# Gig-work bill passes Senate committee as crowds rally for and against it



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Gig-work bill passes Senate committee as crowds rally for and against it

The Senate's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee passed California's groundbreaking gig-work bill, 3-1, at a hearing Wednesday.

The contentious proposal, Assembly Bill 5, took center stage in Sacramento this week with hundreds of supporters and opponents rallying and testifying as the Senate committee weighed potentially turning hundreds of thousands of independent contractors in the state - such as Uber and Lyft drivers - into employees.

"AB5 is a new and innovative approach to address inequality and dignity in the workplace," its author, Assemblywoman Lorena Gonzalez, Dem.-San Diego, told the committee.

The bill, which passed the Assembly 53-11 in May, codifies and expands a 2018 California Supreme Court decision known as Dynamex. The ruling makes it harder for companies to claim workers are independent contractors, saying that workers are employees if companies control their activities, if they do work central to the company's business, and if the workers do not have independent enterprises doing that work.

AB5 supporters say companies misclassify workers as independent contractors to sidestep laws about minimum wage, overtime, worker's comp, disability and other benefits that can add some 30% to companies' labor costs.

But opponents say the legislation would devastate many businesses and hurt workers who prefer the flexibility of setting their own schedules.

The bill could affect scores of industries, but much attention focuses on the gig economy - new companies like Uber, Lyft, DoorDash, Postmates, Instacart and more that use smartphone apps to dispatch workers as drivers and couriers.

Gig companies are feverishly pursuing back-room negotiations in Sacramento with labor leaders, lawmakers and Gov. Gavin Newsom's office, seeking legislation to let them keep their workers as independent contractors while enshrining new protections for them, such as minimum wage, flexible benefits and an organized voice for their concerns.

"There have been hours and hours and hours of discussions to find a new model that fits the new economy," said Courtney Jensen, executive director for California and the Southwest at trade group Technet, in testimony at the hearing. "All sides agree: We need to strengthen and expand the safety net for on-demand workers."

Outside the hearing, hundreds of supporters and opponents crammed into the hallway. Many wore colorful T-shirts reflecting their membership in unions from across the state. On the opposing side, drivers supporting the companies wore shirts that read "I'm Independent!" in large writing or displayed the pink Lyft logo.

Adam Wood, 51, a firefighter from San Francisco, said he came to support the bill because he worries that the gig-worker economy is exacerbating the city's affordability crisis. He said he's responded to emergencies in apartments where dozens of gig workers are jammed into small bedrooms with bunk beds because they can't afford better living conditions.

"It's causing the fabric of our society to fray," Wood said. "There has to be some social responsibility on the part of these companies for their employees."

On Tuesday, Uber and Lyft held a rally outside the Capitol with dozens of drivers and their supporters from around the state. Drivers were handed "I'm Independent!" T-shirts and ate free lunch from a half-dozen food trucks the companies hired. After the hearing, unions and drivers opposed to the bill planned their own rally.

Tommy Hartway, 56, an Uber driver from Sacramento, blasted the bill as he stood in line for barbecue on Tuesday. He said he left his previous job as a loan officer to drive because his independent-contractor status allows him to set his own schedule, and that flexibility is critical given he cares for two disabled adult children.

"It's given me freedom, life-changing freedom," Hartway said. "Don't take that ability away from me, please."

AB5 exempts a lengthy list of professions, primarily ones in which the practitioners set their own rates. On Wednesday Gonzalez added construction contractors, business-to-business services, freelance writers, fine artists, grant writers, graphic designers and podiatrists to that list. The carve-outs also include doctors, dentists, lawyers, architects, accountants, engineers, insurance agents, investment advisers, direct sellers, real estate agents, hairstylists, barbers, estheticians and electrologists.

Truckers, who have filed two lawsuits saying the bill does not apply to them, potentially could be exempted as well, although Gonzalez said that that industry historically has misclassified drivers.

The bill next goes to the Senate Appropriations Committee. If passed there, it would head to the full Senate floor, probably in September. Gov. Newsom, who has strong alliances with labor, which backs the bill, and technology companies, which oppose it, has not signaled whether he would sign it but is pushing the two sides to reach a compromise.

https://www.sfchronicle.com/busines...asses-Senate-committee-as-crowds-14085950.php


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Wonder what this will do to the stock price on Sell Off Thursday?


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Pretty much sums up the outcome Uber is after.

"Adam Wood, 51, a firefighter from San Francisco, said he came to support the bill because he worries that the gig-worker economy is exacerbating the city's affordability crisis. He said he's responded to emergencies in apartments where dozens of gig workers are jammed into small bedrooms with bunk beds because they can't afford better living conditions."



TwoFiddyMile said:


> Wonder what this will do to the stock price on Sell Off Thursday?


Interesting its just floating around at present. Ubers next step to avoid its responsibilities and how convincing they sound doing it will be telling.
There's no way known Uber are going to comply we know this. Uber is evil and above the law they will be looking for a way out.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

The bill is off to another committee, then the senate, then newsom who is a uber sympathizer. We got some time before anything interesting happens.


----------



## arcterus (Oct 31, 2014)

Wouldn't this put the remaining California taxi companies out of business? It seems like if Uber was smart, they would support this bill and finally get their pseudo-monopoly. Then they could raise prices to $3/mile and give their drivers minimum wage. What am I missing?


----------



## Misunderstood Pirate (Aug 25, 2017)

arcterus said:


> Wouldn't this put the remaining California taxi companies out of business? It seems like if Uber was smart, they would support this bill and finally get their pseudo-monopoly. Then they could raise prices to $3/mile and give their drivers minimum wage. What am I missing?


No. Taxi companies don't own the medallions


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

njn said:


> The bill is off to another committee, then the senate, then newsom who is a uber sympathizer. We got some time before anything interesting happens.


don't worry, democrats have a supermajority which means they got the power to override his veto if he was to choose to

https://www.latimes.com/politics/la...ty-california-legislature-20181112-story.html


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

njn said:


> _"__Adam Wood, 51, a firefighter from San Francisco, said he came to support the bill because he worries that the gig-worker economy is exacerbating the city's affordability crisis. He said he's responded to emergencies in apartments where dozens of gig workers are jammed into small bedrooms with bunk beds because they can't afford better living conditions."_


This is luxury living for all the illegal immigrants who walked over the border from other 3rd-world shitholes so they could drive for Uber/Lyft in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.




njn said:


> "_AB5 exempts a lengthy list of professions, primarily ones in which the practitioners set their own rates."_


This is the loop-hole Uber/Lyft will use if AB5 is approved in its current form. Uber/Lyft will reach out to its drivers and ask _"how much per mile do you want to charge?" _The hard-cores will request $3 per mile. The ants & illegal immigrants will request .87 cents per mile.
Guess who will get all the pings?


