are reported to have been "threatened" to be taken away....however Vox simultaneously already agreed to hire 20 of them back on as employees.
> 
> Here, let me help you out. You really need to do a little research if you want to have any credibility.
> 
> ...


Do you know why The Infamous Tomato failed with SDCs?

Because he constantly overhyped the SDC side and ridiculed those of us who see both sides of the argument.

You're doing the same thing when you overhype AB5 without acknowledging the potential for problems or failure.

Don't be Tomato part 2. You're smarter than that.

And do a quick search of my post where you will see my valuation of Uber is only $10 Billion. Not such a good thing for an "Uber shill" to say.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> there's only "1" Gloria Rivera


And it only affects her "three assignments per month".


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Do you know why The Infamous Tomato failed with SDCs?
> 
> Because he constantly overhyped the SDC side and ridiculed those of us who see both sides of the argument.
> 
> ...


AB5 corrects worker exploitation, when you rail for worker exploitation you become tomatopaste...who constantly derides and belittles drivers in all of his posts across all of his accounts...I had already seen you as suspicious before but now it's crystal clear where you stand



observer said:


> And it only affects her "three assignments per month".


makes sense and fits

the fact that these supposed "freelancers" all work very little for these companies underscores how little they are being affected and the fact that they could easily just get a job at another company that doesn't exploit workers


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> AB5 corrects worker exploitation, when you rail for worker exploitation you become tomatopaste...who constantly derides and belittles drivers in all of his posts across all of his accounts...I had already seen you as suspicious before but now it's crystal clear where you stand
> 
> 
> makes sense and fits
> ...


Try again after you get your glasses fixed.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> no @@@@ing duh...the idea is to try to make AB5 look bad even though it's helping "millions" not be exploited anymore


Don't be so sure.



uberdriverfornow said:


> So far only 200 supposed freelance jobs are reported to have been "threatened" to be taken away....however Vox simultaneously already agreed to hire 20 of them back on as employees.
> 
> Here, let me help you out. You really need to do a little research if you want to have any credibility.
> 
> ...


Im guessing many of those freelancers were freelancing because they wanted to. I'm also guessing that if they wanted to freelance, they didn't want to be employees. The choice, in California, has been taken away from them.



uberdriverfornow said:


> AB5 corrects worker exploitation, when you rail for worker exploitation you become tomatopaste...who constantly derides and belittles drivers in all of his posts across all of his accounts...I had already seen you as suspicious before but now it's crystal clear where you stand
> 
> 
> makes sense and fits
> ...


You're making the huge mistake of saying that freelance = exploitation. It doesn't. You need to do your research on what exactly these freelance jobs entail. Take a freelance writer, for example. He or she submits articles to multiple magazines or websites or newspapers or whatever every week or every month etc. They can no longer do that in California, so say they're submitting 10 articles a week and now they're down to six a week because four of those were to companies in California. Serious income cut. Or worse, say the freelancer lives in California. Then they can't do what they've been doing at all. Many of these people don't want to be employees, they don't want to just write for one entity, they don't want to be forced to write for any particular entity. That's why they chose to be a freelancer. AB5 is a horrible


uberdriverfornow said:


> AB5 corrects worker exploitation, when you rail for worker exploitation you become tomatopaste...who constantly derides and belittles drivers in all of his posts across all of his accounts...I had already seen you as suspicious before but now it's crystal clear where you stand
> 
> 
> makes sense and fits
> ...


Are you really this obtuse?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

CTK said:


> You're making the huge mistake of saying that freelance = exploitation.


That's because it is and the CA Supreme Court already said so.

There is 0 chance of AB5 being repealed given the fact that it was the CA Supreme Court that essentially created it.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
> *California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
> A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.
> 
> ...


IS SHE LEGAL !?!?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

All companies in violation will eventually start dropping like dominoes.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

got a p said:


> ab5 is a terrible solution to a serious problem.


I agree. It's a complex problem. I wish there was an easy answer but AB5 might hurt more people than it helps.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Outside of Uber and Lyft how many freelancers do you know who would ever claim freelance = exploitation?


It doesn't matter. Employee law is enforced equally. Just because some workers love being exploited doesn't mean everyone has to as a result.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It doesn't matter. Employee law is enforced equally. Just because some workers love being exploited doesn't mean everyone has to as a result.


You don't seem to understand the whole concept of freelancing.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

observer said:


> "Vox had prior issues with its workers. A class action lawsuit was filed by over 100 SB Nation site managers for violations of the Fair Labor Standards Act. One plaintiff alleged that she was required to work up to 40 hours per month and only paid a $125.00 stipend. In June, workers at Vox walked out of their offices in protest. The company and its employees could not come to terms over a contract. Subsequently, both parties agreed to union contract."
> 
> The real reason Vox is terminating those jobs.


So they're really just another Uber.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> And it only affects her "three assignments per month".


lol I just saw this gem...

"She moved to San Diego from Peru in 2005 and has a *bustling* career as an interpreter and translator for doctors, courts and conferences."

lmao 3 assignments a month is "bustling"

https://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/bustling
Definition of _bustling:_ full of lively activity"



goneubering said:


> You don't seem to understand the whole concept of freelancing.


freelancing is a contractor job that actually passes the ABC test

keep up


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> So they're really just another Uber.


That's why regulating Uber and gig companies is important. Eventually their ideas trickle out to every other industry.

Companies love to push the envelope and try to get away with what they see others get away with and then push a little more.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> It doesn't matter. Employee law is enforced equally. Just because some workers love being exploited doesn't mean everyone has to as a result.


It's been fun but you have such an unusual concept of people who freelance that I don't see any point in continuing the conversation. We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out over the next few years.

Good luck with becoming an Uber employee.



observer said:


> That's why regulating Uber and gig companies is important. Eventually their ideas trickle out to every other industry.
> 
> Companies love to push the envelope and try to get away with what they see others get away with and then push a little more.


Do you believe AB5 is a good solution?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> It's been fun but you have such an unusual concept of people who freelance that I don't see any point in continuing the conversation. We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out over the next few years.
> 
> Good luck with becoming an Uber employee.


you act like it's something I came up with

the CA Supreme Court came up with it, but it sounds like you think you know more than they do

https://www.wagehourblog.com/2018/0...-adopts-abc-test-for-independent-contractors/


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> you act like it's something I came up with
> 
> the CA Supreme Court came up with it, but it sounds like you think you know more than they do
> 
> https://www.wagehourblog.com/2018/0...-adopts-abc-test-for-independent-contractors/


Below are your words. If you're trying to back out from them that's okay. If you stick with them we have nothing further to discuss.

* freelance = exploitation*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Below are your words. If you're trying to back out from them that's okay. If you stick with them we have nothing further to discuss.
> 
> * freelance = exploitation*


yes, the definition of freelance that some companies that are exploiting workers are using

those companies calling their workers freelancers that dont pass the ABC test are exploiting their workers


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> yes, the definition of freelance that some companies that are exploiting workers are using
> 
> those companies calling their workers freelancers that dont pass the ABC test are exploiting their workers


Thx for clarifying.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> It's been fun but you have such an unusual concept of people who freelance that I don't see any point in continuing the conversation. We'll have to wait and see how it all shakes out over the next few years.
> 
> Good luck with becoming an Uber employee.
> 
> ...


I think it's a good solution for the majority of workers. Yes, there will be some who will be negatively affected but that's true for every single law passed.

Uber/Lyft/Postmates and all the other gig companies don't have to classify workers employees they just have to treat workers more like true independent contractors.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> I think it's a good solution for the majority of workers. Yes, there will be some who will be negatively affected but that's true for every single law passed.
> 
> Uber/Lyft/Postmates and all the other gig companies don't have to classify workers employees they just have to treat workers more like true independent contractors.


Do you think Uber's recent changes were enough to keep us ICs?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Do you think Uber's recent changes were enough to keep us ICs?


they haven't changed anything....where are you getting this idea that they changed ?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> Do you think Uber's recent changes were enough to keep us ICs?


No, Uber has to cough up more information, get rid of the ratings and deactivations. Drivers should be able to decide which rides make economic sense to them without any consequences.

I think it's going to be very hard for Uber to give up that much control. They will eventually fold and then hire drivers as employees.

They will however go kicking and screaming until the very last possible moment.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> No, Uber has to cough up more information, get rid of the ratings and deactivations. Drivers should be able to decide which rides make economic sense to them without any consequences.
> 
> I think it's going to be very hard for Uber to give up that much control. They will eventually fold and then hire drivers as employees.


We are way past allowing Uber and Lyft to make things right and self regulating.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> they haven't changed anything....where are you getting this idea that they changed ?


You're not a Cali driver?



observer said:


> No, Uber has to cough up more information, get rid of the ratings and deactivations. Drivers should be able to decide which rides make economic sense to them without any consequences.
> 
> I think it's going to be very hard for Uber to give up that much control. They will eventually fold and then hire drivers as employees.
> 
> They will however go kicking and screaming until the very last possible moment.


Then I'm done. I'm not going to be an Uber employee.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Every day more they can stretch out the employee changes is one less day they have to pay.

Generally, in California, employee wage lawsuits can only go back three years so every day counts as a day with less costs. Uber is just kicking the can down the road.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> Every day more they can stretch out the employee changes is one less day they have to pay.
> 
> Generally, in California, employee wage lawsuits can only go back three years so every day counts as a day with less costs. Uber is just kicking the can down the road.


I might be wrong but I expect years of can kicking.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> I might be wrong but I expect years of can kicking.


Yupp. But Uber is in a bind. They have some money in the bank. Not likely anyone else will lend them more money. Most likely they will start cannibalizing Uber itself and start selling off pieces.

The only way Uber can survive is by becoming smaller and retrenching.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> Yupp. But Uber is in a bind. They have some money in the bank. Not likely anyone else will lend them more money. Most likely they will start canibalizing Uber itself and start selling off pieces.
> 
> The only way Uber can survive is by becoming smaller and retrenching.


Right. Dara's made some minor cuts but he needs to start slashing the number of employees and dumping the money losing divisions. It's a shame Uber has wasted so much money which rightfully belonged to us drivers.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> Right. Dara's made some minor cuts but he needs to start slashing the number of employees and dumping the money losing divisions. It's a shame Uber has wasted so much money which rightfully belonged to us drivers.


Lyft did the same but Lyft is smarter.

Lyft is the tortoise and Uber is the hare.

I've told an anecdote on here a couple times about me and playing pool.

I'd never played pool but one night we went out to celebrate my brothers birthday. I watched our friends play and some (my brother) were really, really good. I also started to play and won games against other players (not my brother, lol, he's great at pool). I won many more games than I lost because I let the other guy make mistakes.

Lyft let the other guy make mistakes.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> No, Uber has to cough up more information, get rid of the ratings and deactivations. Drivers should be able to decide which rides make economic sense to them without any consequences.
> 
> I think it's going to be very hard for Uber to give up that much control. They will eventually fold and then hire drivers as employees.
> 
> They will however go kicking and screaming until the very last possible moment.


It seems like the most logical thing would be to make us true ICs. I doubt Uber wants the headache of all of us as employees and I definitely don't want to be an employee of Uber.


----------



## CTK (Feb 9, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> That's because it is and the CA Supreme Court already said so.
> 
> There is 0 chance of AB5 being repealed given the fact that it was the CA Supreme Court that essentially created it.


You just don't get it. That's ok.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> VOX already had agreed to hire back atleast 20 of those exploited freelancers as employees...and I'm sure more to follow
> 
> they only try to report on the supposed negative effects to try to make it look bad


Only 20?? Why not 100% of them? Set a model for the rest of the liberal left leaning news media? Hmmm 



goneubering said:


> Obviously it's not just one person. The law of unintended consequences will probably hurt many people. And that's IF the law even stands.


Personally, a Witcher 3 based Law of Surprises would be far more fitting and fair IMO.

This legislation will not end well for everyone. There are going to be a lot of parties producing more concentrated brine than Mother Nature ever could in the Dead Sea long before this is all done. :roflmao:



UberBastid said:


> THAT is California.
> We have a $1.7 Billion in reserves.
> 150,000 homeless.
> We owe $1.3 TRILLION in debt, much of it to fund government retirement programs.
> ...


Typical 6 figure paying salaries from sectors like IT and finance tend to create gentrification. Gentrification drives up the the cost of living and creates homelessness. And Progressive Left Socialist ideologies create denizen welfare/dependencies, drive up government budgets/deficits, and irreversibly complicate the broken socioeconomic backbone of a city. State and Congressional legislators would rather wallow in nasty, ideological mud slinging politics. Instead of trying to be fiscally accountable to the citizens of their state and local cities.

CA and NY lead the nation with this socioeconomic dysfunction. Despite being in the top 5 states with the highest degree of wealth concentrated enclaves (i.e. Hollywood, Silicon Valley, SF, LA and Orange Counties etc) in the nation:










http://www.nakedcapitalism.com/2018/06/many-unsheltered-homeless-people-california.html
And then there is the added dynamite of ride share. I'd have to argue those homeless numbers are much higher based on U/L contribution alone. Especially in San Francisco, the highest cost of living Progressive Left city in nation. Typical Progressive Left politicians turning a blind eye to U/L drivers getting evicted from sleeping in their cars at public places the likes of Golden Gate park, side streets, etc. When they luck out in finding or being able to afford space in a room/motel. Blind eye to U/L drivers sleeping in dubious city sanctioned areas like Best Buy and Safeway parking lots. Where they risk getting their car windows broken into by non vehicle vagrants. To all the tent cities that SF is transformed into under freeway bridges after 9pm at night.....

