# Gig Workers Are Here to Stay. It’s Time to Give Them Benefits.



## 2JoshH (Aug 18, 2020)

Harvard Business Review:
Today's gig economy sprung from the last recession, and these gig work platforms - which offered a job to anyone who wanted one - emerged as a lifeline for many facing financial instability. This trend is likely to be even more pronounced as the current crisis is pushing many people to search specifically for non-traditional forms of employment that can be done from home.

https://hbr.org/2020/07/gig-workers-are-here-to-stay-its-time-to-give-them-benefits
Creating buffers, from extended UI to a universal basic income, that support a baseline of broad economic security for all working people (including those who cannot or should not go to work due to health concerns, layoffs, or any other valid reason) could improve the status quo for workers across the wider spectrum of low-wage and unstable work.


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

Giving gig workers benefits?

I think this is code for gig workers need to pay high taxes so that fiscally irresponsible ones can be subsidized by more fiscally responsible ones.

That or it's code for the companies needing to provide it, the company is being asked to provide a service using some part of the funds that come from fares. That probably means higher fares, or lower driver pay... and probably it will be the latter. Basically just taking some money that would be given to us as cash and giving it to us in the form of "benefits" instead.


----------



## 2JoshH (Aug 18, 2020)

Trafficat said:


> Giving gig workers benefits?
> 
> I think this is code for gig workers need to pay high taxes so that fiscally irresponsible ones can be subsidized by more fiscally responsible ones.
> 
> That or it's code for the companies needing to provide it, the company is being asked to provide a service using some part of the funds that come from fares. That probably means higher fares, or lower driver pay... and probably it will be the latter. Basically just taking some money that would be given to us as cash and giving it to us in the form of "benefits" instead.


Ask the author
https://alexrosenblat.com/contact/


----------



## Trafficat (Dec 19, 2016)

2JoshH said:


> Ask the author
> https://alexrosenblat.com/contact/


Regardless of what the author actually thinks, giving benefits to gig workers is a step that the government will take towards illegalizing self-employment, which is itself a step towards the end goal of using the government to completely control the means of production.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Can somebody argue why benefits should be granted to a person who works < 40 hours a week? Asking for a friend.


----------



## IthurstwhenIP (Jan 12, 2018)

who can argue with free shit. Give me X answet always yes. Pay for X, answer always No


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Can somebody argue why benefits should be granted to a person who works < 40 hours a week? Asking for a friend.


With the exeption of medical benefits, it doesn't matter, there is no difference in benefits wether you work one hour or ten hours or forty hours or fifty hours.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> With the exveption of medical benefits, it doesn't matter, there is no difference in benefits wether you work one hour or ten hours or forty hours or fifty hours.


wut? To RS only or are you saying any job? Because for a W2 position there is a HUGE difference. You work under 30 hours a week, you are pt, no benefits besides those granted by law and those will be prorated for how many hours you manage. And by a far margin medical IS the biggest benefit and the most costly to the employer. and over the last decade or so employees have had to chip in more for that benefit, tho employers still pay the bulk.

There is a huge huge chunk of W2 workers who have their position and stay due to the medical coverage; can't just 'exempt' that benefit.

To this day the few drivers and confused politician who 'wanted' AB5 still don't understand the cost of benefits.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

SHalester said:


> Can somebody argue why benefits should be granted to a person who works < 40 hours a week? Asking for a friend.


Because, other people know what's best for you. If you disagree, you are what is discribed as an "Uber Shill"

Many parttimers and retirees already have benifits. Many fulltimers don't want or need benifits.

As said person would like to decide if he wants benifits in the 1st place. If he does, he can buy his own health insurance, etc. There is a market demand, so companies exist for this. Unemployment- it is called saving money. This is a dealbreaker for some people, who should go to school and get a career, or get a regular W2 job, like 99% of people.

Thinking the actual problem is the gig companies marketing for drivers and simply calling it "earnings". When it actually is gross income, before expences and purchasing benefits.

I know why they do it though. Brings in more new drivers.



SHalester said:


> To this day the few drivers and confused politician who 'wanted' AB5 still don't understand the cost of benefits.