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

> Tommy Hartway, 56, an Uber driver from Sacramento, blasted the bill as he stood in line for barbecue on Tuesday. He said he left his previous job as a loan officer to drive because his independent-contractor status allows him to set his own schedule, and that flexibility is critical given he cares for two disabled adult children.
> 
> "It's given me freedom, life-changing freedom," Hartway said. "Don't take that ability away from me, please."


It is really stunning to see how many drivers are drinking the Uber/Lyft Kool-Aid about how AB5 threatens their job flexibility. There is NOTHING in AB5 that makes any mention of work flexibility. I recently read an article that says that 15% of employees now work flexible schedules. Uber and Lyft depend on having as many drivers on the road at all times and there is no reason to believe AB5 will change this. There MAY be times when they place limits on the number of cars because there just isn't enough business. And they will probably deactivate the least productive drivers at some point (I would suggest using fare $ per hour as the standard, but that's my opinion). But none of this represents an actual threat to driver flexibility, which I'm pretty sure is the number one reason that ALL of us started working for Uber or Lyft. In the long run, AB5 represents a gigantic improvement for almost all drivers.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

ValleyAntMan said:


> It is really stunning to see how many drivers are drinking the Uber/Lyft Kool-Aid about how AB5 threatens their job flexibility. There is NOTHING in AB5 that makes any mention of work flexibility. I recently read an article that says that 15% of employees now work flexible schedules. Uber and Lyft depend on having as many drivers on the road at all times and there is no reason to believe AB5 will change this. There MAY be times when they place limits on the number of cars because there just isn't enough business. And they will probably deactivate the least productive drivers at some point (I would suggest using fare $ per hour as the standard, but that's my opinion). But none of this represents an actual threat to driver flexibility, which I'm pretty sure is the number one reason that ALL of us started working for Uber or Lyft. In the long run, AB5 represents a gigantic improvement for almost all drivers.


If it wasn't CA I might be more sympathetic. They do stupid crap there. But in reality, I'm more intrigued at this point as to what would happen. And at this point, I think further regulation of some type is needed as both Uber/Lyft have stated publicly they still believe they are paying drivers to much. A change to the business model is needed, as what is currently in place is not sustainable for the driver or the company to make a profit. And I don't see either company "doing the right thing" at this stage of the game. Which leaves legislation required to fix it. Which I cringe at saying as I'm somewhere between (R) and Libertarian.

Another route is change Federal Law / Rules that would allow Gig workers to collectively bargin (ie: Unionize). Again, I'm not a strong supporter of Unions. But I do see where they are beneficial and help the little guy when big money stomps on them. But on the Fed level that isn't happening any time in the near future. Which leaves it up to the states to handle somehow.


----------



## Misunderstood Pirate (Aug 25, 2017)

Uber's Guber said:


> This is luxury living for all the illegal immigrants who walked over the border from other 3rd-world shitholes so they could drive for Uber/Lyft in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.
> 
> This is the loop-hole Uber/Lyft will use if AB5 is approved in its current form. Uber/Lyft will reach out to its drivers and ask _"how much per mile do you want to charge?" _The hard-cores will request $3 per mile. The ants & illegal immigrants will request .87 cents per mile.
> Guess who will get all the pings?


So will funkmeister


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

DriverMark said:


> If it wasn't CA I might be more sympathetic. They do stupid crap there. But in reality, I'm more intrigued at this point as to what would happen. And at this point, I think further regulation of some type is needed as both Uber/Lyft have stated publicly they still believe they are paying drivers to much. A change to the business model is needed, as what is currently in place is not sustainable for the driver or the company to make a profit. And I don't see either company "doing the right thing" at this stage of the game. Which leaves legislation required to fix it. Which I cringe at saying as I'm somewhere between (R) and Libertarian.
> 
> Another route is change Federal Law / Rules that would allow Gig workers to collectively bargin (ie: Unionize). Again, I'm not a strong supporter of Unions. But I do see where they are beneficial and help the little guy when big money stomps on them. But on the Fed level that isn't happening any time in the near future. Which leaves it up to the states to handle somehow.


I am a serious Libertarian and strongly believe that people should be able to voluntarily contract as they see fit. But both parties have to be held liable to the terms for which they've agreed. Uber writes contracts that offer status to drivers as independent contractors, but has never actually treated us as I/C. Beyond the ability to choose when we turn the app on and off, we have no other rights. When one or more parties to a contract fails to meet their obligations, lawsuits result. In our case, a lawsuit featuring issues similar to those of rideshare drivers resulted in a ruling (Dynamex) that has simplified existing California law. From the standpoint of wages and overtime, Uber/Lyft drivers are ALREADY legally employees, a fact that U/L are simply ignoring. AB5 simply expands the Dynamex ruling to all aspects of the employer/employee relationship.