Seems Golden State legislators don't believe transient homeless the likes of U/L workers (or blue collar transients the likes of construction workers who pitch their hobo tents under SF freeways at nights) should be categorized as homeless.



UberBastid said:


> I gotta get out of here.


Please run.

Jump ship at the first opportunity. And *don't* look back.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> there's only "1" Gloria Rivera





uberdriverfornow said:


> lmao so brainwashed into practically already working for free
> 
> these stories are contrived to just make AB5 look bad


The article has multiple sources. Click the link.

The stories are not contrived to look bad. There are more industries than solely rideshare affected. That's what this article reports on. I encourage you to expand your perspective. It's those industries that use freelancers that are disinterested in, or do not have the budget, to transform their whole freelance crew into employees.


uberdriverfornow said:


> "Vox intends to replace the freelance writers with roughly 20 new part-time and full-time staffers. "
> AB5 is already doing its job


If you've worked freelance with multiple clients, you'll understand the impact more acutely. If you _have_ worked freelance and still object... you have no mercy for your fellow freelancer.

Those 20 employees likely no longer can freelance with multiple clients. For some, it's a win. For others who freelance as a career, it's a blow.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> It seems like the most logical thing would be to make us true ICs.


Not only would that never happen but even if it did Uber would just roll it back without being forced not to. Nothing short of a union contract will fix things.



Dammit Mazzacane said:


> The article has multiple sources. Click the link.
> 
> The stories are not contrived to look bad. There are more industries than solely rideshare affected. That's what this article reports on. I encourage you to expand your perspective. It's those industries that use freelancers that are disinterested in, or do not have the budget, to transform their whole freelance crew into employees.
> 
> ...


The only real "freelancers" are those that pass the ABC test. Anyone that doesn't pass the ABC test is simply an exploited worker.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Not only would that never happen but even if it did Uber would just roll it back without being forced not to. Nothing short of a union contract will fix things.
> 
> 
> The only real "freelancers" are those that pass the ABC test. Anyone that doesn't pass the ABC test is simply an exploited worker.


You have a fixation on unions being the only answer. That seems highly unlikely and unwieldy when you consider the massive churn rate of drivers.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> You have a fixation on unions being the only answer. That seems highly unlikely and unwieldy when you consider the massive churn rate of drivers.


That's because it is the only answer, especially against companies like Uber, Lyft, and Doordash(tip stealers)

It's likely you've never had a union job and a union contract.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> That's because it is the only answer, especially against companies like Uber, Lyft, and Doordash(tip stealers)
> 
> It's likely you've never had a union job and a union contract.


Then I expect you will have many years of frustration waiting for a union.

I don't know but I doubt AB5 even addresses the union question.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Then I expect you will have many years of frustration waiting for a union.
> 
> I don't know but I doubt AB5 even addresses the union question.


if you don't know if AB5 addresses the union question then how exactly can you expect me to have many years waiting for a union ?

You keep talking outta your ass 'cause you have no idea what you're talking about.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if you don't know if AB5 addresses the union question then how exactly can you expect me to have many years waiting for a union ?
> 
> You keep talking outta your ass 'cause you have no idea what you're talking about.


It's two different issues.

Good luck with your union .

I read the law. There's no guarantee of a rideshare union.


----------



## Coastal_Cruiser (Oct 1, 2018)

Have you California drivers been hearing it from your pax about their industry being affected by AB5? I have heard from:

1) Golf caddies (have filed in court already)
2) Musicians
3) Freelancers for our local paper

To a T they all hate AB5. They all get in the car and ask the driver what they think about AB5. I tell them that the lawmakers are taking a bad situation and making it worse. The legislators need to make up a new set of rules that classify us in between contractor and employee status. We need to be quasi-employees, with protection from exploitation, but not outright employees with mandated benefits. Unfortunately most of these people in Sacramento can't think beyond the end of their bureaucratic noses.

And newbies should recall that in past years/decades California has gotten quite aggressive toward employers hiring contractors.... forcing them to hire the person as an employee visa vi tighter and tighter interpretation of the rules concerning what construes an employee. Why? MORE REVENUE FOR THE STATE.

Uber and Lyft and played right into their hands.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


The Jury has read many media articles and opinions.
The Jury has decided that AB5 not only affects a few hundred thousand ride share contractors, but millions of contractors throughout the state. (Would have been many more except some professions have lobbyists who are exttemely effective.)
Many organizations, notwithstanding their usually effective lobbying power, are now asking for injunctions and/or relief from the new law. (I.e., truckers and journalists.)
The Judge will summarize; let us invalidate a law that may harm millions of contractors because the person identified as uberfornow "says" the law helps him.


----------



## Coastal_Cruiser (Oct 1, 2018)

This is not about anyone passing the ABC test. It is about our law makers passing the Turing test. (Spoiler alert: they don't)


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So far only 200 supposed freelance jobs are reported to have been "threatened" to be taken away....however Vox simultaneously already agreed to hire 20 of them back on as employees.
> 
> Here, let me help you out. You really need to do a little research if you want to have any credibility.
> 
> ...


The Jury is guessing 19 part time jobs and 1 full time job. Also, 180 paying gigs in California have disappeared.
The Jury wonders what you will do if you are on the outside looking in to get a part time job for a ride share or other gig employment.


----------



## Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz (Apr 30, 2019)

I don’t give a F who hates AB5. I witnessed 500 drivers sleeping in their cars and taking showers at 24 hours fitness in Palm Springs when Lyft and Uber lured all the drivers to Coachella by falsely marketing to drivers how much money people can make there.

Well, you couldn’t make that much because of the damn traffic gridlocks. And it was over 100 degrees everyday. 

AB5 was a response to the modern day human trafficking behavior done by Lyft and Uber to their drivers.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz said:


> I don't give a F who hates AB5. I witnessed 500 drivers sleeping in their cars and taking showers at 24 hours fitness in Palm Springs when Lyft and Uber lured all the drivers to Coachella by falsely marketing to drivers how much money people can make there.
> 
> Well, you couldn't make that much because of the damn traffic gridlocks. And it was over





Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz said:


> I don't give a F who hates AB5. I witnessed 500 drivers sleeping in their cars and taking showers at 24 hours fitness in Palm Springs when Lyft and Uber lured all the drivers to Coachella by falsely marketing to drivers how much money people can make there.
> 
> Well, you couldn't make that much because of the damn traffic gridlocks. And it was over 100 degrees everyday.
> 
> AB5 was a response to the modern day human trafficking behavior done by Lyft and Uber to their drivers.


The Jury thinks that 500 drivers learned a valuable lesson. Live and learn how to make profit. Don't be a lemming.
The Judge concurs.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury is guessing 19 part time jobs and 1 full time job. Also, 180 paying gigs in California have disappeared.
> The Jury wonders what you will do if you are on the outside looking in to get a part time job for a ride share or other gig employment.


omg a whole 180 jobs ?

compare that to the millions of delivery jobs benefitting

and those 180 will likely now be offered employee jobs back or elsewhere



Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury thinks that 500 drivers learned a valuable lesson. Live and learn how to make profit. Don't be a lemming.
> The Judge concurs.


lol ya only 500 drivers being screwed ? try hundreds of thousands

not after we unionize


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

So I guess every driver will be deactivated and have to go thru an actual interview process for employment or pay fees to have a medallion right. Unions served a purpose like back in the late 1800's and maybe thru the mid 1900's but honestly now they are just paycheck deduction seekers. Why should someone who is less skilled and/or productive than another be paid the same, seniority automatically means selective schedule but you are horrible employee? At a former employer the majority of employees who supported a union were the ones who'd been there forever thinking a warm body who shows up but does the bare minimum deserves the world. Or those who always called out, did very little at work aside from complain constantly or run to HR about any little thing.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> It's two different issues.
> 
> Good luck with your union .
> 
> I read the law. There's no guarantee of a rideshare union.


where there are employees there are votes to unionize


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> omg a whole 180 jobs ?
> 
> compare that to the millions of delivery jobs benefitting
> 
> ...


The Jury thinks you do not get the point. 
20 of 200 were retained and the company states that the others can continue to work for no pay if they so choose.
Extrapolate that against the vast number of drivers.
Again, The Judge asks; what will you do if the rideshare companies do not offer you part time employment?
What is your acceptance and cancellation rates? Do you cherry pick? Why would they hire you?
If they do not hire you, how will you benefit from a union?
The Jury has worked for employment agencies in California before. 3 days pto per year. $500 per month health insurance. These where full time benefits. It is a given that gig employers will hold you to part time status, under 30 hours per 7 day workweek, to hold down their costs. 
How many hours do you drive per week? Are you ready to drive 2 am to 6 am five days a week if the company decides that is your schedule, take it or leave it?
The Judge wants to know; have you considered the possibility that the gig companies might not offer you a job?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

goneubering said:


> It's two different issues.
> 
> Good luck with your union .
> 
> I read the law. There's no guarantee of a rideshare union.


Employees can form a union.

Independent contractors by law are forbidden from forming unions.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury thinks you do not get the point.
> 20 of 200 were retained and the company states that the others can continue to work for no pay if they so choose.
> Extrapolate that against the vast number of drivers.
> Again, The Judge asks; what will you do if the rideshare companies do not offer you part time employment?
> ...


if the rideshare companies try to use schedules they won't have any drivers

i think the rideshare companies need drivers



observer said:


> Employees can form a union.
> 
> Independent contractors by law are forbidden from forming unions.


they can join a union but it won't have the same protections as employees share

Seattle is trying to be the first state to change that. The lawsuit challenging it is still working its way through the courts there.


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if the rideshare companies try to use schedules they won't have any drivers
> 
> i think the rideshare companies need drivers


Some of The Jury members state that certain food delivery apps and Amazon Flex use time blocks. Further, the time blocks could be assigned instead of voluntary.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if the rideshare companies try to use schedules they won't have any drivers
> 
> i think the rideshare companies need drivers
> 
> ...


No.
Independendent contractors are forbidden by law to unionize.

Seattle is trying to change that but at the moment it is illegal. Even if Seattle wins that would have no effect in California.


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

Judge and Jury said:


> Some of The Jury members state that certain food delivery apps and Amazon Flex use time blocks. Further, the time blocks could be assigned instead of voluntary.


Customers will have to pay more which alot will just hop in their own car and go pickup at a store or wait


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Alltel77 said:


> Customers will have to pay more which alot will just hop in their own car and go pickup at a store or wait


That is already happening.

My kids and nephews were big Uber and Lyft users. They figured out it's expensive and bought their own cars.

Uber is only in business because it is subsidizing rides.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury thinks you do not get the point.
> 20 of 200 were retained and the company states that the others can continue to work for no pay if they so choose.
> Extrapolate that against the vast number of drivers.
> Again, The Judge asks; what will you do if the rideshare companies do not offer you part time employment?
> ...


the job can not work with schedules, period



observer said:


> No.
> Independendent contractors are forbidden by law to unionize.
> 
> Seattle is trying to change that but at the moment it is illegal. Even if Seattle wins that would have no effect in California.


which law ?

seattle simply is attempting to give IE's the same legal protections as employees


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

unions are not the answer:
In 2016, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. The percentage of workers belonging to a *union* in the United States (or total labor *union* "density") was 10.7%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. *Union membership* in the private sector has fallen under 7%-levels not seen since 1932.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SHalester said:


> unions are not the answer:
> In 2016, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. The percentage of workers belonging to a *union* in the United States (or total labor *union* "density") was 10.7%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. *Union membership* in the private sector has fallen under 7%-levels not seen since 1932.


Those numbers soon to go up when the Teamsters organize drivers. &#128079;&#128079;&#128079;


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> unions are not the answer:
> In 2016, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. The percentage of workers belonging to a *union* in the United States (or total labor *union* "density") was 10.7%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. *Union membership* in the private sector has fallen under 7%-levels not seen since 1932.


It's well known about the high churn among Uber drivers. This high turnover rate will be a serious challenge for unions to overcome.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the job can not work with schedules, period
> 
> 
> which law ?
> ...


https://www.businessmanagementdaily...tractors-right-to-form-or-join-a-labor-union/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> https://www.businessmanagementdaily...tractors-right-to-form-or-join-a-labor-union/


it doesn't say they can't join a union, they just don't get the same protections since they aren't covered by the NLRB act as employees are

"making it difficult for contractors to form or join a union."

"The decision will make it much harder for gig economy workers to seek union representation. "


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> unions are not the answer:
> In 2016, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. The percentage of workers belonging to a *union* in the United States (or total labor *union* "density") was 10.7%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. *Union membership* in the private sector has fallen under 7%-levels not seen since 1932.


That's because corporations have been successful in beating back unions.

I made 10 bux an hour fresh out of high school at a union job. Yes, I paid 25 bux a month in union dues but back then ten bux an hour was almost three times the minimum wage.