The misguided who milk the "corporate greed" victim mentality, and lack business understanding


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

doyousensehumor said:


> Many parttimers and retirees already have benifits.


ahem, or have spouses with a real W2 job; can't forget them.

I think most RS drivers know exactly what they are getting into and it isn't a typical W2 job. However, there are a few, who make a lot of noise and don't represent any majority. They feel if they work > 40 hours a week like a 'typical' job they should have the same exact benefits. Well, benefits aren't free. And that cost would be passed on......maybe and maybe not that would make a difference to the riders. Who knows.

In calif, we find out soon because even if Prop 22 passes there are minimums and benefits in there that have a cost. Rides in calif will get more expensive.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

2JoshH said:


> Harvard Business Review:
> Today's gig economy sprung from the last recession, and these gig work platforms - which offered a job to anyone who wanted one - emerged as a lifeline for many facing financial instability. This trend is likely to be even more pronounced as the current crisis is pushing many people to search specifically for non-traditional forms of employment that can be done from home.
> 
> https://hbr.org/2020/07/gig-workers-are-here-to-stay-its-time-to-give-them-benefits
> Creating buffers, from extended UI to a universal basic income, that support a baseline of broad economic security for all working people (including those who cannot or should not go to work due to health concerns, layoffs, or any other valid reason) could improve the status quo for workers across the wider spectrum of low-wage and unstable work.


Actually a decent article, BTW. Discusses more than one angle to the issue. Which is rare in media.

Like this paragraph:








If mass unemployment becomes reality, I/C's can be a productive member of society due in part, to no barrier to entry. As the author notes, that happened during last resession.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

doyousensehumor said:


> Actually a decent article, BTW. Discusses more than one angle to the issue. Which is rare in media.
> 
> Like this paragraph:
> View attachment 501456
> ...


Why?

There already is a good social safety net.



SHalester said:


> wut? To RS only or are you saying any job? Because for a W2 position there is a HUGE difference. You work under 30 hours a week, you are pt, no benefits besides those granted by law and those will be prorated for how many hours you manage. And by a far margin medical IS the biggest benefit and the most costly to the employer. and over the last decade or so employees have had to chip in more for that benefit, tho employers still pay the bulk.
> 
> There is a huge huge chunk of W2 workers who have their position and stay due to the medical coverage; can't just 'exempt' that benefit.
> 
> To this day the few drivers and confused politician who 'wanted' AB5 still don't understand the cost of benefits.


As I said there is no other difference except medical benefits.

EVERYTHING else is EXACTLY the same.

Do you really think Uber is going to pay out any benefits if it doesn't have to?

All of prop 22s "benefits" are less than what is required now.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

observer said:


> Why?
> 
> There already is a good social safety net.


Not really for every one.

I rather create my own safety net, than rely on someone else's. The results are better &#128077;


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

You seriously don't think that Uber hasn't figured out a way to minimize those "benefits"?


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

observer said:


> You seriously don't think that Uber hasn't figured out a way to minimize those "benefits"?


Exactly. So why count on uber or the government to define the one-size-fits-all? Not everyone would be happy, as individuals have different needs.

And if they make mistakes, others who have made the right desisions should not subsidize them.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

doyousensehumor said:


> Not really for every one.
> 
> I rather create my own safety net, than rely on someone else's. The results are better &#128077;


For you, maybe.

Not everyone is as lucky as you.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

Trafficat said:


> Giving gig workers benefits?
> 
> I think this is code for gig workers need to pay high taxes so that fiscally irresponsible ones can be subsidized by more fiscally responsible ones.
> 
> That or it's code for the companies needing to provide it, the company is being asked to provide a service using some part of the funds that come from fares. That probably means higher fares, or lower driver pay... and probably it will be the latter. Basically just taking some money that would be given to us as cash and giving it to us in the form of "benefits" instead.


Love my CASH TIPS !


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Uber is two steps ahead of everyone. They designed this proposition so THEY can decide the outcome.

Not you.

Not me.

Not ANY driver.

Not the state.

Just Uber.

Uber is a cancer for ALL employees everywhere. Not just drivers. Other employers have seen that Uber has been able to buy their way. They will look at ways of doing the same.

Uber is evil.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

observer said:


> Why?
> 
> There already is a good social safety net.
> 
> ...