I agree that neither company is going to do the right thing at this point. Even after AB5 passes without an exemption for rideshare drivers (and it will, although it might get an exemption for limo drivers that operate under a TCP license of their own), I don't expect either company to immediately make ANY changes. They are probably going to wait until they are forced by the courts, and they will fight this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is a shame because, if they had a fraction of the smarts they claim to have, they would get out in front of this to avoid having to eventually negotiate with labor unions. If they start making changes that drivers actually want and like, they may be able to stamp out the desire for collective bargaining, of which I am NOT a fan.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

ValleyAntMan said:


> I am a serious Libertarian and strongly believe that people should be able to voluntarily contract as they see fit. But both parties have to be held liable to the terms for which they've agreed. Uber writes contracts that offer status to drivers as independent contractors, but has never actually treated us as I/C. Beyond the ability to choose when we turn the app on and off, we have no other rights. When one or more parties to a contract fails to meet their obligations, lawsuits result. In our case, a lawsuit featuring issues similar to those of rideshare drivers resulted in a ruling (Dynamex) that has simplified existing California law. From the standpoint of wages and overtime, Uber/Lyft drivers are ALREADY legally employees, a fact that U/L are simply ignoring. AB5 simply expands the Dynamex ruling to all aspects of the employer/employee relationship.
> 
> I agree that neither company is going to do the right thing at this point. Even after AB5 passes without an exemption for rideshare drivers (and it will, although it might get an exemption for limo drivers that operate under a TCP license of their own), I don't expect either company to immediately make ANY changes. They are probably going to wait until they are forced by the courts, and they will fight this all the way to the U.S. Supreme Court. Which is a shame because, if they had a fraction of the smarts they claim to have, they would get out in front of this to avoid having to eventually negotiate with labor unions. If they start making changes that drivers actually want and like, they may be able to stamp out the desire for collective bargaining, of which I am NOT a fan.


Problem is every outcome kills Uber. 
Uber is dying a slow enviable death. Automomus vehicles that are somehow cheaper than humans in the next 3 years is the only thing that saves Uber and its a delusional dream. 
Any negotiation that forces Uber to meet any form of social responsibility to its drivers brings Ubers to its death sooner than it's current business model. 
Uber can't negotiate because it has no margin and can not compete with competition ( as per it's S-1) if it raises prices.
All Uber can do is stall.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

arcterus said:


> Wouldn't this put the remaining California taxi companies out of business? It seems like if Uber was smart, they would support this bill and finally get their pseudo-monopoly. Then they could raise prices to $3/mile and give their drivers minimum wage. What am I missing?


Taxi drivers are true contractors. Lease the cab for $500 per week. Work if you want to, fark off if you want to...just pay the $500 on Tuesday!


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

everythingsuber said:


> Problem is every outcome kills Uber.
> Uber is dying a slow enviable death. Automomus vehicles that are somehow cheaper than humans in the next 3 years is the only thing that saves Uber and its a delusional dream.
> Any negotiation that forces Uber to meet any form of social responsibility to its drivers brings Ubers to its death sooner than it's current business model.
> Uber can't negotiate because it has no margin and can not compete with competition ( as per it's S-1) if it raises prices.
> All Uber can do is stall.


I don't agree. Uber cannot survive sloppy and lazy management, which is what's been holding it back for years. There are other companies that pay drivers as employees and they're doing just fine. They DO, however, charge rates that reflect the need to make a profit. As soon as Uber raises rates, you can be sure that Lyft will do the same because who would drive for them if they don't? Both companies used to charge higher rates and both still do, at times. Riders pay the rates charged.

As for the alleged future salvation of driverless cars, that's just nonsense to me. Uber has ALWAYS underestimated the importance of what drivers bring to the equation and never more than right now. Tell me, who's going to clean the cars daily for them? How are they going to know when there is a mess in the car and need to get it off the road? How do you think the probability of messes is going to change with driverless cars (you think there will be FEWER messes!?). How long do you think it will take for the first teenager (because nobody is refusing rides to unaccompanied minors) to take a dump in the back seat and leave it for the next riders? Who is going to clean all the tagging? And who is going to keep the peace in pool rides? WHO??!!

Right now, drivers spend a large part of their earnings on their cars which are, by and large, used cars. Do you really think that fleets of brand new cars with a lot of expensive tech is going to cost them LESS than they are paying drivers right now?! Or that all this new and expensive tech is going to prove MORE reliable in the early years? This is just STUPID!

Management at U/L need to grow a pair or hire better people! Otherwise, people will eventually talk about U/L the way they talk now about Bernie Madoff and Enron.


----------



## DriverMark (Jan 22, 2018)

everythingsuber said:


> Problem is every outcome kills Uber.
> Uber is dying a slow enviable death. Automomus vehicles that are somehow cheaper than humans in the next 3 years is the only thing that saves Uber and its a delusional dream.
> Any negotiation that forces Uber to meet any form of social responsibility to its drivers brings Ubers to its death sooner than it's current business model.
> Uber can't negotiate because it has no margin and can not compete with competition ( as per it's S-1) if it raises prices.
> All Uber can do is stall.


I have no issues if Uber goes under. It will leave a void, and in that void something new will emerge. I don't see rideshare going anywhere. It's convenient and easy. Better than a taxi, from my personal standpoint. Either adapt and overcome, or get run over. Uber is in the process of getting run over, failing to adapt.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

DriverMark said:


> I have no issues if Uber goes under. It will leave a void, and in that void something new will emerge. I don't see rideshare going anywhere. It's convenient and easy. Better than a taxi, from my personal standpoint. Either adapt and overcome, or get run over. Uber is in the process of getting run over, failing to adapt.


No its cheaper than a cab. Whatever replaces Uber and I agree something will and should but whatever that is must compete fairly and see that those who work for them are not exploited.

Then we all win.

Uber needs to be killed for that to happen.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

If you look at most of the exempted professions, they all have one thing in common, the ability to control what they charge.

What the state should do is deregulate the industry so drivers aren't bound to Uber/Lyft.

Why can't drivers truly own their businesses? They are the ones out there taking all the risks.

If Uber wants a share of the profits of employess then behave like an employer and pay the drivers correctly.

If not, deregulate drivers so they can start their own TNC companies and they can pay Uber/Lyft or anyone else per lead.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

Here's something to think about: It dawned on me today to check to see if the Dynamex drivers were happier today as employees than they were as drivers. They were the drivers that sued that delivery company over their status. Turns out, they are not employees despite the court ruling and it gives me the strongest clue as to how Uber and Lyft will respond to the passing of AB5. Dynamex turned to a third party to contract for drivers. The third party hires drivers, then contracts for them to work for Dynamex. Uber has always used a third party to contract for customer service workers to avoid paying them as employees, so I suspect they will do the same with the drivers. I’m not entirely sure how this will ultimately affect drivers. It's likely drivers will have to apply with the third-party contractor, then will work for U/L or whomever.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

everythingsuber said:


> must compete fairly


I agree with all you say, but for clarification - "fairly" to whom?



everythingsuber said:


> those who work for them are not exploited.