The equivalent of 39 bux an hour today.



uberdriverfornow said:


> it doesn' t say they can't join a union, they just don't get the same protections since they aren't covered by the NLRB act as employees are
> 
> "making it difficult for contractors to form or join a union."
> 
> "The decision will make it much harder for gig economy workers to seek union representation. "


"federal law does not permit independent contractors to unionize,"


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> That's because corporations have been successful in beating back unions.
> 
> I made 10 bux an hour fresh out of high school at a union job. Yes, I paid 25 bux a month in union dues but back then ten bux an hour was almost three times the minimum wage.
> 
> ...


there is no law forbidding it, period


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> there is no law forbidding it, period


The National Labor Relations Board seem to think there is a law.

https://www.nlrb.gov/how-we-work/national-labor-relations-act


observer said:


> The National Labor Relations Board seem to think there is a law.
> 
> https://www.nlrb.gov/how-we-work/national-labor-relations-act


" (3) The term "employee" shall include any employee, and shall not be limited to the employees of a particular employer, unless the Act [this subchapter] explicitly states otherwise, and shall include any individual whose work has ceased as a consequence of, or in connection with, any current labor dispute or because of any unfair labor practice, and who has not obtained any other regular and substantially equivalent employment, but shall not include any individual employed as an agricultural laborer, or in the domestic service of any family or person at his home, or any individual employed by his parent or spouse, or any individual having the status of an independent contractor, or any individual employed as a supervisor, or any individual employed by an employer subject to the Railway Labor Act [45 U.S.C. § 151 et seq.], as amended from time to time, or by any other person who is not an employer as herein defined."

Think about it logically for a second.

If Uber drivers were allowed to unionize, don't you think there'd already be an Uber/Lyft Drivers Union?


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> there is no law forbidding it, period


Again, The Jury requires facts. Just because you think you are an employee does not make it so.


----------



## UberPuppetGirl (Jul 6, 2019)

Wow what have you all done?
There is something so sinister about what this judge said if you are administratively savvy enough to understand the lingo. 
Imagine getting reimbursed for your tools of your trade that you own and then being penalized if your tool broke down including, having a cash liability based on the anticipated services you were expected to provide as terms of your employment when you failed to provide them?

It all makes sense now why this case or action initially went so far.

It has already affected other industries who are now under a 35 gigs per year rule including porn and acting plus other occupations.
Cut and dry with no recourse or legal support because they were never organized, as such a unified group action, would be a threat to the competitive nature of freelancing.

Keep going with your bright ideas as seen from this ruling, as set to solve a much bigger problem.

YOU👎🔰🗽


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Alltel77 said:


> So I guess every driver will be deactivated and have to go thru an actual interview process for employment or pay fees to have a medallion right. Unions served a purpose like back in the late 1800's and maybe thru the mid 1900's but honestly now they are just paycheck deduction seekers. Why should someone who is less skilled and/or productive than another be paid the same, seniority automatically means selective schedule but you are horrible employee? At a former employer the majority of employees who supported a union were the ones who'd been there forever thinking a warm body who shows up but does the bare minimum deserves the world. Or those who always called out, did very little at work aside from complain constantly or run to HR about any little thing.


Actual interviews. Can you imagine how much fun that will be??!! 

I wonder if The Algorithm will handle all the thousands of interviews?


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Actual interviews. Can you imagine how much fun that will be??!! :wink:
> 
> I wonder if The Algorithm will handle all the thousands of interviews?


I imagine it'd be very interesting!


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> The National Labor Relations Board seem to think there is a law.
> 
> https://www.nlrb.gov/how-we-work/national-labor-relations-act
> 
> ...


it only says that only employees joining a union will be protected by the NLRB, nothing prevents IE's from joining a union


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> it only says that onoy employs joining a union will be protected by the NLRB, nothing prevents IE's from joining a union


Desperate people join a "union".


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Alltel77 said:


> Desperate people join a "union".


exactly


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> exactly


If you don't like your job then leave! No one is forcing you stay. I've had a complaint about every job I've ever held. Once I am fed up I jet out to something better. Unions just add to a problem.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Alltel77 said:


> If you don't like your job then leave! No one is forcing you stay. I've had a complaint about every job I've ever held. Once I am fed up I jet out to something better. Unions just add to a problem.


then go ahead and go

I'm staying and reaping the benefits of AB5 and a union contract



goneubering said:


> It's well known about the high churn among Uber drivers. This high turnover rate will be a serious challenge for unions to overcome.


that's not the way it works...once workers vote to unionize then all workers are union unless they are stupid enough to opt out and that never happens


----------



## Alltel77 (Mar 3, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> then go ahead and go
> 
> I'm staying and reaping the benefits of AB5 and a union contract
> 
> ...


Enjoy your State benefit program of $15 per hour of sitting.


----------



## Nate5Star (Dec 18, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> then go ahead and go
> 
> I'm staying and reaping the benefits of AB5 and a union contract
> 
> ...


Not true.

As per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it's federal therefor trumps all states laws (gawd I hate using that word), workers have the right to refuse to join a union. They may still have to pay union dues, depends on the agreement between the company and the union and/or state laws. The company and union can have a "union security agreement" which essentially makes the company, or certain jobs in the company, a closed shop. You still have the option to not join the union, but you do have to make "agency fee" payments to the union to get and keep the job. Then there are the "right to work" states with laws that basically say you have the option to join a union or not, and if you chose not to, you don't have to pay union dues or agency fees. The NLRA supports these state options.

So in New Jersey I can refuse to join the union, but if there is a union security agreement, I still have to pay union dues, because it is not a right to work state. But if I do the same in Arizona, a right to work state, I don't have to pay union dues.

There can also be multiple contracts within the same company. Just to use Uber, there can be a contract covering UberX, a separate contract for UberXL, another contract for UberSELECT, yet another for UberBLACK, and finally a contract for UberSUV. You can also have multiple unions representing the workers within the same company, so you can not only have a separate contract for each of Uber's services, but a different union for each service, and that can be extended out to a different union for each service in each state.

And if all these contracts do come into play, you won't be able to drive for the different services without crossing contract boundaries. If you cross over into a different contact's area, the union covering that area will either object on the legal grounds of the contract or demand reparations are made. Of course there are unions that do negotiate master contracts that cover all employees in all locations. But that union would need to voted in either company wide across the negotiating area, or on a state by state basis.

Since California is going first, they will have the first choice of a union. There is no guarantee that Wyoming will want the same union. FYI, I only chose Wyoming because it is at the opposite end of a different opinion poll showing how much agreement there is in the USofA at this time. So I don't want to hear that I am picking on Wyoming

Unions are businesses. No matter what they say about caring for the working man, their eye is still on the bottom line. Their executive board members all the way down to union representatives get a paycheck. James Hoffa (funny I heard that name before), the General President of teamsters earned a combined total compensation of $313,989 (with a $60,000 housing allowance) as of 2019. Not exactly the $3million salary of Papa Dara (No, I am not counting his full compensation. just his salary.) But it is still more than any of us make per year, and he doesn't have to put up with a pax. He probably doesn't even drive himself. But I digress.

Lets use the teamsters as an example since they are probably the best known union to negotiate master contracts, and I already mentioned them. The fees for their membership is "2.5 times our base hourly rate per month, minus license premiums." That comes straight from their current website fact sheet. So using the $13.00 an hour everyone is tossing around, it will cost each Uber driver covered by a teamster contract $32.50 a month. So far as I know Uber does not require anything more than a driver license. You may, or may not, be able to deduct this yearly amount, up to the union to decide.

Trust me, I am not arguing _against _unions. There are good ones, there are bad ones. There are good people working for unions, there are not so good people working for unions. I will tell you this. One union president I worked with in the telecom company went to jail for embezzlement. I was a union rep for the beginning of my career, and got in trouble for not representing some members. Sorry, but filing a grievance because the boss didn't say good morning to you is not a contractual offense. The union took me to arbitration because I cherry picked which grievance I would represent. I won the case by arguing that I only got compensated by the union when covering a grievance, and not paid by the company, making me . . . wait for it . . . an independent contractor.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Found this on Twitter.

*UberJedi
@uber_jedi
·
22h

It's Jan 2, is every Cali driver an employee yet?

NYE, I made $700. If #Uber & #Lyft actually met the criteria of #AB5, & all Cali drivers were employees, by Cali law, they would've only had to pay me min wage, $12 per hour, for 12 hours max. $144 vs $700+*


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Found this on Twitter.
> 
> *UberJedi
> @uber_jedi
> ...


if they only pay minimum wage then obviously they won't have any drivers driving for them

get real



Nate5Star said:


> Not true.
> 
> As per the National Labor Relations Act (NLRA), it's federal therefor trumps all states laws (gawd I hate using that word), workers have the right to refuse to join a union. They may still have to pay union dues, depends on the agreement between the company and the union and/or state laws. The company and union can have a "union security agreement" which essentially makes the company, or certain jobs in the company, a closed shop. You still have the option to not join the union, but you do have to make "agency fee" payments to the union to get and keep the job. Then there are the "right to work" states with laws that basically say you have the option to join a union or not, and if you chose not to, you don't have to pay union dues or agency fees. The NLRA supports these state options.
> 
> ...


nothing about my post was not true, you can always opt out but you might still have to pay dues, depending on the state and contract

and much like corporate executives, there have been corrupt union officials...that doesn't mean unions are bad


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz said:


> I don't give a F who hates AB5. I witnessed 500 drivers sleeping in their cars and taking showers at 24 hours fitness in Palm Springs when Lyft and Uber lured all the drivers to Coachella by falsely marketing to drivers how much money people can make there.
> 
> Well, you couldn't make that much because of the damn traffic gridlocks. And it was over 100 degrees everyday.
> 
> AB5 was a response to the modern day human trafficking behavior done by Lyft and Uber to their drivers.


^^
QFT.

Ahh yes. Uniquely experience how living on the surface of the moon would be through that which is the north desert of Palm Springs. Wide temperature range swings and retiree driven economy than LA county. But with a significantly lower pop density than LA---which means even less highly disposable income for U/L drivers.

Which by default, makes this peculiar market far worse than LA county. Simple by default of its unique pax market. And hotter than average temps throughout the year and signature oven broil temperatures at peak in summer. Which translate into higher O&M costs from wearing out your AC faster than simple idling in typical LA county traffic....

U/L marketing really struck gold in punking drivers to operate in this market. Their marketing promotions must have been near record levels, if they were so successful in drawing new drivers from LA county into this wannabe purgatory corner of Death Valley


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury thinks you do not get the point.
> _*20 of 200 were retained and the company states that the others can continue to work for no pay if they so choose.*_
> *Extrapolate that against the vast number of drivers**.*
> Again, The Judge asks; *what will you do if the rideshare companies do not offer you part time employment?
> ...


Precisely.

First, if you opt NOT to be an employee, then there can be ZERO union benefits. Because unionization only applies to employee status. Period.

So now you're an employee. Well consider this potential possibility: U/L and other gig employers may have lobbied and/or set pre-arraigned/pre-bargained agreements with the Unions (as quid pro quo to being forced to take make ICs employees). Said pre-arrangement could extend to employee obligations such as driver hours _i.e. once an IC accepts employee status, they will have implicitly accepted their work schedule by default_. Just like minimum wage Walmart/McD etc employees do when they exercise their prerogative to accept a position of employment to do menial labor.

So by becoming a FT McD employee, you may get the option to pick a designated work schedule. Which will suck if said schedule is restricted to a single shift. In which case, you're either going to have to meet the operational work need by doing the graveyard shift at your 24hr McD store or not. As a PT employee, you either accept the 4am - 7am early bird hours or not. McD doesn't care if you have personal QoL obligations in that time frame. Obligations like family, which as a single parent, might require you to drop off your kid at school before coming to work.

So there is a good possibility the former IC employee gets their driving schedule locked (like the 2am to 6am based on their new employer's i.e. U/L operational business need). Leaving really be nothing left to bargain/negotiate at the table using the unions in that regard? And even if drivers could bargain/negotiate to change their employee schedules, then this could take EONS. As proven by the snail's pace at which improvement in work environment QoL occurs. Which the unionized body of government State of CA workers can historically attest to.

Personal QoL disruption was NEVER a potential issue for ICs prior to AB5. Because schedule flexibility was one of the primary attractive benefits of being an IC gig worker over being a traditional employee......



Judge and Jury said:


> The Judge wants to know; *have you considered the possibility that the gig companies might not offer you a job?*


Permanent denial to Uber app access by permanent deactivation. Not from the 5 star, 10K miles driver who did nothing wrong to receive said app lock out. But purely driven by U/L's operational needs which may be now dictated by AB5. There are only going to be so many drivers Uber could hire as employees. Before they hurt their bottom line with global and Wall Street investors. In fact, Uber's latest 4Q 2019 financials indicate it's yet to break even and trend positive on its Earnings per Share. Nevermind its continually depressed revenues...

AB5 now poses the possibility former IC workers could now be without a job. A frightening potential reality for those U/L drivers who depend solely upon ride share for their income. Especially the ones who're forced to live on a paycheck to paycheck basis, with zero reserve/emergency fund savings for those inclement weather periods...

And I'll say it yet again: AB5 has the potential to produce more brine content in the IC industry than Mother Nature ever naturally could in the Dead Sea.

2020 will mark a truly historic milestone on how this competitive crying game will unfold....



Nate5Star said:


> Not true.
> 
> <snip>


THANK YOU.