COMING SOON : UBER WITHOLDING TAX

SAY GOODBYE TO 35% OF YOUR WEEKLY INCOME !

( " NO NEED TO TIP " !)

RENTS DUE ?

WORK 45% LONGER . . .


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

observer said:


> Uber is a cancer for ALL employees everywhere. Not just drivers. Other employers have seen that Uber has been able to buy their way. They will look at ways of doing the same.


&#128175;❗
I agree! Keep it I/C

If they want to be an employee, they can apply at a job &#128578;



tohunt4me said:


> WORK 45% LONGER . . .


Uber would grant overtime? Hahahaha


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> All of prop 22s "benefits" are less than what is required now.


you must mean less than what AB5 would 'provide'. 
AND, I'm sorry, you can't 'take out' medical when speaking of benefits. Ask any W2 employee and they will tell you the most important benefit IS medical; those being honest I should say. Noobs would say vacation time.

And those few, confused, FT drivers who want benefits: GET A JOB that requires a resume and an interview. RESOLVED


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

doyousensehumor said:


> &#128175;❗
> 
> I agree! Keep it I/C
> 
> ...


Uber is a job.

I'm just curious how many raises has Uber given you?

How much have they taken away?

Or are you one of those that "makes 40 bux an hour doing Uber".


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> I'm just curious how many raises has Uber given you?


hey, I got one. It was tiny, but the base fee went up a few cents. So, there's that.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SHalester said:


> you must mean less than what AB5 would 'provide'.
> AND, I'm sorry, you can't 'take out' medical when speaking of benefits. Ask any W2 employee and they will tell you the most important benefit IS medical; those being honest I should say. Noobs would say vacation time.
> 
> And those few, confused, FT drivers who want benefits: GET A JOB that requires a resume and an interview. RESOLVED


Medicare.
Medicaid.
You GOING to Pay it.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> you must mean less than what AB5 would 'provide'.
> AND, I'm sorry, you can't 'take out' medical when speaking of benefits. Ask any W2 employee and they will tell you the most important benefit IS medical; those being honest I should say. Noobs would say vacation time.
> 
> And those few, confused, FT drivers who want benefits: GET A JOB that requires a resume and an interview. RESOLVED


Are you saying Uber will pay out medical benefits?

To get 1300 a YEAR, drivers will need to work 25 hours a week for three months.

How long do you think it will be before Uber starts giving out 25 hours a week for the first two months then 20 hours a week for the last month?



tohunt4me said:


> Medicare.
> Medicaid.
> You GOING to Pay it.


We are ALL going to pay for it wether we drive for Uber or not.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Are you saying Uber will pay out medical benefits?


not sure you status, but even today medical benefits are a shared cost; employee pays, employer pays the bulk.

these, few, confused, drivers do they really think they will get grade A medical benefits from U/L? For maybe working 160 hours a month....sometimes? And that it would be FREE to them?

Where are these drivers who demanded AB5? where, where? I wanna speak to them......they need an education.


----------



## doyousensehumor (Apr 13, 2015)

observer said:


> Uber is a job.
> 
> I'm just curious how many raises has Uber given you?
> 
> ...


I get "raises" when I operate more effeciently.
When I discover more profitable area of town.
When I drive the more profitable times.
When I drive when most drivers collect CHEESE.
When I use more than one app to reduce downtime.
When I moved up to an XL vehicle.
When I provide better service through tips.

There is a limit to the "raises". To excel futher, I'd need to go back to school. Which I/C is flexible enough I could do at the same time, as others have.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> not sure you status, but even today medical benefits are a shared cost; employee pays, employer pays the bulk.
> 
> these, few, confused, drivers do they really think they will get grade A medical benefits from U/L? For maybe working 160 hours a month....sometimes? And that it would be FREE to them?
> 
> Where are these drivers who demanded AB5? where, where? I wanna speak to them......they need an education.


"even today medical benefits are a shared cost"

Who do you think pays these costs today?

Taxpayers. Because anyone uninsured gets MediCal or walks in to an office.

There will be no one working 160 hours a month. Uber will limit them to 100 so they don't qualify for benefits.

There will be no more full time drivers.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> ho do you think pays these costs today?