This is correct but needs a relatively complex regulation, as long as the driver could go online and offline as he or she likes.



observer said:


> If you look at most of the exempted professions, they all have one thing in common, the ability to control what they charge.


Yes, but there is a reason taxi cabs run a meter that is kept visible at all times. Transportation business needs to stay relatively simple in order to be effective. Technically, the communication that precedes the ride needs to be *quick*, clear and contain all the aspects of that specific ride.



observer said:


> Why can't drivers truly own their businesses?


Simply because they are drivers, not business people. I know most of the drivers like to think they know how to effectively run a business, but they don't. Most of the drivers can handle the driving, but ask them to handle a business, and they would probably "crash" it in a few days. I don't want to sound mean, but this is the reality. Think about those many drivers that emigrated from a different culture. Can anybody ask them to effectively run a business the "American" (or any other adopting country's) way, or by doing that you just want to condemn them to certain failure? Driving is relatively easy and doesn't have significant variations from a culture to another. That is what they can handle. You slightly try to change one or two parameters of their existence and _bam! _they're broke.



observer said:


> deregulate drivers so they can start their own TNC companies and they can pay Uber/Lyft or anyone else per lead.


IMO this looks great in theory, but the realities are far more complex, no offense. Again, the majority of the drivers are not business educated and they cannot handle the sometimes tricky avenues of negotiating, price establishing or even basic customer service. Most of them will choose to charge the less and collect all the available riders because they want to stay busy as they were told by the rideshare company is the key to their performance. Is this what they need to do in order to be successful? All of us know how smart work is far better than more work, so going for the cheapest customers is rarely a good idea, but can anybody accuse the "deregulated" driver of doing so? Also, the less they charge, the less the rideshare company's share would be, and especially now, the companies need to keep more, not less, in order to survive. I am not saying companies keeping more is fair, but looking at their financial statements is the only target they have.

I am curious about any reactions to this comment because this topic is as fascinating as it is difficult to figure if you want to fairly regulate the gig economy.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Here's something to think about: It dawned on me today to check to see if the Dynamex drivers were happier today as employees than they were as drivers. They were the drivers that sued that delivery company over their status. Turns out, they are not employees despite the court ruling and it gives me the strongest clue as to how Uber and Lyft will respond to the passing of AB5. Dynamex turned to a third party to contract for drivers. The third party hires drivers, then contracts for them to work for Dynamex. Uber has always used a third party to contract for customer service workers to avoid paying them as employees, so I suspect they will do the same with the drivers. I'm not entirely sure how this will ultimately affect drivers. It's likely drivers will have to apply with the third-party contractor, then will work for U/L or whomever.


Hiring third party employees does not relieve the employer from liability to those employees, at least not in California.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

jocker12 said:


> I agree with all you say, but for clarification - "fairly" to whom?
> 
> This is correct but needs a relatively complex regulation, as long as the driver could go online and offline as he or she likes.
> 
> ...


Fairly with any competition that does not exploit its workers.

Ubers business model is based on its workers subsidising its losses.

Uber is free to operate at a loss as long as its employees are not forced too.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> I agree with all you say, but for clarification - "fairly" to whom?
> 
> This is correct but needs a relatively complex regulation, as long as the driver could go online and offline as he or she likes.
> 
> ...


So, are you saying that current drivers aren't independent contractors running their own business and should be classified as employees?

Or are you saying current drivers aren't capable of running a small business?

Being foreign born doesn't make people stupid. There are plenty of businesses in other countries.

Business savvy and intelligence doesn't stop at a US border.

Yes some may have a little more difficulty because of a language barrier but they will find a way. A driver for hire isn't too complicated a business to run.

I am an immigrant, I hired my first employee at seven years old, two years after I moved here. I've owned and sold three businesses, currently working on starting up another.

My dad started his first business mowing lawns when he hardly spoke any English. He stopped mowing lawns in about 8 years and started investing in real estate. He became very successful at real estate while also holding down a full time union job.

I can name at least a dozen multimillionaires in my extended family that are first generation immigrants, that arrived here speaking little to no English.

Being an immigrant isn't an impediment, it's an advantage.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

everythingsuber said:


> Fairly with any competition that does not exploit its workers.
> 
> Ubers business model is based on its workers subsidising its losses.
> 
> Uber is free to operate at a loss as long as its employees are not forced too.


I was thinking about this rideshare triangle - competition, subsidized rides, and fairness.

I remember how both platforms started lowering the rates because they've needed to eliminate any competition, including public transit. If we look at that already heavily subsidized public transit cost level, logic goes out the window.

IMO the entity that subsidized Uber losses was the initial investors, and drivers got caught in the middle and took a serious long hit. As long as your drivers could quit at any time, if you are Uber you cannot rely on such an unstable asset to even indirectly cover for your losses.

The only gain (and please correct me if I am wrong) Uber can have from the drivers is only if drivers losses become Uber's profits. I agree how, the way it looks and was projected by the IPO paperwork, Uber's model goes towards that conclusion, but I don't think we are there yet. If the drivers would've already been subsidizing Uber losses, the IPO makes no sense.

And if Uber gets to the point where the drivers would entirely cover for Uber's losses, funny enough, I don't think there will be any drivers left.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> I was thinking about this rideshare triangle - competition, subsidized rides, and fairness.
> 
> I remember how both platforms started lowering the rates because they've needed to eliminate any competition, including public transit. If we look at that already heavily subsidized public transit cost level, logic goes out the window.
> 
> ...


I think Uber needs to decide if it wants to be an employer or a lead generator, it can't be both.


----------



## Polomarko (Dec 20, 2016)

I think we need one of the big investors out of the game and Uber will be down. Just like Bernie Madoffs case.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

jocker12 said:


> I was thinking about this rideshare triangle - competition, subsidized rides, and fairness.
> 
> I remember how both platforms started lowering the rates because they've needed to eliminate any competition, including public transit. If we look at that already heavily subsidized public transit cost level, logic goes out the window.
> 
> ...


The reason Uber went to IPO is because they were afraid of a recession next year. They didn't want to risk waiting to IPO and not being able to raise money.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> So, are you saying that current drivers aren't independent contractors running their own business and should be classified as employees?