AB5 may have just potentially and permanently destroyed the ability for ICs to make revenue--on THEIR terms and QoL schedules. Regardless of whether they're ride share ICs or other freelancing industry sector ICs.

The degree of myopia, naivety, and complete ignorance on the part of @uberdriverfornow is both disheartening and truly frightening. :frown:


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> So basically let's invalidate a law that helps millions of Californians because 1 person "says" the law hurts them. Great idea.


This law is stupid and so are those who support it. There is a ton of people making a living or supplementing their income that is going to be hurt because of this law. I feel bad for those who didn't support this law but those of you ******s that supported it are going to get EXACTLY what you wanted. BOSSES, TERRITORIES, PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, AND OF COURSE YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY MORE THAN THE BARE MINIMUM! The rest of us will be doing a whole lot better than you idiots but hey you asked for this so here you go! Just a shame you hurt everyone else with your stupid unrealistic demands.

Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz your a idiot. You and your law deserve exactly what you will get. This law you love so much will hurt everyone in California including you. But you cant fix stupid. Your wonderful law will eliminate part timers from being able to make the extra they need to survive in your over priced state. GOOD JOB! :thumbup:


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Like vacation days? Hahahahahaha


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

goneubering said:


> The transcription service Rev told its freelancers that it would be leaving California.


I worked as a freelance transcriptionist for Rev. They paid me $14 for over 18 hours of work, so F them too. Another company ripping people off. I stopped working with them immediately afterward, then they offered a 25% increase, which was still peanuts (it would have been $17.50 for the 18 hours, which is still less than $1 per hour).

If companies have been categorizing workers that provide the work that is their MAIN function of business as freelancers, they should have never been doing it in the first place. If not (e.g., interpreters for firms with the main function of advertising, etc.), they have nothing to worry about. The federal laws had some of these things outlined in them from the beginning, so a lot of it is not so new.


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

IGotDrive said:


> I worked as a freelance transcriptionist for Rev. They paid me $14 for over 18 hours of work, so F them too. Another company ripping people off. I stopped working with them immediately afterward, then they offered a 25% increase, which was still peanuts (it would have been $17.50 for the 18 hours, which is still less than $1 per hour).
> 
> If companies have been categorizing workers that provide the work that is their MAIN function of business as freelancers, they should have never been doing it in the first place. If not (e.g., interpreters for firms with the main function of advertising, etc.), they have nothing to worry about. The federal laws had some of these things outlined in them from the beginning, so a lot of it is not so new.


There is more to your story than you are saying. I don't believe for a second (and no one else with any common sense) that you got $14 for 18 hours of work! Tell the truth!


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

Fat Man said:


> There is more to your story than you are saying. I don't believe for a second (and no one else with any common sense) that you got $14 for 18 hours of work! Tell the truth!


Don't call me a liar. There is not anymore to my story. You can sign up with them and try it for yourself if you can pass the assessment (https://www.rev.com/freelancers). They pay per minute of transcription audio, which does not include the time it actually takes to listen to and transcribe the audio. You're kind of aggressive for someone who says they're only doing this part-time and tells others they're stupid for not having another job on the side. Relax


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

^^
In all fairness, you CHOSE that as a freelancer IC.

It's understandable you didn't have the power to negotiate your starter wage above $14/hr. HOWEVER,

You received SAID PREROGATIVE when you exercised your right to quit as an IC. And they -- not wanting to lose a good worker --immediately granted a pay raise by 25%. Still shitty pay I agree. But it gave you the right to REFUSE and a starting point to bargain/negotiate as an IC. Which you clearly didn't have before starting out.

The more experienced you are as a freelancer in your profession, the greater the bargaining flexibility at the negotiating table. And the more you'll be able to personally negotiate a superior wage for your services.

PPL just don't seem to get that with AB5, odds are they could likely end up NOT having said choice anymore. That as in your case, you could've been locked into an hourly $14 as the mandatory base wage as an employee. And likely not a damned thing you would be able to do about it. At least until CA gets around to legalizing $15/hr minimum wage (the way Amazon currently does nationally). So until that $1 pay raise--or AB5 potentially locking you into $14 (or even less) per hour--you still retain the FREEDOM OF CHOICE as an IC.

And that comes with the backlash of potentially locking yourself out from $18+ per hour if categorized as an employee. Especially if AB5 permits employers like that one to set whatever starter wage they deemed reasonable (i.e. $14 per hour).


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

IGotDrive said:


> Don't call me a liar. There is not anymore to my story. You can sign up with them and try it for yourself if you can pass the assessment (https://www.rev.com/freelancers). They pay per minute of transcription audio, which does not include the time it actually takes to listen to and transcribe the audio. You're kind of aggressive for someone who says they're only doing this part-time and tells others they're stupid for not having another job on the side. Relax


If you are worried about being called a liar... then you shouldn't do it. Simple. Moron's find me aggressive. I am simply being direct and most of all TRUTHFUL.



Fat Man said:


> If you are worried about being called a liar... then you shouldn't do it. Simple. Moron's find me aggressive. I am simply being direct and most of all TRUTHFUL.


And yah I find full time drivers not only STUPID but reckless. That is me though. I am what you would call RESPONSIBLE and know better.


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

Fat Man said:


> If you are worried about being called a liar... then you shouldn't do it. Simple. Moron's find me aggressive. I am simply being direct and most of all TRUTHFUL.


So then, why do you have another job and only do this part-time if you think it's so great???

Have you signed up for Rev yet? It only takes a few minutes - about as long as it would take you to respond to this post. Disprove me



Cynergie said:


> ^^
> In all fairness, you CHOSE that as a freelancer IC.
> 
> It's understandable you didn't have the power to negotiate your starter wage above $14/hr. HOWEVER,
> ...


You assume I'm pro-anything. If U/L adheres to the ABCs, they shouldn't have to make drivers employees.

Btw, I still freelance PT, but not with U/L. I left them because they didn't pay enough where I live to make it worthwhile.


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

IGotDrive said:


> So then, why do you have another job and only do this part-time if you think it's so great???


I have a REAL full time job because this is not something you can make a living at full time. Goober lies and cheats its drivers to the point that you cant trust them. I find the 30 a hour I make driving very part time wonderful part time cash.


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

Fat Man said:


> I have a REAL full time job because this is not something you can make a living at full time.


So why are you arguing against your own point, then??? This is exactly the opposite of the point you tried to make before it.

Btw, I'm not a driver, but you're sad.

Still haven't signed up to research your point and disprove me, right? Too much work for you I'm guessing.

Take a Valium.



Cynergie said:


> But it gave you the right to REFUSE and a starting point to bargain/negotiate as an IC. Which you clearly didn't have before starting out.
> 
> The more experienced you are as a freelancer in your profession, the greater the bargaining flexibility at the negotiating table. And the more you'll be able to personally negotiate a superior wage for your services.


Exactly! Part of the problem is that this is not an option for all ICs.


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

IGotDrive said:


> I'm not a driver, but you're sad.
> 
> Still haven't signed up to research your point and disprove me, right? Too much work for you I'm guessing.
> 
> Take a Valium.


Bro there is NOTHING you have said makes any sense. I don't have to research to be able to tell you that I smell bull shit in your story. I am allot of things... truthful, direct, and some say a ass hole... SAD is not one of the things I am not. What is sad is that you come here to complain about something that has not one thing to do with driving. Sad??? YES! PETHETIC?? OMFG YES!


----------



## IGotDrive (Oct 8, 2018)

Fat Man said:


> Bro there is NOTHING you have said makes any sense. I don't have to research to be able to tell you that I smell bull shit in your story. I am allot of things... truthful, direct, and some say a ass hole... SAD is not one of the things I am not. What is sad is that you come here to complain about something that has not one thing to do with driving. Sad??? YES! PETHETIC?? OMFG YES!


You heard assessment and got scared because it would mean you would actually have to use your brain. Grow up.

Btw, let me correct your horrible grammar and spelling skills (corrections in RED):

"Bro, there is NOTHING [that] you have said [that] makes any sense. I don't have to research to be able to tell you that I smell bull shit ("bullshit" is one word) in your story. I am allot ("a lot" is two words) of things... (this should be an extended dash or parentheses, but not an ellipse) truthful, direct, and some say a ("an" after a vowel) ass hole (again, this should be one word) ... (see three comments ago) {SAD is not one of the things I am not} (I totally agree with you on this last one!). What is sad is that you [have] come here to complain about something that has not one thing to do with driving (I don't even know what you're trying to say here. I hope you're not having a stroke. Do the *FAST test* (Face, Arms, Speech, Time) quickly!). Sad??? YES! PETHETIC (it's spelled "PATHETIC") ?? OMFG YES!"

There you go! Fixed it for you, you genius you.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if they only pay minimum wage then obviously they won't have any drivers driving for them
> 
> get real


Sure they will... you don't think they wouldn't? They can find a driver mix at any pay price.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Cynergie said:


> Precisely.
> 
> First, if you opt NOT to be an employee, then there can be ZERO union benefits. Because unionization only applies to employee status. Period.
> 
> ...


and if they can't stay in business because of the costs of making drivers employees then they never shoulda been in business in the first place


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

IGotDrive said:


> You heard assessment and got scared because it would mean you would actually have to use your brain. Grow up.
> 
> Btw, let me correct your horrible grammar and spelling skills (corrections in RED):
> 
> ...


At least I don't come to goober forum to ***** about something else.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> Sure they will... you don't think they wouldn't? They can find a driver mix at any pay price.


then we'll see

AB5 is here if you like it or not

all the Uber shills can cry their eyes out I don't care


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

IGotDrive said:


> Exactly! Part of the problem is that this is not an option for all ICs.


Which has exactly been my point i.e. ppl shouldn't expect that AB5 will be the universal solution for all the exploitation being perpetrated by employers. That's before factoring in the added complication of unions.

That was the point being made in the article of the OP's post. And the IC/freelancer industry is extremely differentiated as you've pointed out. Each freelancer/IC sector needs to be considered independently. Because this one-size-fits-all-IC-to-employee solution is ultimately going to result in a crying game. What works well in one sector (e.g. freelance writing/journalism) may NOT work at all for other sectors i.e. ride share.

The former is likely to be a post secondary educated/high skill labor worker and/or a high skill worker with competitive/marketable job skills (being bilingual etc). Just like the freelancer interpreter in the OP's original post. The latter is low skill labor worker who, by default of said minimum wage skills, lacks competitive/marketable job skill set. And is therefore highly susceptible to replacement by employers. As proved by U/L's unethical firing policies to date.


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> and if they can't stay in business because of the costs of making drivers employees then they never shoulda been in business in the first place


Here is the thing that escapes uberdriverfornow. You shouldn't be relying on being a goober driver as your sole source of income. PERIOD. He or she seems to think they are entitled to shit they are not entitled too. If you can't afford to be NOT a goober driver because of the restrictions that WILL be placed on them as employees then they are shit out of luck


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> Here is the thing that escapes uberdriverfornow. You shouldn't be relying on being a goober driver as your sole source of income. PERIOD. He or she seems to think they are entitled to shit they are not entitled too. If you can't afford to be NOT a goober driver because of the restrictions that WILL be placed on them as employees then they are shit out of luck and deserves to be shit on hard.


if a driver can't rely on Uber to earn a living then Uber shouldn't be in business


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if a driver can't rely on Uber to earn a living then Uber shouldn't be in business


Ok I have to ask the question. Why would you EVER think you can rely on goober for anything? It was not designed to be worked as a full time job that you idiots have made it out to be. Who are you to say who and who shouldn't be in business? Just because you can't carve out a living driving off their backs... that is NOT their problem! If you were dumb enough to fall for their ads, that is YOUR problem for being stupid. You are self employed and NOT entitled to anything. When self employed people can't make it any more they go out of business. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't trust goober.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> Ok I have to ask the question. Why would you EVER think you can rely on goober for anything? It was not designed to be worked as a full time job that you idiots have made it out to be. Who are you to say who and who shouldn't be in business? Just because you can't carve out a living driving off their backs... that is NOT their problem! If you were dumb enough to fall for their ads, that is YOUR problem for being stupid. You are self employed and NOT entitled to anything. When self employed people can't make it any more they go out of business. Anyone with half a brain knows you can't trust goober.


been doing this fulltime for 4 years and the pay has been steadily decreasing for 4 years

before I didn't care about no benefits because I made enough but now I'm normally making $20 an hour minus gas and expenses unless it's a day or week they offer an incentive

at any day they can further cut rates and drivers have no benefits to fall back on

AB5 came at just the right time


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

:biggrin:


uberdriverfornow said:


> then we'll see
> 
> AB5 is here if you like it or not
> 
> all the Uber shills can cry their eyes out I don't care


uberdriverfornow don't lie... you care! You think you are smarter than the rest of us that TRULLY don't give a shit if they give another ride or not. I will miss the extra cash but it won't effect my life like it will in yours VERY soon! B.O.H.I.C.A (BEND OVER HERE IT COMES AGAIN)!! Those of us smart enough to not live in California will laugh at all you morons as you take it hard! :biggrin:


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> :biggrin:
> uberdriverfornow don't lie... you care! You think you are smarter than the rest of us that TRULLY don't give a shit if they give another ride or not. I will miss the extra cash but it won't effect my life like it will in yours VERY soon! B.O.H.I.C.A (BEND OVER HERE IT COMES AGAIN)!! Those of us smart enough to not live in California will laugh at all you morons as you take it hard! :biggrin:


AB5 and the threat of a union are already preventing further rate cuts...if AB5 goes away then the rate cuts come

if AB5 wasn't here then we woulda had our rates cuts yet again

common sense


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> OMG why in the world would you EVER think you will make a dime more than your hourly wage? You are not entitled to anything. Your self employed and they WILL take advantage of you worse than before. The rest of the country is laughing at you idiots.
> 
> 
> Union? What union is saving you? What are you smoking? What color is the sky in your world?
> ...


the union vote is coming and then comes the union contract


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Cynergie said:


> Which has exactly been my point i.e. ppl shouldn't expect that AB5 will be the universal solution for all the exploitation being perpetrated by employers. That's before factoring in the added complication of unions.
> 
> That was the point being made in the article of the OP's post. And the IC/freelancer industry is extremely differentiated as you've pointed out. Each freelancer/IC sector needs to be considered independently. Because this one-size-fits-all-IC-to-employee solution is ultimately going to result in a crying game. What works well in one sector (e.g. freelance writing/journalism) may NOT work at all for other sectors i.e. ride share.
> 
> The former is likely to be a post secondary educated/high skill labor worker and/or a high skill worker with competitive/marketable job skills (being bilingual etc). Just like the freelancer interpreter in the OP's original post. The latter is low skill labor worker who, by default of said minimum wage skills, lacks competitive/marketable job skill set. And is therefore highly susceptible to replacement by employers. As proved by U/L's unethical firing policies to date.