Of which group? RS? IC? W2? the taxpayers don't pay a single red cent for my family's medical coverage........until I get to the magic age, of course, but that is different.

I'm speaking of drivers who whine, cry, moan about lack of benefits. GET A JOB that has benefits is easier than trying to convert a 'gig' to be something it isn't.

But yes AB5 prevails and Prop 22 doesn't there will be no full time U/L employees hired. And the group who wanted AB5, so funny if none of them are hired at all.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

I've been lucky, so far been pretty healthy but I do get checked out every year in Mexico. Costs down there are pretty reasonable.

Yea, I remember medical costs. We paid about 6,000 a year per family for medical coverage. 

Then, one of the requirements to sell the company to a HUGE corporation was to kick all the families off the insurance. 

My company kicked them all off to the taxpayers through Healthy Families, I believe. The company was even "nice" enough to provide all the forms and help them enroll.

The company saved a million dollars a year.

Taxpayers picked up the tab.


----------



## tohunt4me (Nov 23, 2015)

SHalester said:


> Of which group? RS? IC? W2? the taxpayers don't pay a single red cent for my family's medical coverage........until I get to the magic age, of course, but that is different.
> 
> I'm speaking of drivers who whine, cry, moan about lack of benefits. GET A JOB that has benefits is easier than trying to convert a 'gig' to be something it isn't.
> 
> But yes AB5 prevails and Prop 22 doesn't there will be no full time U/L employees hired. And the group who wanted AB5, so funny if none of them are hired at all.


CLAIM MENTAL DISABILITY !
IM AFRAID OF OUTSIDE !
I CANT WORK.

START COLLECTING AT 20 YEARS OLD FOR LIFE.

MANY DO.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

tohunt4me said:


> START COLLECTING AT 20 YEARS OLD FOR LIFE.


social security? um, ah, er, ahem: you do know you must work a minimum amount of quarters at a real job to qualify for anything, ever, right?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> Of which group? RS? IC? W2? the taxpayers don't pay a single red cent for my family's medical coverage........until I get to the magic age, of course, but that is different.
> 
> I'm speaking of drivers who whine, cry, moan about lack of benefits. GET A JOB that has benefits is easier than trying to convert a 'gig' to be something it isn't.
> 
> But yes AB5 prevails and Prop 22 doesn't there will be no full time U/L employees hired. And the group who wanted AB5, so funny if none of them are hired at all.


Drivers.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

How about bring a responsible adult, and work for a living ?

They didn't teach you that in the communist programming center than you dropped out of, did they ?


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ANT 7 said:


> How about bring a responsible adult, and work for a living ?
> 
> They didn't teach you that in the communist programming center than you dropped out of, did they ?


Not sure who you are talking about since those of us in this convo either work or don't need to.

As far as communist program, capitalism is failing the vast majority of Americans.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

The OP in general.

I do just fine with Uber. Take home the equivalent of an $80K pretax salary.

Capitalism appears to fail only to those who do not know how it works, and were deliberately taught otherwise.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ANT 7 said:


> The OP in general.
> 
> I do just fine with Uber. Take home the equivalent of an $80K pretax salary.


Well, it's a good thing you won't be affected by prop 22.

I don't think the OP has chimed in since the first post.

Anyways, I need to go eat my food is cold now.


----------



## ANT 7 (Oct 14, 2018)

I live in the frozen north, so, you are correct.


----------



## Boca Ratman (Jun 6, 2018)

SHalester said:


> Can somebody argue why benefits should be granted to a person who works < 40 hours a week? Asking for a friend.


Because someone decided for them they were being treated unfairly


----------



## Amos69 (May 17, 2019)

SHalester said:


> wut? To RS only or are you saying any job? Because for a W2 position there is a HUGE difference. *You work under 30 hours a week*, you are pt, no benefits besides those granted by law and those will be prorated for how many hours you manage. And by a far margin medical IS the biggest benefit and the most costly to the employer. and over the last decade or so employees have had to chip in more for that benefit, tho employers still pay the bulk.
> 
> There is a huge huge chunk of W2 workers who have their position and stay due to the medical coverage; can't just 'exempt' that benefit.
> 
> To this day the few drivers and confused politician who 'wanted' AB5 still don't understand the cost of benefits.