The situation is much more complex, and as some of the discussions here show it, some drivers want to remain classified as they have been for a long time, some don't. All of them have good reasons and ideally, every single one should be treated as he likes, not as somebody else likes.



observer said:


> Or are you saying current drivers aren't capable of running a small business?


Look at how many understand the financials of ridesharing and how many are able to do their own taxes, and then you'll have a slightly better image about drivers (and people in general) being capable to *effectively* run a business.



observer said:


> There are plenty of businesses in other countries.


Of course, but the rules, the requirements, and the procedures are different Because the society's core values are different. Because that culture is different. Remember how we are talking about immigrants choosing to drive a car for a living or for additional income. I am not saying all of them are not capable, but most of them (initially depending on the reasons that made them decide to such a drastic change) are clueless. It takes time to understand and accept different values in order to be able to effectively use the tools available to succeed

.


observer said:


> but they will find a way.


If it would be that easy, at least one out of two first-generation immigrants would be able to have his or her own successful business, set aside the American born population. What they find is not a way to effectively run a business, but to contribute to society the best of their abilities, considering the circumstances.



observer said:


> I am an immigrant, I hired my first employee at seven years old, two years after I moved here. I've owned and sold three businesses, currently working on starting up another.


Let me put it this way - As nice as it would be for the average immigrant willing to have a successful business in his adoptive country, to achieve what you achieved, the reality is that it is not. Trying to project your experience onto the huge numbers of low or medium educated people coming in from Mexico, Somalia, India or the Philippines, is unrealistic. The ones that chose to drive for a living or to increase their income, did it not because they are superbly effective at business, but because once they get a driver license they are good to go. As you mention, your father's transition to the next step from mowing lawns took 8 years, time that I am sure you witnessed how he recalibrated himself to be able to function and use his abilities the best the society allowed him to do it. If you think drivers are as driven as your father was or as you are, I am afraid that you'll be disappointed.



observer said:


> Being an immigrant isn't an impediment, it's an advantage.


Unfortunately, there could be reasons some people would agree with this, some people won't. What society works with is not black or white, true or false or up and down (as extremities of a given space), but with the reality, which is the content between those extremities and is much more complex to deal with.


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

njn said:


> The bill is off to another committee, then the senate, then newsom who is a uber sympathizer. We got some time before anything interesting happens.


Sending bill to politicians already bought & paid for by ridesharing.
Brilliant.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

observer said:


> The reason Uber went to IPO is because they were afraid of a recession next year. They didn't want to risk waiting to IPO and not being able to raise money.


This is an interesting theory, but is there any source for this? Back in 2017, when he took over as a new CEO, Khosrowshahi promised the Board he will IPO in 2019. How would they've known or speculate 2020 could potentially be a recession year? There are so many things that could trigger a financial crisis and they could crash at any point in time. If there is a fear of recession, to me is hard to imagine it like a bullet in the head as such decision (*before 2020*) would put it, as opposed to something like arthritis, that drastically slows you down but gives you the freedom to breathe, treat it and alleviate it to keep moving forward.

Not being able to raise the money they need it, because their losses were not entirely subsidized by the drivers


----------



## IR12 (Nov 11, 2017)

ValleyAntMan said:


> It is really stunning to see how many drivers are drinking the Uber/Lyft Kool-Aid about how AB5 threatens their job flexibility. There is NOTHING in AB5 that makes any mention of work flexibility. I recently read an article that says that 15% of employees now work flexible schedules. Uber and Lyft depend on having as many drivers on the road at all times and there is no reason to believe AB5 will change this. There MAY be times when they place limits on the number of cars because there just isn't enough business. And they will probably deactivate the least productive drivers at some point (I would suggest using fare $ per hour as the standard, but that's my opinion). But none of this represents an actual threat to driver flexibility, which I'm pretty sure is the number one reason that ALL of us started working for Uber or Lyft. In the long run, AB5 represents a gigantic improvement for almost all drivers.


Kool-Aid's got nothing on
Jim Jones Juice.
"..which I'm sure is the #1 reason ALL of us started"?
Wrong.
Works great for people who are happy being told what to think.


----------



## jocker12 (May 11, 2017)

Polomarko said:


> I think we need one of the big investors out of the game and Uber will be down. Just like Bernie Madoffs case.


Something like.... this?


----------



## indydriver68 (Mar 13, 2018)

Hopefully this passes without loop holes for Uber and Lyft then hopefully the rest of the states start to follow California’s lead. Uber and Lyft will get exactly what they deserve after having years and countless opportunities to treat drivers fair and still refused to do so and kept taking and taking from the drivers. I just hope the stock tanks before the lockout period expires!


----------



## zeroperminute (Jun 19, 2019)

geezus EVERY cities GOVERNMENT has already REGULATED minimums per RIDE, MINUTE, MILE

& have for over 50+ years

just mandate ride "share" "companies" CANNOT pay drivers a penny less than these amounts

then all non sense goes poof & half these losers & criminals go back to the bus

#nomoreblankCONtracts


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> Hiring third party employees does not relieve the employer from liability to those employees, at least not in California.


That's probably true, but that's not how Dynamex appears to have responded to the court ruling. They are not hiring third-party employees, they are contracting for third-party IC from a staffing company. I'm not an expert on this, so tell me how that affects things. I know that the people that staff Uber's support centers told me they are sent by a staffing company and had no benefits beyond pay.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> That's probably true, but that's not how Dynamex appears to have responded to the court ruling. They are not hiring third-party employees, they are contracting for third-party IC from a staffing company. I'm not an expert on this, so tell me how that affects things. I know that the people that staff Uber's support centers told me they are sent by a staffing company and had no benefits beyond pay.


I know it's true.

California passed a law about five years ago making employers of staffing agencies equally responsible for staffing employees. A lot of staffing companies were opening up then closing leaving employees empty handed.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> I know it's true.
> 
> California passed a law about five years ago making employers of staffing agencies equally responsible for staffing employees. A lot of staffing companies were opening up then closing leaving employees empty handed.