Thought experiment. I wonder what % of the existing Cali drivers would Uber actually be willing to hire?

10%?

50%?

Definitely not 100%.

So there will be pain for drivers IF AB5 ever goes into effect.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> so now full blown disparaging of all drivers, tomatopaste ?


Take off your union organizer hat for a moment and try to think logically. If you were running Uber how many of the current drivers would you hire?


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Take off your union organizer hat for a moment and try to think logically. If you were running Uber how many of the current drivers would you hire?


I would hire all new drivers away from taxi companies myself. They are used to being a full time taxi employee and they won't back talk when told were to drive and when to drive. The ones on staff now think they don't have any rules to follow even as employees.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

goneubering said:


> Thought experiment. I wonder what % of the existing Cali drivers would Uber actually be willing to hire?
> 
> 10%?
> 
> ...


How about zero? You haven't considered the total number of drivers languishing in the nation---nvm in their global footprint....

0% is the correct response. It's the reason why Uber has gone full Monty in investing in novel R&D driverless technology to date. <--- Which btw, would finally justify their claim they're an IT and not taxi company :roflmao:

You see, 0% is the ENTIRE point of Uber's tech push for driverless vehicles. For the billions in revenue Uber has to begrudgingly sacrifice in driver pay, 0% means zero payout expenditure to Uber's overhead. Because this is without a doubt, about the only way Uber will convince its Wall Street/global investors of a future positive trend in its revenues. Drivers are a leviathan anchor around Uber's neck where profits are concerned.

The faster they can use automation to eliminate their 4 million man driver base globally, the less they'll have to be concerned about unionization. Automation is the only way to eliminate unionized employees right to bargain. The more they transform their driver fleet to driverless vehicles, the less they'll have to be concerned about legislation like AB5/IC v. employer categorization, millions wasted in future driver IC litigation, and/or associated AB5 employee benefits etc etc. Because machines DO NOT possess double helix DNA, are so by default are not sentient....

Now you see why our boy Travis (aka the smartest man in Uber's board room) has been so keen on abandoning ship with his most eager dumping of his million+ owned shares to date? :roflmao:


----------



## Fat Man (May 17, 2019)

Cynergie said:


> How about zero? You haven't considered the total number of drivers languishing in the nation---nvm in their global footprint....
> 
> 0% is the correct response.
> 
> ...


Let me ask this. Who would ride in a driverless car? I wouldn't. I barely will ride in one now with the creeps they have driving!

I doubt states like Arizona will allow another unmanned car on the road anytime soon.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Take off your union organizer hat for a moment and try to think logically. If you were running Uber how many of the current drivers would you hire?


are you saying Uber currently has no drivers ?


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Fat Man said:


> This law is stupid and so are those who support it. There is a ton of people making a living or supplementing their income that is going to be hurt because of this law. I feel bad for those who didn't support this law but those of you @@@@@@s that supported it are going to get EXACTLY what you wanted. BOSSES, TERRITORIES, PERFORMANCE REVIEWS, AND OF COURSE YOU WILL NOT MAKE ANY MORE THAN THE BARE MINIMUM! The rest of us will be doing a whole lot better than you idiots but hey you asked for this so here you go! Just a shame you hurt everyone else with your stupid unrealistic demands.
> 
> Hideyokidshideyowifebcuz your a idiot. You and your law deserve exactly what you will get. This law you love so much will hurt everyone in California including you. But you cant fix stupid. Your wonderful law will eliminate part timers from being able to make the extra they need to survive in your over priced state. GOOD JOB! :thumbup:


The Jury agrees.
The Jury previously reviewed a television report which focused on a "prominent" AB5 supporter whose main complaint was that he waited at the airport for hours every day, could not get enough rides, and wanted to be paid for his waiting time. When The Jury reported this to The Judge, coffee came spouting out of her nostrils. The Judge commented that the airport shackled driver should experiment and learn how to run a profitable business.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> uberdriverfornow believes he is a employee now


Uber believes I am an employee now, actually

CNN.com › 2019/12/31 › tech
Uber, Postmates sue to stop California law *requiring drivers to be employees* - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/tech/uber-postmates-sue-california-gig-worker-law/index.html


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the only delusional activity is you continuously quoting yourself


The Jury has decided, on a 10 to 2 vote, that you are actually a paid union organizer.
The Judge commented that a vote taken by all the posters in this thread would likely result in a referendum against employee status and union representation.
The Court is adjourned.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fat Man said:


> No ACTUALLY they don't believe your a employee hence the law suit to make you stay a contractor. These companies don't want you as employees and I firmly believe you will regret it if the state wins. It's ok... look outside... is the grass still blue in your world?


but Uber believes we are employees or they wouldn't be suing to stop it

CNN.com › 2019/12/31 › tech
Uber, Postmates sue to stop California law requiring drivers to be employees - CNN

https://www.cnn.com/2019/12/31/tech/uber-postmates-sue-california-gig-worker-law/index.html


Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury has decided, on a 10 to 2 vote, that you are actually a paid union organizer.
> The Judge commented that a vote taken by all the posters in this thread would likely result in a referendum against employee status and union representation.
> The Court is adjourned.


you act like that's a bad thing

i'll be happy to be a union organizer


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> but Uber believes we are employees or they wouldn't be suing to stop it
> 
> CNN.com › 2019/12/31 › tech
> Uber, Postmates sue to stop California law requiring drivers to be employees - CNN
> ...


The Jury asks for the third and final time. Why would any company hire you?


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Cynergie said:


> How about zero? You haven't considered the total number of drivers languishing in the nation---nvm in their global footprint....
> 
> 0% is the correct response. It's the reason why Uber has gone full Monty in investing in novel R&D driverless technology to date. <--- Which btw, would finally justify their claim they're an IT and not taxi company :roflmao:
> 
> ...


It can't be zero immediately. Uber is nowhere near to being able to deploy a fleet of their "self-driving" cars. They're still in test mode and possibly may never get further than testing. They will continue to need human drivers for the foreseeable future.


----------



## Nate5Star (Dec 18, 2019)

goneubering said:


> It can't be zero immediately. Uber is nowhere near to being able to deploy a fleet of their "self-driving" cars. They're still in test mode and possibly may never get further than testing. They will continue to need human drivers for the foreseeable future.


IBM believed the personal computer would not catch on. They once dominated the computer market. Today they still only make main frame and mid range computers. They tried, and failed, at personal computers.
AT&T believed people would not walk around with a cell phone. They once dominated all telecommunications. Today AT&T wireless is not the AT&T of yesterday. AT&T's wireless division was bought by Singular wireless around 2004 and became the monsterous wireless company it is today.

The first personal computer was invented invented in 1971 (KENBAK-1) unless you want to believe the Altair 8800, invented in 1975, was the first personal computer. It was the first time the name was applied to the appliance. 
The Motorola DynaTAC 800x was the first cell phone launched in 1983. 
The first smartphone, the Ericsson R380, appeared in 1999. 
28 years after the first PC and only 16 years after the first cellphone, someone decided to breed them to create a smartphone.

Uber will get its self-driving cars, and probably within both our lifetimes.


----------



## Cynergie (Apr 10, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> <snip>


Out of curiosity, is this bit of bum nugget amnesia on U/L part affecting you as well? If so, perhaps it's not a regional as being implied here

http://uberpeople.net/threads/thous...ers-in-us-reportedly-not-getting-paid.370580/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Judge and Jury said:


> The Jury asks for the third and final time. Why would any company hire you?


you're a dumbass and I'm putting you on ignore cause all you do is post garbage


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Cynergie said:


> Out of curiosity, is this bit of bum nugget amnesia on U/L part affecting you as well? If so, perhaps it's not a regional as being implied here
> 
> http://uberpeople.net/threads/thous...ers-in-us-reportedly-not-getting-paid.370580/


Earlier this week, drivers using Instant Pay experienced a processing interruption due to MasterCard that delayed them from depositing funds into bank accounts. All impacted drivers were notified about this delay, and the technical issue you're referring to has been resolved. Most importantly, all impacted drivers will be able to access and deposit funds through Instant Pay for previously accrued earnings during the interruption. 
- Uber spokesperson

We have received reports of delayed Express Pay transactions due to an issue involving a third-party vendor as well as the holiday yesterday. Drivers have started receiving successful deposits today, depending on their bank's processing time. This is in no way related to AB5, nor do drivers ever face any retaliation whatsoever for speaking to the media. Any implication otherwise is entirely false.
- Lyft Spokesperson.

https://sacramento.cbslocal.com/2020/01/01/rideshare-pay-uber-lyft/


----------



## GreatOrchid (Apr 9, 2019)

just dont try to form a union


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if a driver can't rely on Uber to earn a living then Uber shouldn't be in business


not to throw facts over your opinion but over 80% of active monthly drivers drive 20 or less hours per week; so your stmt seems to wilt. A very small percent does RS full time as their sole income source.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> if a driver can't rely on Uber to earn a living then Uber shouldn't be in business


Yea, maybe that's the way it _should_ be ... but we got this pesky constitution thingy that many citizens don't like any more. The whole point of that document is FREEDOM.
Freedom to do stupid, and unfair stuff that _you_ don't like.

I am a rabid believer, an extremist .. when it comes to freedom.
I support it. 
I rejoice in it.
It is a rare commodity on this planet - I think we should keep as much of it as possible for as long as possible.

I think we should allow Uber the freedom to operate.
I think we should allow passengers the freedom to use it.
I think we should allow drivers the freedom to offer their services there.

Capitalism will wash out the unprofitable companies, the unprofitable drivers, and the passengers that won't allow profit.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> not to throw facts over your opinion but over 80% of active monthly drivers drive 20 or less hours per week; so your stmt seems to wilt. A very small percent does RS full time as their sole income source.


That makes me wonder. Would it be possible to make employees out of all those drivers who spend 40 or more hours weekly on the road but let us part timers remain as ICs?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> who spend 40 or more hours weekly


40 hours a week is considered full time. Some companies 30 ish hours is considered full time. If full time drivers want to be employees, knock themselves out. I'm just at barely 20 spread over 2 RS options. I'm happy being an IC.


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> not to throw facts over your opinion but over 80% of active monthly drivers drive 20 or less hours per week; so your stmt seems to wilt. A very small percent does RS full time as their sole income source.


Very misleading numbers.

The bedrock core and by far the most important part of the rideshare business is the Mon-Fri commute, which is dominated by FULL TIME drivers.

Uber would be out of business in less than 24 hours without them.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

goneubering said:


> You have a fixation on unions being the only answer. That seems highly unlikely and unwieldy when you consider the massive churn rate of drivers.


There wouldn't be the massive churn if the drivers were treated like either employees or contractors. Right now they're treated as neither (or more accurately both, depending on which angle benefits Uber).



SHalester said:


> unions are not the answer:
> In 2016, there were 14.6 million members in the U.S., down from 17.7 million in 1983. The percentage of workers belonging to a *union* in the United States (or total labor *union* "density") was 10.7%, compared to 20.1% in 1983. *Union membership* in the private sector has fallen under 7%-levels not seen since 1932.


How does membership being down in more recent years prove they don't work? There could be a lot of factors contributing to that which have nothing to do with efficacy.



UberBastid said:


> Yea, maybe that's the way it _should_ be ... but we got this pesky constitution thingy that many citizens don't like any more. The whole point of that document is FREEDOM.
> Freedom to do stupid, and unfair stuff that _you_ don't like.
> 
> I am a rabid believer, an extremist .. when it comes to freedom.
> ...


So you don't believe in a minimum wage, workmens comp, freedom from sexual or other harassment, etc.?

I mean, if you're smart you just won't work for a company that doesn't treat you well, correct? You'll just find another job.


----------



## dirtylee (Sep 2, 2015)

The more I read this thread, the more I am glad none of you morons have any power. 