That is not true in millions of places. The standard of what level of participation earns benefits. It is up to each individual employer.









At Dick's it is still 20 hours a week.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

SHalester said:


> Can somebody argue why benefits should be granted to a person who works < 40 hours a week? Asking for a friend.


I've heard it argued that instead of giving benifits that part timers (under the threshold of getting benifits) should just have a higher min wage.

Oh you want to employee people for only 20 hours a week so you don't have to give them insurance, well Ok then you have to pay them $2.00 more an hour.

there's too many people who need multiple jobs to survive and no one will give them full time benifits.

really bad problem with that in Orlando.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Amos69 said:


> It is up to each individual employer.


that is a correct statement. However, if said company doesn't offer benefits, they get a lot of 'no thank you' to job offers.



observer said:


> those of us in this convo either work or don't need to


....or already did and retired from that dance...


----------



## S0cialm3nace (Aug 2, 2020)

I’m 100% against benefits. I just want the money. I wish all this BS would stop. Am I going to be able to opt out and if I do will I get more money than other drivers who don’t? (As I should?) I get that people do this full time and I respect you guys but your not an employee, you are a business. What’s next? They gonna provide you with cars too? Maybe you should just work for a Taxi company. 

Eventually you are going to make Uber so expensive people won’t ride.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

S0cialm3nace said:


> I'm 100% against benefits. I just want the money. I wish all this BS would stop. Am I going to be able to opt out and if I do will I get more money than other drivers who don't? (As I should?) I get that people do this full time and I respect you guys but your not an employee, you are a business. What's next? They gonna provide you with cars too? Maybe you should just work for a Taxi company.
> 
> Eventually you are going to make Uber so expensive people won't ride.


There's actually 2 kosher ways to have an employee driving around on company business.

1. Pay mileage
2 provide a vehicle.

Providing a vehicle is actually cheaper because they can do maitenance in house, as well as provide the most suitable cost effective vehicle for their specific application.

the employer can also write off the full cost of the vehicles if they are more then the mileage reimbursement. IE a 20 ton bucket truck, or even a semi.

The reality is that a company owned fleet is Probobly cheaper than doing the fare mileage reimbursement for companies.

However versus screwing the driver on mileage reimbursement and pay, having them use their own vehicles is much more cost effective.


----------



## ntcindetroit (Mar 23, 2017)

SHalester said:


> social security? um, ah, er, ahem: you do know you must work a minimum amount of quarters at a real job to qualify for anything, ever, right?


We're afraid you're wrong. There're many exceptions you may not aware of. Go see a welfare specialist, not just a school teacher.


----------



## LyftUberFuwabolewa (Feb 7, 2019)

Let’s give everybody benefits! Let’s give everybody everything! Everything is a human right! It’s not fair some people don’t have stuff. We should all have the same stuff.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

I just read the posts on this thread and it seems to me , no one picked up on the authors conclusions . While most of the article was discussing gig workers, specifically Uber; she expanded the discussion to everyone that does not get the benefits employed people enjoy. Things like sick pay, health insurance, unemployment, retirement

And her conclusion was this: 

"— is to shift certain costs of employment from employers onto society at large"

This argues for a universal basic income and universal health care


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

ntcindetroit said:


> We're afraid you're wrong.


nope, not wrong. Not even a little bit. Certainly there are exceptions and many of those involve a 'death'. Because I know you didn't look, here you go:

40 quarters

To be eligible for *Social Security* retirement benefits, a worker born after 1928 must *have* accumulated at least 40 *quarters* of work in "covered employment". A "*quarter* of coverage" generally means the three-month calendar *quarter*. In addition, you must earn at least $1,410 in a *quarter* (in 2020) for it to count.Mar 11, 2020


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> Of which group? RS? IC? W2? the taxpayers don't pay a single red cent for my family's medical coverage........until I get to the magic age, of course, but that is different.
> 
> I'm speaking of drivers who whine, cry, moan about lack of benefits. GET A JOB that has benefits is easier than trying to convert a 'gig' to be something it isn't.
> 
> But yes AB5 prevails and Prop 22 doesn't there will be no full time U/L employees hired. And the group who wanted AB5, so funny if none of them are hired at all.