So why would a company hire workers from a staffing company? Why would Dynamex, who originally hired delivery drivers as employees, then changed them to IC status, then lost the key lawsuit now known by their name, now be contracting for IC drivers from a staffing company? What's the benefit to Dynamex? The only reason I can imagine is that this is an end-around the requirement to make their drivers employees. (actually, it appears that Dynamex was sold to TForce, using www.Dynamex.com gets you to the TForce website. Same business though, but their ads for drivers is ONLY for IC).


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> So why would a company hire workers from a staffing company? Why would Dynamex, who originally hired delivery drivers as employees, then changed them to IC status, then lost the key lawsuit now known by their name, now be contracting for IC drivers from a staffing company? What's the benefit to Dynamex? The only reason I can imagine is that this is an end-around the requirement to make their drivers employees. (actually, it appears that Dynamex was sold to TForce, using www.Dynamex.com gets you to the TForce website. Same business though, but their ads for drivers is ONLY for IC).


https://www.nixonpeabody.com/en/ide...emporary-workers-or-others-from-staffing-agen

"There are also certain exceptions for the motor carrier industry, including for carriers of property that contract with or engage another motor carrier to provide transportation services, or employers that utilize third-party motor carriers with interstate or intrastate operating authority to ship or receive freight. Labor Code Section 2810.3(p)(1) and (2)."
I think this is why.


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

Just raise the Rates. Uber can make money and do the right thing. Drivers would be supportive if Uber would stop being piggish.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Additional Annual Operating Costs in California Alone when this bill becomes law.

Uber $500,000,000 
Lyft $290,000,000

Imagine this rolling out in all 50 states? If it does Uber and Lyft will have no other choice but to raise rates to cover additional expenses.

If it does become law nationwide my estimate on Additional Operating Costs for Uber and Lyft Nationwide.

Uber 12-13 Billion per year
Lyft 7-8 Billion per year

Both of these companies will need to cut the amount of drivers as well as dramatically increasing the price per mile. This will take the less expensive options closer to XL and Select Rates and the higher tiered rides will be priced out so high many people will stop taking Black and LUX.


Interesting times we are in. Based on the projections above I do not know how either of these companies will become profitable ever. I think we may see them go under in the next year or two. Will see...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> So why would a company hire workers from a staffing company? Why would Dynamex, who originally hired delivery drivers as employees, then changed them to IC status, then lost the key lawsuit now known by their name, now be contracting for IC drivers from a staffing company? What's the benefit to Dynamex? The only reason I can imagine is that this is an end-around the requirement to make their drivers employees. (actually, it appears that Dynamex was sold to TForce, using www.Dynamex.com gets you to the TForce website. Same business though, but their ads for drivers is ONLY for IC).


Tforce and Dynamex are subsidiaries of the same company. Dynamex was bought in 2010, way before the Dynamex decision.

https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFI_International
The ads could be for I/C that own their own big rigs.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> Additional Annual Operating Costs in California Alone when this bill becomes law.
> 
> Uber $500,000,000
> Lyft $290,000,000
> ...


Plus the wages are retroactive. If I remember correctly they would owe three years back.

So, right off the bat, Uber is in the hole for another 1.5 Billion.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

observer said:


> Tforce and Dynamex are subsidiaries of the same company. Dynamex was bought in 2010, way before the Dynamex decision.
> 
> https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/TFI_International
> The ads could be for I/C that own their own big rigs.
> ...


Dang ! I think this may sink them...


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> Dang ! I think this may sink them...


Yupp, I think this is the real reason they are fighting this tooth and nail.

Oooh , and they would owe not just current drivers but *all* drivers during last three years, including those that quit or got deactivated.

So the actual amount is probly higher than 1.5 Billion.

OTOH, Uber did pay drivers something. They would have to go back and recalculate every single ride to make sure they were paid at least minimum wage for all hours on the clock, not just on way to Pax.

One thing is sure. It's a mess.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

Imagine all the 1099s? Or would it be W2s? Every driver would have to amend their taxes for the last 3 years.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)




----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

everythingsuber said:


> Uber can't negotiate because it has no margin and can not compete with competition ( as per it's S-1) if it raises prices.
> All Uber can do is stall.


Who is the competition? We all know that a percentage of every Uber fare in the US goes to the taxi industry? Why? Because the taxi industry is the inferior product, Uber really only has Lyft as competition.


----------



## Buckiemohawk (Jun 23, 2015)

The thing is Uber and Lyft in the beginning paid there drivers well and got decent drivers. The greed factor settled into these companies with ruthless expansion and not a basic care about the passenger or the driver.


----------



## Munsuta (May 4, 2019)

The business of government is $$$BUSINESS$$$. Politicians are business men/women. The real deal happens behind closed doors and never benefits the common man, it only benefits the powers that be. The political stage is just there to paint illusions and keep the masses in a constant state of confusion. Like how they keep Uber workers confused/bickering/divided about this whole independent contractor/employee distraction so they don't see the other hand which is were still not going to get more money and the gooberment just wants their cut. Don't expect much to come out of this to benefit the common man when the ex CEO served on a board for the Trump Admin and Uber is a data collection monster for the surveillance state.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> Yupp, I think this is the real reason they are fighting this tooth and nail.
> 
> Oooh , and they would owe not just current drivers but *all* drivers during last three years, including those that quit or got deactivated.
> 
> ...


***minimum wage _*plus *_all expenses, including their share of employment taxes and vehicle expenses.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> The ads could be for I/C that own their own big rigs.


No, they're not. You can see the actual ads for drivers here -

https://www.tforcefinalmile.com/come-drive-with-us/united-states/

You can see ads for drivers with cars in a variety of locations, including San Francisco and San Diego. So there's a subtlety in the use of independent contractors that I think is missing from your point (which is correct) that hiring companies share legal responsibility for workers brought on from staffing companies. I'm not insisting that U/L will go to third-party staffing for drivers after AB5 is passed and signed. But I think it's a possibility.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> No, they're not. You can see the actual ads for drivers here -
> 
> https://www.tforcefinalmile.com/come-drive-with-us/united-states/
> 
> You can see ads for drivers with cars in a variety of locations, including San Francisco and San Diego. So there's a subtlety in the use of independent contractors that I think is missing from your point (which is correct) that hiring companies share legal responsibility for workers brought on from staffing companies. I'm not insisting that U/L will go to third-party staffing for drivers after AB5 is passed and signed. But I think it's a possibility.