Some of you are sure if you kiss you owners ass even harder, you might get more scraps.

AB5 is a great direction & truly proves CA is the best state to be an employee. Too many companies are "freelancing" & "contracting" out in house positions that are revenue producing. 

Don't like it. Pack ur shit and move to Kansas.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SHalester said:


> not to throw facts over your opinion but over 80% of active monthly drivers drive 20 or less hours per week; so your stmt seems to wilt. A very small percent does RS full time as their sole income source.


factually impossible

in all my rides as a pax my drivers rarely are part time drivers

you are throwing a number out that that Uber likes to use to push their "flexbility" garbage

"our drivers tell us all that matters is the 'flexibility' to work for 24,000 companies and go online when we want"

complete bullshit


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> factually impossible


perhaps you should gander at the sexual attacks reports Uber provided that state the facts on what percent of drivers 20 or less drivers. Uber has provided that particular stat before as well. 
Well, maybe you don't decide anything, but every other driver does. They decide what days to work and for how long and even where. That is a simple fact as no drivers is 'forced' to go online.

Your opinions are just that. Next.



Fuzzyelvis said:


> How does membership being down in more recent years prove they don't work?


Because fewer and fewer workers are 'voting' for a union. And as I've said before take teachers out of the picture and union membership is a sliver. Plus, there is no chance a majority of drivers (those in calif if we become employees) would vote to approve unionization.



Nats121 said:


> which is dominated by FULL TIME drivers.


care to provide something to back that opinion up? Every stat I've seen majority of RS are way under 40 hours a week. In fact, believe there was a poll here not to long ago on this specific topic of how many hours per week, tho this forum is in no way representative of all US drivers.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> factually impossible
> 
> in all my rides as a pax my drivers rarely are part time drivers
> 
> ...


How do you know? It seems like only Uber would know the %s.

For me flexibility is the number one reason for doing rideshare. But I'm only part time. For full time drivers it could be different.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

Anyone that is simple enough to believe that this was about Uber is confused. This is about the state getting control of the freelance and gig industry. They're losing tons of taxes and they want them back. 

Also these companies are circumventing the employment laws.

No, is not about you....


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Nate5Star said:


> Uber will get its self-driving cars, and probably within both our lifetimes.


We're talking about Uber. Their $ wasting SDC program should be shut down in my opinion. They can't even do Navigation right!!


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> perhaps you should gander at the sexual attacks reports Uber provided that state the facts on what percent of drivers 20 or less drivers. Uber has provided that particular stat before as well.
> Well, maybe you don't decide anything, but every other driver does. They decide what days to work and for how long and even where. That is a simple fact as no drivers is 'forced' to go online.
> 
> Your opinions are just that. Next.
> ...


The majority of rideshare drivers are part timers, but the majority of rides given during rush hour are by full timers. Uber themselves acknowledged this during the IPO process.

Think it thru. There never would have been an AB5 in California or the stringent regulations in NYC without a sizable number of full time drivers.

It's because of the fact there are so many drivers relying on this job as their main source of income that the governments of California and NYC felt compelled to take action.

Uber's driver data revealed that most NYC drivers rely on this job as their primary source of income.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Nats121 said:


> The majority of rideshare drivers are part timers, but the majority of rides given during rush hour are by full timers. Uber themselves acknowledged this during the IPO process.
> 
> Think it thru. There never would have been an AB5 in California or the stringent regulations in NYC without a sizable number of full time drivers.
> 
> ...


Do you have a link showing these facts?


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SHalester said:


> perhaps you should gander at the sexual attacks reports Uber provided that state the facts on what percent of drivers 20 or less drivers. Uber has provided that particular stat before as well.
> Well, maybe you don't decide anything, but every other driver does. They decide what days to work and for how long and even where. That is a simple fact as no drivers is 'forced' to go online.
> 
> Your opinions are just that. Next.
> ...


the number of supposed sexual attacks has nothing to do with anything

you really have no clue about anything


----------



## Judge and Jury (Oct 19, 2019)

Nats121 said:


> The majority of rideshare drivers are part timers, but the majority of rides given during rush hour are by full timers. Uber themselves acknowledged this during the IPO process.
> 
> Think it thru. There never would have been an AB5 in California or the stringent regulations in NYC without a sizable number of full time drivers.
> 
> ...


The Jury has voted on a referendum, on a 11 to one vote, that if drivers and couriers are finally employed by the gig companies, there will no longer be full time drivers in California.

The Judge has amended The Jury's position. A lack of satisfaction by drivers over part-time status, lack of meaningful benefits, little or no flexibility regarding work hours and minimum wage pay may lead to an exodus of drivers in California.

Thus, the RS companies may eventually , in their own interest, provide drivers with the potential of a 40 hour work week. However, overtime will not be allowed, 3 pto's per year, health insurance available at $500 or $600 per month and the loss of the mileage deduction. And still, minimum wage.

It seems the upsides are no more self employment tax, worker's compensation benefits and possible unemployment benefits, (unless you were terminated by the algorithm for cause.)

From the Jury's perspective, being a minimum wage employee, in the short to medium time frame is unacceptable. The Jury members currently make much more than mininum wage. Net, not gross.


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
> *California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
> A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.
> 
> ...


Oh no, employers being held accountable and tax dodgers are inflamed. Who DA **** cares? Pay your share and shut up!!



Cold Fusion said:


> .....Actually, 9 Justices sit on the US Supreme Court
> Tic Tok &#128514;&#129315;
> 
> "_US Supreme Court unanimously Strike Down AB5" _
> ...


They don't want the slaves to prosper.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> you really have no clue about anything


maybe, maybe not. I see you could not come up with any thing that supports your incorrect opinion? The simple fact the vast majority of RS do it part-time 80%+ by all accounts. A minority do it full time and I salute them for being able to achieve that. Even 30 years ago I couldn't drive for 10+ hours a day, 5 days a week. 
So, do let us know when agree your opinion is based on nothing but what resides, in the moment, in your head. tata


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> Yea, maybe that's the way it _should_ be ... but we got this pesky constitution thingy that many citizens don't like any more. The whole point of that document is FREEDOM.
> Freedom to do stupid, and unfair stuff that _you_ don't like.
> 
> I am a rabid believer, an extremist .. when it comes to freedom.
> ...


It is just your imagination that you free. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.
My friend we live Capital dictatorship without any doubt. Capitalist propaganda will tell you that we are free nation, and other nations are not free. It is symply propaganda! Capitalizam as political and economical system cannot solve the poverty problem because Capitalizam is generate poverty!


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

Polomarko said:


> It is just your imagination that you free. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.
> My friend we live Capital dictatorship without any doubt. Capitalist propaganda will tell you that we are free nation, and other nations are not free. It is symply propaganda! Capitalizam as political and economical system cannot solve the poverty problem because Capitalizam is generate poverty!


Oh, come on comrade.
Socialism has never worked. Never.
Capitalism reduces poverty. Even poverty in the US is better than 90% of the worlds population, and poverty has gone down huge in the last ten years. 
People are not stupid comrade. They (we) know how to take care of ourselves. We don't need you, or a government bureaucrat to decide how we should live. If I think I can make a better Widget than you, for less money, and make a profit ... I should be allowed to try. I _am_ allowed to try, in the US. 
We, the people, only ask for freedom to seek our own way - _even if _you don't like or approve of our path.
Freedom is a dirty word to you comrade, so I will continue to use it.

The United States of America will never be a socialist country.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

Polomarko said:


> It is just your imagination that you free. Freedom is just another word for nothing left to loose.
> My friend we live Capital dictatorship without any doubt. Capitalist propaganda will tell you that we are free nation, and other nations are not free. It is symply propaganda! Capitalizam as political and economical system cannot solve the poverty problem because Capitalizam is generate poverty!


Your so misinformed it's sad. 

Or it's just very low quality trolling.


----------



## Dammit Mazzacane (Dec 31, 2015)

AngelAdams said:


> Oh no, employers being held accountable and tax dodgers are inflamed. Who DA @@@@ cares? Pay your share and shut up!!


People working in certain industries capable of making a living wage from multi-client work care. Explain your position.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> the job can not work with schedules, period
> 
> 
> which law ?
> ...


Jobs don't have to have a schedule. I was a principal computer systems engineer for the 17th largest corporation in the United States for over 20 years.

I had no schedule, I had to make all my meetings, and all my deadlines. There was no 9 to 5.

There does not have to be a schedule in ride share either. They just have to provide us what the law requires all employers to provide by law.



dirtylee said:


> The more I read this thread, the more I am glad none of you morons have any power.
> 
> Some of you are sure if you kiss you owners ass even harder, you might get more scraps.
> 
> ...


Here, here!


----------



## AngelAdams (Jan 21, 2019)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> People working in certain industries capable of making a living wage from multi-client work care. Explain your position.


Basically you're not an independent contractor if you do over 20% of your business with one client. 
the whole point of an independent contractor status is to have an individual business, it comes before small business. 
for a multinational corporation to use a loophole to skirt paying taxes is a no,no.
Lyft alone cost two billion last year to the middle class is way of keeping their drivers dependent on governmental subsidies and/or deductions. 
that's not even counting the billions they cost in essentially ruining an entire sector of the economy.
While I do agree with having oversight and representatives that have our best interests, but that's a different argument in general.
So basically anyone who says their independent contractors, but really aren't are screwed. And I'm A ok with that.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> I had no schedule, I had to make all my meetings, and all my deadlines. There was no 9 to 5.


you are describing a 'salaried' job, just saying. IT Manager for 32yrs. pretty much 24/7 until I grew a brain......


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

SHalester said:


> you are describing a 'salaried' job, just saying. IT Manager for 32yrs. pretty much 24/7 until I grew a brain......


Yes that's true that was a salaried job.

It also meant that we had the opportunity to work any 18 hours out of 24 that we chose. Because that's what I took to make all your deadlines and make every meeting.

Still, a schedule is not a legal requirement. Hours online are already tracked.

In reality you have to work when the people want to move.

Early morning, swing shift on, swing shift off. Day workers off.
Then evening rides to eat and drink. A lull, and haul drunks home.

Some airport tricks still work, but not many.

We schedule ourselves


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> Still, a schedule is not a legal requirement.


maybe, but really Uber would almost have no choice but create some kind of schedule. If anybody beleives Uber will create approx 200K employees when forced, well I have a bridge to sell them. Being employee: hourly or salaried means the employer will excercise control and supervision. That is a simple fact.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

SHalester said:


> maybe, but really Uber would almost have no choice but create some kind of schedule. If anybody beleives Uber will create approx 200K employees when forced, well I have a bridge to sell them. Being employee: hourly or salaried means the employer will excercise control and supervision. That is a simple fact.


Still... The people only move certain times, we self schedule.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Buck-a-mile said:


> The people only move certain times, we self schedule.


now, yes. After being switched to an employee, that freedom most likely gone.


----------



## Buck-a-mile (Nov 2, 2019)

SHalester said:


> now, yes. After being switched to an employee, that freedom most likely gone.


Scheduling costs money, and requires new employees.

I suspect the companies will set out guidelines, and see what happens before they add a layer of infrastructure.

Uber is doing nothing different, hoping they win in court.

What the current investors in Uber will soon find is Uber had one purpose.
That was to make 2 people very wealthy. Mission accomplished.

What's left of Uber is like a shed insect's exoskeleton. It looks like a real organism, but it's an empty shell.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SHalester said:


> maybe, maybe not. I see you could not come up with any thing that supports your incorrect opinion? The simple fact the vast majority of RS do it part-time 80%+ by all accounts. A minority do it full time and I salute them for being able to achieve that. Even 30 years ago I couldn't drive for 10+ hours a day, 5 days a week.
> So, do let us know when agree your opinion is based on nothing but what resides, in the moment, in your head. tata


that's not a fact, that's your opnion

most drivers are fulltime and those fulltime drivers do most of the work


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> that's not a fact, that's your opnion
> 
> most drivers are fulltime and those fulltime drivers do most of the work


Link please.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> Link please.


https://uberpeople.net/threads/ab5s...ncers-in-other-industries.370293/post-5730398


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> https://uberpeople.net/threads/ab5s...ncers-in-other-industries.370293/post-5730398


I'm looking for a link to facts.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

goneubering said:


> I'm looking for a link to facts.


I think what's confusing you is that this is taking place in California.
YOU want facts and WE keep talking about feelings.

It's allll about feeeeeelings man.



SHalester said:


> now, yes. After being switched to an employee, that freedom most likely gone.


Again ... this is California.
Freedom for some.
"All animals are created equal - its just that some animals are more equal than others." Animal Farm by George Orwell

You see, the politicians here believe that the masses are too stupid to take care of themselves. What we think we want is not really what we want. When your two year old wants to play with daddy's pistol, do you let her? Of course not. She is too ignorant to know what is good for her so you impose your will, and you should.
That is also the duty of California politicians. 
We need to be taken care of.

I just _think_ that I want freedom; because I'm too stupid to understand what that means.
Pelosi and Feinstein and Any-Twosome-Newsome need to take care of the citizens of California.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

UberBastid said:


> I think what's confusing you is that this is taking place in California.
> YOU want facts and WE keep talking about feelings.
> 
> It's allll about feeeeeelings man.
> ...