This is not about you or me or even Uber.. Its about society as a whole. and It wont be funny if the end result of AB5 is more unemployment and more people uninsured..

The Harvard Business Review article is suggesting that we decouple employment and benefits, and then we as a society provide those benefits for all of us. if you have a better answer to the problem let us know what it is.. And saying, "I got mine, screw the rest of you all" wont cut it


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

Providing benefits for everyone and increasing employment tax is a viable solution.

For employers who were providing benefits they will be a net no-change.

The poor will be much better off,

and the medical system can actually lower their costs because they won't have to treat a large portion of the population for free.

It would also disintivise employers from having 3 times as many part time workers as they would need full time workers.

Full time workers can focus on one full time job and have a better schedule than having 3 part time jobs, with some 18 hour days and some 4 hour days and no days off.


There's currently a lot of employers who use the part time employment BS as a way to save money.


If your business is open 24/7 why not have 30 full timers rather than 90 part timers?


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oldfart said:


> It wont be funny if the end result of AB5 is more unemployment and more people uninsured..


....and who exactly would be blamed for that? Huh?


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

SHalester said:


> ....and who exactly would be blamed for that? Huh?


That would be the California legislative and governor. They get the blame or the credit, depending on your point of view

If you don't want to be an employee, you could do what I do, incorporate, get commercial insurance, and the required permits to be a "real" independent


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

oldfart said:


> get commercial insurance,


never going to happen. l limit costs so I can speed to 'break even' point. RS ins rider, being the most expensive and that is maybe a day or so every 6 months. Commercial insurance would force me to work more hours than I care to, just to get to break even. No thanks. RS is the world easiest pt job and I'm not going to 'add' to it to the point I have to work more hours. I retired from a career for a reason.

Plus my other RS gig will spring to life once schools open for on campus learning and they are not named in any of the suits...........so far.

And if AB5 lives and Prop 22 doesn't: I'll see how it goes pro/con. If they let me pick the shift and schedule I want, it's a maybe.


----------



## S0cialm3nace (Aug 2, 2020)

oldfart said:


> That would be the California legislative and governor. They get the blame or the credit, depending on your point of view
> 
> If you don't want to be an employee, you could do what I do, incorporate, get commercial insurance, and the required permits to be a "real" independent


About how much do you pay for commercial insurance? I been thinking I might do that and then I can take cash rides without worry and have regulars.


----------



## TRugen (Aug 28, 2020)

tohunt4me said:


> CLAIM MENTAL DISABILITY !
> IM AFRAID OF OUTSIDE !
> I CANT WORK.
> 
> ...


How? I need you to teach me before I'm kicked off my parents insurance.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

When I started driving for Uber with MY car Uber took 20% of the fare. Seems fair to me. After prop 22 Uber can take 90% of the money I'm generating. If they want to take more than a set percentage they should purchase the car. It's like the poor hookers I pick up at 4 a.m., they do all the work but Pimp Daddy gets the keep a big cut of their earnings, all a bit shady. If Uber or Lyft need to generate more money for themselves then they should raise the fare at a set percentage cut....it's MY CAR, my investment. AB5 is not good but prop22 screws us too, it doesn't screw Uber/Lyft at all!!!!!!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Paul Vincent said:


> When I started driving for Uber with MY car Uber took 20% of the fare. Seems fair to me. After prop 22 Uber can take 90% of the money I'm generating. If they want to take more than a set percentage they should purchase the car. It's like the poor hookers I pick up at 4 a.m., they do all the work but Pimp Daddy gets the keep a big cut of their earnings, all a bit shady. If Uber or Lyft need to generate more money for themselves then they should raise the fare at a set percentage cut....it's MY CAR, my investment. AB5 is not good but prop22 screws us too, it doesn't screw Uber/Lyft at all!!!!!!


Uber/Lyft wrote Prop 22 for their own benefit.

Why drivers think it will benefit them is mind boggling.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

observer said:


> Uber/Lyft wrote Prop 22 for their own benefit.
> 
> Why drivers think it will benefit them is mind boggling.


It's beyond me however I'm sure it's not long before some dead miler dude comes along and tries to enlighten us with all the grace and tact of a Manson follower.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Uber/Lyft wrote Prop 22 for their own benefit.
> 
> Why drivers think it will benefit them is mind boggling.


but of AB5 and Prop 22 which one stinks the least? AB5, the Calif population of drivers doing RS will vastly shrink. AB5 is not going away, so what is the alternative?