I was thinking about this earlier. As far as I know, Uber already uses a third party contractor. Raiser.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> I was thinking about this earlier. As far as I know, Uber already uses a third party contractor. Raiser.


It's funny you mention that. They DID use a third-party company named Rasier until the CPUC put a stop to it. If you recall, Uber took the Rasier name off our contracts some months back. After an investigation, the CPUC found that the company was just a front for Uber. They fined Uber and forced them to put the State license for the TNC company in their own name. I've attached the file that provides the details. The dodos in Uber management registered the Rasier name with the exact same address as Uber and workers comp docs listed the exact same employees working for both companies.I don't know why the media never caught wind of this document, which is just a year old. So, if anyone ever floats the ridiculous idea that Uber is not a transportation company, that they are just a third-party tech company helping drivers and riders connect (which Uber management CONSTANTLY claims!), you can put them in their place by pointing out that Uber is licensed as a transportation company, not a tech company! Here are some quotes from this document that I sent to the State Senate this week in support of AB5 -

"Any passenger wishing transportation service with RasierCA via the Uber App must download the passenger version of the Uber App to a smartphone and create an account with Uber."

"Uber sets the fares it charges riders unilaterally."

"Uber bills its riders directly for the entire amount of the fare charged."

"Uber claims a proprietary interest in its riders, and prohibits its drivers from answering rider queries about booking future rides outside the Uber app, or otherwise soliciting rides from Uber riders."

"Uber exercises control over the qualification and selection of its drivers."

"Uber terminates the accounts of drivers who do not perform up to Uber standards."

"Uber deactivates accounts of passengers for low ratings or inappropriate conduct."

This document provides a ton of support for the argument that Uber is a transportation company, not a tech company; and that Uber is in full control of everything done by the drivers (except for when we turn the app on and off), which is why the drivers should have been classified as employees a long time ago. Frankly, Uber would have failed the old Borello standard for determining whether or not the drivers should be employees or IC, but the ABC standard is the final nail in the coffin.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> It's funny you mention that. They DID use a third-party company named Rasier until the CPUC put a stop to it. If you recall, Uber took the Rasier name off our contracts some months back. After an investigation, the CPUC found that the company was just a front for Uber. They fined Uber and forced them to put the State license for the TNC company in their own name. I've attached the file that provides the details. The dodos in Uber management registered the Rasier name with the exact same address as Uber and workers comp docs listed the exact same employees working for both companies.I don't know why the media never caught wind of this document, which is just a year old. So, if anyone ever floats the ridiculous idea that Uber is not a transportation company, that they are just a third-party tech company helping drivers and riders connect (which Uber management CONSTANTLY claims!), you can put them in their place by pointing out that Uber is licensed as a transportation company, not a tech company! Here are some quotes from this document that I sent to the State Senate this week in support of AB5 -
> 
> "Any passenger wishing transportation service with RasierCA via the Uber App must download the passenger version of the Uber App to a smartphone and create an account with Uber."
> 
> ...


Very interesting. I had not read this, great information.

Thnx.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

ValleyAntMan said:


> It is really stunning to see how many drivers are drinking the Uber/Lyft Kool-Aid about how AB5 threatens their job flexibility. There is NOTHING in AB5 that makes any mention of work flexibility. I recently read an article that says that 15% of employees now work flexible schedules. Uber and Lyft depend on having as many drivers on the road at all times and there is no reason to believe AB5 will change this. There MAY be times when they place limits on the number of cars because there just isn't enough business. And they will probably deactivate the least productive drivers at some point (I would suggest using fare $ per hour as the standard, but that's my opinion). But none of this represents an actual threat to driver flexibility, which I'm pretty sure is the number one reason that ALL of us started working for Uber or Lyft. In the long run, AB5 represents a gigantic improvement for almost all drivers.


If you don't think Uber will retaliate against the drivers by having Amazon like Blocks being the only way you get to "choose when to work" and eliminate your ability to refuse pings and cancel trips (for anything other than illegal activity) you have not been paying attention to what Uber does when they don't like local regulations.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> If you don't think Uber will retaliate against the drivers by having Amazon like Blocks being the only way you get to "choose when to work" and eliminate your ability to refuse pings and cancel trips (for anything other than illegal activity) you have not been paying attention to what Uber does when they don't like local regulations.


I don't see a single way in which that will work, even if they were to make you accept everything, the possibilities of gaming the system are astronomical, people would be collecting while drinking at the bar, at least me I would put 8 friends into farm mode while collecting half their wage, If i think big, I can grab up to 20 people and stop ubering all together, living off milking a clock.

The more they try to screw drivers the harder drivers will get them back or have you not noticed how much scamming uber has scaled since like 4 years ago? At least in my area, south florida, Uber gets scammed so badly they have special rules for the area.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

observer said:


> ***minimum wage _*plus *_all expenses, including their share of employment taxes and vehicle expenses.


I've been thinking more about how this would impact Uber/Lyft and why they are so against AB5.

Two more things came to mind.

U/L would owe one hours pay per day per employee for every driver current and former that worked five hours or more for the past three years for breaks and lunch breaks not taken.

U/L would also have to go back and recalculate the earnings of every driver, current and former, during the last three years that worked longer than eight hours to see if any overtime was owed.


----------



## uberdriverfornow (Jan 10, 2016)

observer said:


> I've been thinking more about how this would impact Uber/Lyft and why they are so against AB5.
> 
> Two more things came to mind.
> 
> ...


does the law specifically have a retroactive provision ?


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.ba...ders-employment-status-of-drivers-51562839554


observer said:


> I've been thinking more about how this would impact Uber/Lyft and why they are so against AB5.
> 
> Two more things came to mind.
> 
> ...


I bet they are wishing they would have kept the split 80 driver 20 them. They overshot with greed and just may lose everything because of this.


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

observer said:


> Yupp, I think this is the real reason they are fighting this tooth and nail.
> 
> Oooh , and they would owe not just current drivers but *all* drivers during last three years, including those that quit or got deactivated.
> 
> ...


and its a mess created and sustained by Uber itself......they pushed drivers a bit too far and ignored regulations/laws a bit too much all the while being arrogant about it all. glad to see everything is catching up with the people who work at Uber corporate. I am now waiting for the lock out on stocks to end and see their value decrease even more.