Keep living in your utopian world where companies always do the right thing, pay a fair wage, never deactivate for any reason such as pax falsely complaining to get a fare reduction, and where companies never cut rates below poverty levels. &#128077;


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> that's not a fact, that's your opnion


you need to upgrade your news consumption habits. It is fact from horse's mouth direct. Google is your friend.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

SHalester said:


> you need to upgrade your news consumption habits. It is fact from horse's mouth direct. Google is your friend.


ya let's believe the fox that's guarding the henhouse


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

SHalester said:


> perhaps you should gander at the sexual attacks reports Uber provided that state the facts on what percent of drivers 20 or less drivers. Uber has provided that particular stat before as well.
> Well, maybe you don't decide anything, but every other driver does. They decide what days to work and for how long and even where. That is a simple fact as no drivers is 'forced' to go online.
> 
> Your opinions are just that. Next.
> ...


That's the same company who told us their stats showed we'd make more money with lower rates?

Maybe folks aren't joining unions because they think the same way you do. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

Fuzzyelvis said:


> That's the same company who told us their stats showed we'd make more money with lower rates?
> 
> Maybe folks aren't joining unions because they think the same way you do. It's a self fulfilling prophecy.


lol "Don't join a union, let us cut your rates again so that you'll make more"

SHalester, and goneubering, "YAY!!


----------



## rkozy (Apr 5, 2019)

observer said:


> No, Uber has to cough up more information, get rid of the ratings and deactivations. Drivers should be able to decide which rides make economic sense to them without any consequences.


Uber should move to a name-your-own-price model for their customers. The passengers request a ride for what they're willing to pay, Uber sends that bid out to the nearest available driver (detailing what cut the driver will receive) and the driver can either accept or pass. The pax bid keeps moving down the line until it is either rejected by all drivers within a certain proximity, or is accepted by an idle driver who believes it to be a reasonable bid.

If the pax's bid is rejected by all available drivers, that notice should be accompanied by a message stating that only a higher bid is more likely to result in an accepted request. These companies love the free market? Let the free market decide what the actual price for a ride should be.

And, let the driver decide whether that price meets their individual expectation for profitability.


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> Keep living in your utopian world where companies always do the right thing, pay a fair wage, never deactivate for any reason such as pax falsely complaining to get a fare reduction, and where companies never cut rates below poverty levels. &#128077;


I AM living in a Utopian world.
It's called CALIFORNIA.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.cnet.com/news/ubers-sec...olved-more-than-letting-drivers-reject-trips/


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
> *California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
> A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.
> 
> ...


The companies that use foriegn language interpreters are not in the business of interpreting which means that these are not realizing the law does not apply to them. This is an example of highly qualified professionals making major errors. The fact that the article was written is political and/or equally in error.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.cbsnews.com/news/federa...new-california-labor-law/?ftag=CNM-00-10aag7e


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> ya let's believe the fox that's guarding the henhouse


You never provided a link to back up your opinions so I found this.

*Following are our key findings regarding the scale of Uber and the gig economy:*



_
Uber drivers have high turnover and, on average, work only part of the year (an average of three months) and part time (an average of 17 hours per week). This means that an Uber driver provides roughly 12.5 percent as much "employment," or total hours of work in a year, as a full-time, full-year worker.
_

https://www.epi.org/publication/ube...es-and-the-scale-of-uber-and-the-gig-economy/


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

goneubering said:


> You never provided a link to back up your opinions so I found this.
> 
> *Following are our key findings regarding the scale of Uber and the gig economy:*
> 
> ...


and exactly which drivers did they get their data from ?



UberBastid said:


> I AM living in a Utopian world.
> It's called CALIFORNIA.


and the sun is yellow

i can post irrelevant stuff too


----------



## UberBastid (Oct 1, 2016)

uberdriverfornow said:


> and exactly which drivers did they get their data from ?
> 
> 
> and the sun is yellow
> ...


You prove it daily.


----------



## LADryver (Jun 6, 2017)

goneubering said:


> You never provided a link to back up your opinions so I found this.
> 
> *Following are our key findings regarding the scale of Uber and the gig economy:*
> 
> ...


These writers are probably writing from various whines about the costs, both intangible and tangible, of driving and the reductions of pay and surge and share but not actual data. Given that those who complain mention being below minimum wage, there is some basis to believe it is true to an impoverishing extent. But we would be hard-pressed to go out there if it really was as dismal as portrayed.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

uberdriverfornow said:


> and exactly which drivers did they get their data from ?


Data from over one million drivers.

*Table 1: Basic summary statistics, all US drivers
Weekly earnings Hourly earnings Hours per week
Trips per week
6 month attrition rate Number of drivers Number driver/weeks Number of Uber trips

In this paper, we make use of a sample of over a million drivers

https://web.stanford.edu/~diamondr/UberPayGap.pdf*


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

rkozy said:


> Uber should move to a name-your-own-price model for their customers. The passengers request a ride for what they're willing to pay, Uber sends that bid out to the nearest available driver (detailing what cut the driver will receive) and the driver can either accept or pass. The pax bid keeps moving down the line until it is either rejected by all drivers within a certain proximity, or is accepted by an idle driver who believes it to be a reasonable bid.
> 
> If the pax's bid is rejected by all available drivers, that notice should be accompanied by a message stating that only a higher bid is more likely to result in an accepted request. These companies love the free market? Let the free market decide what the actual price for a ride should be.
> 
> And, let the driver decide whether that price meets their individual expectation for profitability.


There's no question now. Uber's going to keep us drivers as ICs.

https://uberpeople.net/threads/in-c...k-no-rate-cut-i-must-be-seeing-things.371717/


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

LADryver said:


> These writers are probably writing from various whines about the costs, both intangible and tangible, of driving and the reductions of pay and surge and share but not actual data. Given that those who complain mention being below minimum wage, there is some basis to believe it is true to an impoverishing extent. But we would be hard-pressed to go out there if it really was as dismal as portrayed.


I wish AB5 allowed us as individual drivers to make the choice instead of being forced to become employees. I like being an IC. I have no desire to become an Uber employee.


----------



## sadboy (Jul 15, 2016)

Tools buying what media says about AB5. Who do you think pumps these stories out, lobbies trying to get rid of it.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

sadboy said:


> Tools buying what media says about AB5. Who do you think pumps these stories out, lobbies trying to get rid of it.


Are you saying you want to be an Uber employee?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.lamag.com/citythinkblog/ab-5-budget/


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Yupp. But Uber is in a bind. They have some money in the bank. Not likely anyone else will lend them more money. Most likely they will start cannibalizing Uber itself and start selling off pieces.
> 
> The only way Uber can survive is by becoming smaller and retrenching.


https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/uber-offloaded-its-food-delivery-business-in-india.html


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

observer said:


> https://www.cnbc.com/2020/01/21/uber-offloaded-its-food-delivery-business-in-india.html


Smart move by Dara. Now he needs to completely get out of India.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

goneubering said:


> Smart move by Dara. Now he needs to completely get out of India.


There are 2 regulatory issues that will probably play out this year if not this quarter. Because of the large number of impoverished drivers that bought cars before pay drops, regulators are planning to cut Uber's take down to 10%. There was some speculation that the rule would be issued before the new year, but no word yet. A long drawn out legal case about predatory pricing is also on the table this year that would force Uber to not price rides below cost. The next couple of months are going to be interesting.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

KevinH said:


> regulators are planning to cut Uber's take down to 10%


very much doubt it. NO regulator power to do such dictating.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> very much doubt it. NO regulator power to do such dictating.


@SHalester

I don't know. This is India we're talking about so it might be possible.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> This is India we're talking about so it might be possible.


exactly my point.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

SHalester said:


> very much doubt it. NO regulator power to do such dictating.


*Ola, Uber fees may be capped at 10% of total fare*
*This is the first time govt wants to regulate commission collected by such cos, which currently stands at 20%.*
By Alnoor Peermohamed

BENGALURU: The central government plans to cap the commission earned on rides by firms such as Uber and Ola to a maximum of 10% of the total fare in its upcoming rules for taxi aggregators, people privy to the matter said.

This is the first time the government is looking to regulate the commission collected by such firms, which currently stands at about 20%.

Further, state governments, if they choose to, could also levy a charge on the aggregators' earnings, according to the guidelines shared with state officials that ET has reviewed.

"We are planning to release the draft (aggregator rules) for public feedback sometime next week," an official said. "It will largely be in line with the guidelines that were shared, with a few small changes."

On the contentious issue of surge pricing, the government has suggested capping it to a maximum of twice the base fare. The base fare can be fixed by the state, or suggested by the aggregator and revised every quarter.

*Rules may be in place by year-end*
However, there is a follow-on clause stipulating that no more than 10% of daily rides undertaken by a driver can be subject to surge pricing.

ET first reported on the proposal to cap the surge pricing at thrice the base fare in its September 13 edition.

The final rules for cab aggregators, which will be notified under the Motor Vehicle Act, 2019 that came into force on September 1, is likely to be formalised before the end of the year.

The guiding document detailed the fee caps, apart from regulations on surge pricing, passenger and driver safety, penalties for drivers and aggregators, and licencing norms for aggregators.

Tackling the other big issue of drivers cancelling rides, the guidelines suggest a penalty in the range of 10-50% of the total fare not exceeding Rs 100. Further, states will be able to set a maximum number of cancellations a driver can make in a week, before being off-boarded by the aggregator for a period of two days. A similar penalty of 10-50% of the total fare not exceeding Rs 100 could be levied on passengers cancelling a ride for no reason

On the safety front, the government could mandate an insurance cover of Rs 5 lakh for each rider, the guidelines said. Aggregators will also have to verify a driver either through facial recognition or biometrics once every three hours to ensure that the driver undertaking the trip is the same as the person enlisted with the aggregator.

"Ride-hailing is one of the best solutions for India. One cab replaces 10 personal cars on the road and 35% of personal car trips at any given point remain idle," one of the senior officials said. "This is what causes congestion."

He added that the rules were in line with promoting ride-hailing in the country, while also protecting driver and rider interests. The guidelines suggest that states should allow city taxi permit holders to also get attached to aggregator apps. Further, state governments should ensure that public parking spaces be allocated to cabs attached to ride-hailing companies. "Municipalities need to recognise that this (ride-hailing) is something good for the country.Unfortunately we have been facilitating only the sale of private vehicles through our policies," added the official.

Read more at:
https://economictimes.indiatimes.co...ofinterest&utm_medium=text&utm_campaign=cppst


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Will never survive a suit.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

SHalester said:


> very much doubt it. NO regulator power to do such dictating.


*End of deep discounting by Uber in India ? Uber loses first round of legal battle in India -Supreme Court dismisses its appeal -Directs investigation against UBER for alleged abuse of dominance -leaves some questions unanswered !*
Vaish Associates Advocates