AB5 voters had no say; Prop 22 fixes that (at least).

Also, if Prop 22 fails everything Uber has introduced this year in calif only, will evaporate.

Just like most Prez elections: you vote for the one where you hold your nose the least.....sad, but true.


----------



## Paul Vincent (Jan 15, 2016)

Prop 22 is forever, legislators are already working on changes to AB5.
Everything Uber introduced this year goes away under prop 22. You won't even get a percentage of the fare. Strictly miles paid and minutes paid. Of course when they need a lot of drivers in a certain area you'll get that extra couple of bucks, like the old cloud surge.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

Paul Vincent said:


> Everything Uber introduced this year goes away under prop 22


We don't know that, speculation. For sure everything goes away under AB5. And at this moment there is no drive to make any changes to the AB5 that effects RS. In fact, just the other day a bunch of new exceptions were granted to AB5 coverage; RS wasn't one of them.

In calif, at least drivers, prefer Prop 22 4 to 1. Haven't seen any polls yet on likely voters, tho.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

S0cialm3nace said:


> About how much do you pay for commercial insurance? I been thinking I might do that and then I can take cash rides without worry and have regulars.


Thats exactly why I did it..so I can take private rides and sleep at night.. It makes waiting at the airport for an uber ride worth it Almost everyone flying into town will be flying out sooner or later. I always try to schedule that return trip.

I paid $6000 a year (liability only) this year. That seems like a lot, but I generally earn at least $1000 a month in private rides


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> but of AB5 and Prop 22 which one stinks the least? AB5, the Calif population of drivers doing RS will vastly shrink. AB5 is not going away, so what is the alternative?
> 
> AB5 voters had no say; Prop 22 fixes that (at least).
> 
> ...


Of course voters had their say. Employment laws have been around for ages. Voters elected their legislators who wrote those laws to benefit workers not companies.

Prop 22 was written AND PAID FOR to benefit companies.

Why do Uber/Lyft want a third "class of employees"?

So, they can legally use workers that have neither the benefits of employees NOR the benefits of Independent Contractors.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

oldfart said:


> Thats exactly why I did it..so I can take private rides and sleep at night.. It makes waiting at the airport for an uber ride worth it Almost everyone flying into town will be flying out sooner or later. I always try to schedule that return trip.
> 
> I paid $6000 a year (liability only) this year. That seems like a lot, but I generally earn at least $1000 a month in private rides


you ever get a "for hire" sign Old Fart?


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> you ever get a "for hire" sign Old Fart?


not exactly a "for hire" sign, but I do have vinyl lettering to put on the back window, advertising airport transportation with my phone number. We are a seasonal market here and our season doesn't really get going until November, and Im still not working due to covid, so the sign is still in the box


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

oldfart said:


> not exactly a "for hire" sign, but I do have vinyl lettering to put on the back window, advertising airport transportation with my phone number. We are a seasonal market here and our season doesn't really get going until November, and Im still not working due to covid, so the sign is still in the box


Just go full tilt and get a roof "for hire" sign.

The regulation is so lax that as long as you have an uber sign and commercial insurance your golden.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Just go full tilt and get a roof "for hire" sign.
> 
> The regulation is so lax that as long as you have an uber sign and commercial insurance your golden.


Good advice, thanks. My permits renew this month. I'll find out what the rules are here


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Of course voters had their say


...afraid you went in the wrong direction. My stmt voters had no say in AB5. In was invented in the head of one S Calif politician. Voters had zero say.

My point AB5 sucks really bad and Prop 22 sucks less and this time the voters get to have their say.


----------



## Stevie The magic Unicorn (Apr 3, 2018)

oldfart said:


> Good advice, thanks. My permits renew this month. I'll find out what the rules are here


insurance is the only legal requirement, getting caught picking up anywhere in Florida with commericial insurance is a party foul ticket not an arrestable offense.

beyond insurance every single city/town/county has their own set of rules relating to the fore hire industry, or no rules...

chances are high that most places won't have any regulators enforcing permits, there's only like 5 addresses in the tri-county Orlandoish area that code enforcement bothers with, ie it's free reign everywhere else.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> ...afraid you went in the wrong direction. My stmt voters had no say in AB5. In was invented in the head of one S Calif politician. Voters had zero say.
> 
> My point AB5 sucks really bad and Prop 22 sucks less and this time the voters get to have their say.