India November 26 2019
Will India prove to be the nemesis for the Digital Cab Aggregator Giant Uber ? This seems to be probable for now if you are informed that Uber has lost its appeal against an order dated 7.12.2016 passed by the erstwhile Competition Appellate Tribunal ("COMPAT") directing investigation against Uber India Systems Pvt. Ltd ("UBER") for alleged abuse of dominance in the market for radio tax services in Delhi NCR. 
The Supreme Court of India ("SC"), vide judgement dated 03.09.2019, while dismissing Uber's appeal has upheld the said COMPAT order , which means that investigation by the Director General ("DG") against the alleged abuse of dominance by Uber , on account of its unilateral conduct of deep discounts and subsidized cost of trips to finish competition , would restart , much to the chagrin of the fair market regulator, the Competition Commission of India (CCI/Commission), which had initially dismissed the original complaint against Uber on these very charges ! 
Noticeably , the Hon'ble Supreme Court while dismissing Uber's appeal , has left some controversial questions relating to the interpretation of the Competition Act ,2002 (the Act) unanswered which I will like to highlight here for possible resolution in some future judgment by the Apex court . 
But let us first understand the implications of this judgment on Uber's future market conduct in India. This means that if the violation of abuse of dominant position on account of predatory pricing is indeed found true after investigation by DG and inquiry by CCI, besides facing huge penalties , Uber may be directed to stop the existing practice of cross subsidizing the cost per trip for its driver partners from the huge funds obtained by venture capitalist and equity funding from its parent company in the US to create a level playing field . The consequences can be imagined! 
*Background 
Before CCI *
Meru Travels Solutions Pvt. Ltd ("Meru") - a radio taxi service provider and a competitor to Uber- filed an information before CCI on 09.10.2015 alleging that Uber pays the drivers/owners attached to its network unreasonably high incentives which are over and above and in addition to the trip fair received from the passengers. As per Meru, the primary reason for Uber's growth is the large global funding and anticompetitive business model which has led to Meru's market share to drop to 11% in September 2015 from 18% in December 2013 by number of trips and also a loss of INR 107 Crores. On the other hand, Uber's market share had increased to about 50% by the number of trips done on its radio service network. 
In order to show dominance of Uber, Meru relied on a market research report produced by New Age Tech Sci Research Pvt. Ltd ("Tech Sci") which analyzed radio taxi service in Delhi NCR region as on 30.09.2015 which revealed that Uber had 50.1% of the market share in Delhi NCR. Meru alleged that Uber was abusing its dominant position by resorting to predatory pricing and following unfair conditions by virtue of its dominance in the relevant market. The information contained allegation as to the kind of incentives being offered by Uber to its drivers/partners to build a network effect, the gains that drivers make out of their engagement with Uber, the losses that Uber makes out of every trip ( INR 204 per trip) and the kind of discounts that Uber offers to its customers. 
The Commission did not find a prima facie case to order investigation based on the following grounds briefly: 
(i) The Tech Sci report relied upon by Meru was contrary to another report- 6Wresearch which was presented before the Commission in an earlier case Fast Track Call Cabs Pvt. Ltd v ANI Technologies which raised doubts about the credibility of the Tech Sci report. (ii) CCI took Delhi as the relevant geographic market and not Delhi NCR region as requested by Meru on the ground that the regulatory framework in relation to taxi services and use of CNG in public transport were different in both regions. (iii) As per the CCI, there was a vibrant and dynamic radio taxi service in Delhi and Uber was not considered to be dominant in the relevant market. 
Accordingly, the CCI vide its order dated 10.2.2016 closed the case under Section 26(2) of the Act . Meru filed appeal before COMPAT . 
*Before COMPAT *
The COMPAT order dated 7.12.2016 has been already analyzed by me in this Blog and can be read here . 
With regard to the lack of credence given to Tech Sci report by the CCI, the COMPAT noted that Tech Sci Report had made certain statistical reporting which was not challenged in substantive terms by Uber except by raising doubts about the credibility. Moreover, the other report- 6Wresearch report was not accepted by CCI in Mega Cabs Case, however the Tech Sci report on Bangalore had been accepted by the Commission in Fast Track Case. As per COMPAT, the fact that the two reports were contradictory to each other was a sufficient ground in itself to order investigation by the CCI. The COMPAT noted that since the objective of Section 26(1) of the Act is to formulate a prima facie view, the information along with the material facts made available was enough for the Commission to formulate an opinion. 
Further, disagreeing with the Commission's delineation of the relevant market as Delhi only, COMPAT observed that it's a matter of common knowledge that customers can move from one point in NCR to another point calling taxis on telephone/internet and the distinction made by the Commission does not exist. The COMPAT observed that the High Court order on the mandate on the use of CNG in public transport within NCT, on which reliance was placed by CCI, had been revised in appeal by the Supreme Court to include the entire NCR of Delhi. Also, from a point of view of the consumer, a seamless movement between two points within the NCR would have been a more pragmatic way of looking at any transport regulation as customers are not affected by political demarcations. The COMPAT also took note that the Motor Vehicles Act, 1988 provide that the taxis which operate under a tourist agency permit are not constrained to operate within municipal limits and taxis such as Uber and Ola use tourist agency permits. Accordingly, COMPAT held that restricting relevant geographic market to Delhi NCT was an error and the relevant geographic market on a prima facie basis should been Delhi NCR. 
COMPAT also criticized CCI for only concentrating on the market share and not focusing on other factors such under Section 19(4) of the Act. The COMPAT observed that-" The information made available by the informant/appellant should be seen in the context of overall picture as it exists in the radio taxi service market in terms of status of funding, global developments, statements made by leaders in the business ,the fact that aggregator based radio taxi service is essentially a function of network expansion and there was adequate indication from the respondent that network expansion was one of the primary purpose of its business operation." 
As per COMPAT, the financial resources and existence of discounts and incentives associated with the business model of Uber were good supporting reasons to suggest that the issue of dominance needs to be seen from a perspective which is not limited to market share alone. The COMPAT also noted that apart from Uber, there are a few very small players in the market who can be seriously affected if any of the bigger players adopted anti-competitive practices. 
In conclusion, COMPAT held that although it cannot be said definitely that there is an abuse inherent in the business practices adopted by operator such as the respondents (Uber) but the size of discounts and incentives show that there are either phenomenal efficiency improvements which are replacing existing business models with new business models or there could be anti-competitive stance to it. Whichever is true , the investigation would show". Accordingly, the COMPAT set aside the CCI order and directed investigation by the DG.
*Before the Supreme Court *
In the second appeal filed by Uber challenging the COMPAT order dated 7.12.2016 before the Supreme Court , inter alia, contested the determination of the relevant market as Delhi NCR by COMPAT (as against Delhi NCT by CCI) and raised an issue of correct interpretation on the powers vested in COMPAT under Section 53B (3) of the Act to directly order investigation by the DG without remanding the matter back to CCI for reconsideration on the existence of a prima facie case for investigation under by DG section 26(1) of the Act , as was the practice earlier . 
The Hon'ble Supreme Court , in its short judgement dated 03.09.2019 has , apparently, not considered and it necessary to deal with the above interpretational and controversial issues raised in the appeal and taking a strong exception and cognizance of the fact mentioned in the original information that Uber was losing INR 204 per trip in respect of the every trip made by the cars of the fleet owners, dismissed the appeal, by observing that the above factor is sufficient by itself to show that there existed a prima facie case under section 26(1) as to infringement of section 4 of the Act relating to abuse of dominant position by Uber. 
The Supreme Court felt that the above factor of deliberate losses sustained by Uber in each trip are enough to show the dominant position enjoyed by Uber in the relevant geographic market (which the Supreme Court found being Delhi NCR) and that Uber intends to affect its competitors or the relevant market in tis favor, to fit within the meaning assigned under the Explanation (a)(ii) to section 4 of the Act as well as in the definition of "predatory price" under Explanation (b) to section 4 of the Act. As per Supreme Court, this factor did not make any economic sense other than Uber's intent of eliminating competition from the market. Accordingly, the Apex Court upheld the COMPAT's order and directed the DG to complete investigation within a period of six months. 
However, in my humble view, the Hon'ble Supreme Court has failed to consider and answer the following moot issues which are going to leave a vacuum in laying down jurisprudence for future guidance of both CCI and NCLAT. 
Power of Tribunal to direct DG investigation The first issue pertains to powers of COMPAT under section 53B of the Act. The said section provides that in appeal the COMPAT may "confirm", "modify" or "set aside" the order of the CCI. In this case, however, the COMPAT did not just set aside the order of the CCI but also directed the DG to investigate the matter. Uber contended that the COMPAT did not have the power to direct such an investigation, only the power to set aside the order and send it back to the CCI for re-determination. 
In my view, while this issue was at the heart of the case, the Supreme Court never deals with it. Although, the Supreme Court's upholding of the COMPAT's order implies that the court found the tribunal to be vested with the power to direct an investigation. But the judgment does not discuss this issue and one is left wondering about the statutory source of this power to direct investigation that the Supreme Court has now conferred on the COMPAT. 
*Predatory pricing *
The second issue pertains to establish predatory pricing under section 4. For this , two elements must be satisfied: (i) the player occupies a dominant position; and (ii) sells at a price below cost with a view to reduce competition and eliminate competitors. Thus , mere selling below the cost is not sufficient to prove predatory pricing. 
The Supreme Court relied on an example that showed that Uber was giving huge commissions and incentives to drivers and, therefore, taking a loss per ride. This same example was used as evidence for the first two elements. It could be argued that such an incentive model where Uber is losing money is evidence for selling services below cost. However, it is unclear how this ipso facto proves dominance of Uber or predatory pricing by Uber , in the absence of "elimination" of any competitors? 
*Relevant market *
Additionally, determination of correct* relevant market,* which comprises of both relevant product market and relevant geographic market, is a sine qua non for determining the position of dominance of any firm. While there was no issue on the relevant product market, in Uber's case, the point of contention was whether the relevant geographic market would be Delhi or Delhi - National Capital Region. The CCI used Delhi as the relevant geographic market in which Uber was not found dominant, whereas the COMPAT used the Delhi NCR as the relevant geographic market in which Uber was found dominant. In fact, this was the entire basis on which the COMPAT reversed the CCI's order. However, this crucial aspect finds no mention in the Supreme Court's decision. Without discussing how, the Hon'ble Court merely states that the relevant market is the National Capital Region (NCR). 
Now that the Supreme Court has without any reasoning has declared the National Capital Region to be the relevant market, it seems unlikely that the DG or the CCI can take a contrary view even if they discover overwhelming market evidence to back it. 
This may be problematic because a finding on what constitutes the relevant geographic market must be rooted in data and market surveys using the parameters provided in section 19 of the Act. It cannot be a mere declaration of what the Supreme Court intuitively feels is the relevant market. It may be noted that markets such as those of taxi aggregators are in constant flux and even new entrants can acquire dominance quickly by offering better services or rates. The Supreme Court has precluded the DG and the CCI from accounting for such dynamic factors. 
In my view, the failure to look at dominance in the context of correct relevant market based on data and survey as a part of prima facie analysis by the Hon'ble Supreme Court has not set a good precedent. This stands in stark contrast to the order of the CCI in the Reliance Jio case, where similar allegations of predatory pricing in internet services were made against Jio by other service providers. The CCI found that Jio was a new entrant into the market and, therefore, dominance had not been established and an investigation could not be initiated. 
*Pricing below cost with a view to reduce competition *
Sometimes promotional pricing could be used by new entrants to challenge dominant incumbents. It could also be used to reach a "critical mass" and utilise economies of scale to make production more efficient. Such below-cost pricing would not be anti-competitive - on the contrary, it could increase competition. 
Unlike the CCI order in Jio, the Supreme Court in Uber never looked at whether the below-cost pricing (if it existed at all) had been done to reduce competition or done to increase it and improve consumer welfare. In effect, the court reached a conclusion not on whether prima facie there predatory pricing was, but on whether prima facie there was below-cost pricing. In my view, the Act clearly doesn't treat predatory pricing as synonymous with below-cost pricing. 
*Comment *- _It is not my case that Uber had in fact not indulged in predatory pricing or even that a prima facie case against Uber does not exist. One may argue that there exists a prima facie case for investigation if one considers the unique business practice of cross subsidizing the losses per trip incurred by Uber due to its deep pockets which destroys the level playing field but whether this constitutes predatory price within the statutory framework under the Act depends upon extensive economic analysis which requires data and surveys etc. The purpose of this blog is constructive criticism , merely to show that the Hon'ble Supreme Court has apparently failed to appreciate the true meaning of predatory pricing. Of its two constituent elements - dominant position and below-cost pricing with a view to reduce competition or eliminate competitors - In my view, the Hon'ble Court has only analyzed the former and completely ignored the latter. I hope this anomaly does not weigh too heavily on the minds of the DG and CCI while deciding the matter . _
Note: This article first appeared on the Antitrust & Competition Law Blog


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> Will never survive a suit.


But aren't you rooting for a 10% cap??!!


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> But aren't you rooting for a 10% cap??!!


From a far distance.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> From a far distance.


Why not here? Wouldn't you be happy if Uber was only taking 10% in Cali?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Wouldn't you be happy if Uber was only taking 10% in Cali?


happy? OK, big picture for you. Calif is Uber's biggest market. What happens if they suddenly go more south in developing a net income or worse burn more cash if they reduce how much they get from Calif? 
So we get 90%, but Uber crashes n burns. Now, who's happy? 
It's like AB5: I love the goodies so far, but don't want to be an employee. If we get 90% and Uber doesn't go bankrupt, fine i'm happy.


----------



## goneubering (Aug 17, 2017)

SHalester said:


> happy? OK, big picture for you. Calif is Uber's biggest market. What happens if they suddenly go more south in developing a net income or worse burn more cash if they reduce how much they get from Calif?
> So we get 90%, but Uber crashes n burns. Now, who's happy?
> It's like AB5: I love the goodies so far, but don't want to be an employee. If we get 90% and Uber doesn't go bankrupt, fine i'm happy.


Uber's wasted Billions of dollars on flying cars and SDCs and pushing Pool and also in the India market. Those $ should've been put into the pockets of us drivers. Uber should be able to turn a profit with a 10% cut.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

goneubering said:


> Uber's wasted Billions of dollars on flying cars and SDCs and pushing Pool and also in the India market. Those $ should've been put into the pockets of us drivers. Uber should be able to turn a profit with a 10% cut.


yup, Uber needs to do a lot of clean-up; no doubt. Will that happen? Maybe, maybe not. I wouldn't hold my breath. SDC and flying cars should be shuttered, like now. Sold to somebody else.


----------



## Damn Boy (Jan 28, 2019)

Dammit Mazzacane said:


> https://www.nytimes.com/2019/12/31/...html?action=click&module=News&pgtype=Homepage
> *California Wanted to Protect Uber Drivers. Now It May Hurt Freelancers.*
> A state law meant to protect workers at companies like Uber and Lyft takes effect on Wednesday. Some say it will limit their prospects.
> 
> ...


AB5 is the only saving grace from the epidemic of Fuber nd Gryft


----------



## Bubsie (Oct 19, 2017)

SHalester said:


> happy? OK, big picture for you. Calif is Uber's biggest market. What happens if they suddenly go more south in developing a net income or worse burn more cash if they reduce how much they get from Calif?
> So we get 90%, but Uber crashes n burns. Now, who's happy?
> It's like AB5: I love the goodies so far, but don't want to be an employee. If we get 90% and Uber doesn't go bankrupt, fine i'm happy.


Ubers pissing money away subsidizing long pickup fees to get people that are 15-20 mins away from the driver a ride.

We shouldn't have to hand over 20-25-50% of the fare just because Ubers got some shit fantasy business plan. Oh no poor Uber boo ****en hoo.


----------