Voters have no say in the VAST majority of legislation. They have ZERO say.

That's why they elect legislators.

Propositions are just a way for those with deep pockets to buy laws that benefit them.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> That's why they elect legislators


um, er, ah, ok we agree...I think. maybe?

You do know the drivers in Calif are 4 to 1 for Prop 22, aye? Whether or not that translates into votes is a different matter.

Prop 22 neuters AB5 for RS. There is no 3rd option.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> um, er, ah, ok we agree...I think. maybe?
> 
> You do know the drivers in Calif are 4 to 1 for Prop 22, aye? Whether or not that translates into votes is a different matter.
> 
> Prop 22 neuters AB5 for RS. There is no 3rd option.


Of course we agree, like I said the VAST majority of laws are not voted on by voters.

That is why we elect legislators.

Prop 22 might be popular among some drivers but not all. Drivers are a tiny minority of voters. Maybe all the ex Uber drivers will not take too kindly to voting on something that benefits Uber.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Prop 22 might be popular among some drivers but not all.


well, so far > 75%. BUT can all of those actually vote?

So we agree, but the circle debate continues. OK, we agree to agree. AB5, voters had no say. Prop 22 ONLY voters will have a say (and maybe the courts).

With AB5, the legislators who voted or the Gov author face voters ever over this? Not a chance. Most votes don't give a frak about AB5.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> well, so far > 75%. BUT can all of those actually vote?
> 
> So we agree, but the circle debate continues. OK, we agree to agree. AB5, voters had no say. Prop 22 ONLY voters will have a say (and maybe the courts).
> 
> With AB5, the legislators who voted or the Gov author face voters ever over this? Not a chance. Most votes don't give a frak about AB5.


:rollseyes:

There are way more drivers that have quit and had a bad experience with uber than current Uber drivers.

Way more.

Some drivers don't like prop 22.

Voters had a say through their legislators that THEY VOTED in to office.

Legislators are on record already for voting in AB5 including the Governor, who signed it.

You're right most voters don't care about AB5. They also don't care about Prop 22.


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> Some drivers don't like prop 22


a small percent. If the over > 75% translates to voters, Prop 22 will win in a landslide.

There is no possibility the Gov or any legislators will lose any material future votes over AB5.

Bring on Nov to end the wild speculation.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SHalester said:


> a small percent. If the over > 75% translates to voters, Prop 22 will win in a landslide.
> 
> There is no possibility the Gov or any legislators will lose any material future votes over AB5.
> 
> Bring on Nov to end the wild speculation.


It won't.

We'll see in November.


----------



## oldfart (Dec 22, 2017)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> insurance is the only legal requirement, getting caught picking up anywhere in Florida with commericial insurance is a party foul ticket not an arrestable offense.
> 
> beyond insurance every single city/town/county has their own set of rules relating to the fore hire industry, or no rules...
> 
> chances are high that most places won't have any regulators enforcing permits, there's only like 5 addresses in the tri-county Orlandoish area that code enforcement bothers with, ie it's free reign everywhere else.


Here in Lee County we need a county permit and in addition an airport permit and the airport permit is for pre arranged pickups only (no street hails) there is a taxi company for that

I get it...there is no enforcement and I probably wouldn't get caught. (Maybe beat up by a taxi driver) But that's not the issue. The real issue is that t don't want to pick up folks on the street. I want scheduled rides.

I believe there is a market for something between taxis/Uber and the black car limo services and that's where I want to be

However having said that....

Collier County (Naples) has no requirements for a "car for hire" Not even insurance. It ireally is "free reign" there. Pre Covid I bought a car to work that market. My intent was to cruise 5th Avenue with a for hire sign. With any luck there will be a season this year, and I'll be ready For it


----------



## SHalester (Aug 25, 2019)

observer said:


> We'll see in November.


....it will pass, even if only drivers vote. but, we shall see.


----------