----------



## Ylinks (Apr 22, 2019)

The Entomologist said:


> I don't see a single way in which that will work, even if they were to make you accept everything, the possibilities of gaming the system are astronomical, people would be collecting while drinking at the bar,


Uber can control this pretty easily by limiting the ability of drivers to logon when they think they have enough coverage. Sort of like reverse surge.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

Ylinks said:


> Uber can control this pretty easily by limiting the ability of drivers to logon when they think they have enough coverage. Sort of like reverse surge.


Agreed I think if this rolls out they will cull the driver heard and keep everyone with a 4.85 and above. Then they could have a FOFR (First Online First Run). So where ever you are at the first driver to that area that is logged on gets the run. Rates will go up across the board and throw the upper tiers into levels where people may not take them because the price will be so high.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

uberdriverfornow said:


> does the law specifically have a retroactive provision ?


Yupp, Dynamex was recently ruled to be rertroactive.

Fighting AB5 and getting drivers a carve out is Ubers get out of jail card.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

uberdriverfornow said:


> does the law specifically have a retroactive provision ?


AB5 simply expands the State Supreme Court ruling known as the Dynamex decision. That ruling IS retroactive. The State Appeals Court confirmed that in May. So, after AB5 is passed and signed and takes effect on January 1st, I expect a lawsuit will be filed (undoubtedly a class action on behalf of all drivers similarly situated) that asks for damages, including retroactive damages.This is one more way that the guys that think AB5 is not going to help them are just plain wrong!


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

https://www.law.com/therecorder/201...er-classification-test-applies-retroactively/


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

observer said:


> Yupp, Dynamex was recently ruled to be rertroactive.
> 
> Fighting AB5 and getting drivers a carve out is Ubers get out of jail card.


Dang then drivers in California may be getting some good size checks.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> AB5 simply expands the State Supreme Court ruling known as the Dynamex decision. That ruling IS retroactive. The State Appeals Court confirmed that in May. So, after AB5 is passed and signed and takes effect on January 1st, I expect a lawsuit will be filed (undoubtedly a class action on behalf of all drivers similarly situated) that asks for damages, including retroactive damages.This is one more way that the guys that think AB5 is not going to help them are just plain wrong!


Dynamex only covers the wage and hour provisions.

AB5 will add other employee benefits like workers comp, sick days, disability, social security. Etc.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> If you don't think Uber will retaliate against the drivers by having Amazon like Blocks being the only way you get to "choose when to work" and eliminate your ability to refuse pings and cancel trips (for anything other than illegal activity) you have not been paying attention to what Uber does when they don't like local regulations.


Honestly both U/L need to do exactly that. Think about it! There are a ton of drivers sitting at home waiting for a ping , crying about how slow it is. It's turned our apartment complexes into airport queues. U/L should sign out any drivers not willing to drive to a busier area. If I was guaranteed $5 or higher rides by driving a couple miles to a specific area, I would gladly follow the app to that area. My time is valuable! The lazy drivers are clogging the system


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> AB5 simply expands the State Supreme Court ruling known as the Dynamex decision. That ruling IS retroactive. The State Appeals Court confirmed that in May. So, after AB5 is passed and signed and takes effect on January 1st, I expect a lawsuit will be filed (undoubtedly a class action on behalf of all drivers similarly situated) that asks for damages, including retroactive damages.This is one more way that the guys that think AB5 is not going to help them are just plain wrong!


More likely PAGA suit since the majority of drivers probably didn't opt out of arbitration.


----------



## SurgeMasterMN (Sep 10, 2016)

O-Side Uber said:


> Honestly both U/L need to do exactly that. Think about it! There are a ton of drivers sitting at home waiting for a ping , crying about how slow it is. It's turned our apartment complexes into airport queues. U/L should sign out any drivers not willing to drive to a busier area. If I was guaranteed $5 or higher rides by driving a couple miles to a specific area, I would gladly follow the app to that area. My time is valuable! The lazy drivers are clogging the system


If u are far enough away from an airport it works staging from home. I have sat at home the past 2-3 weeks with my app on and have been generating about $200-$250 a day on 4-5 XL rides. That's all I need to hit my daily goal. Plus sitting at home saves gas as well as having to sit in a hot vehicle all day. Am looking for another revenue stream other than ebay where I can make additional cash.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> More likely PAGA suit since the majority of drivers probably didn't opt out of arbitration.


I wouldn't think so. PAGA suits are when a citizen or citizens sue on behalf of the State, which gets most of the money that's won. The person that sues gets 20% of the money. You make a good point about the arbitration clauses limiting the ability of most drivers to sue though. But that may change after AB5 turns drivers into employees. The old contracts may no longer be in effect.


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

SurgeMasterMN said:


> If u are far enough away from an airport it works staging from home. I have sat at home the past 2-3 weeks with my app on and have been generating about $200-$250 a day on 4-5 XL rides. That's all I need to hit my daily goal. Plus sitting at home saves gas as well as having to sit in a hot vehicle all day. Am looking for another revenue stream other than ebay where I can make additional cash.


What I meant is that so many people are doing U/L right now , There are approximately 10 drivers currently living in my complex. So where I used to get a ping within 5 minutes of signing on... it's now like the airport pen where I'm #9 in line for a ride. I could get a ride faster if they dispatched me or them to a busier area. Basically they need to spread us out a little bit or get rid of half the drivers...I'm also ok with working certain hours for guaranteed wages. I've been getting up at 5:30am so I can work these bonus streaks that lyft offered me. $12 for 4 rides in a row. By working at this time, I'm guaranteeing that my hourly is at least $20. I've stopped working during times that I won't make at least $20. It's not worth it. My math says $20 / hr is the least acceptable amount to use your car for. Ideally $30 an hour and you could easily save the future repair costs.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> I wouldn't think so. PAGA suits are when a citizen or citizens sue on behalf of the State, which gets most of the money that's won. The person that sues gets 20% of the money. You make a good point about the arbitration clauses limiting the ability of most drivers to sue though. But that may change after AB5 turns drivers into employees. The old contracts may no longer be in effect.


25%.

They may or may not be invalid. Employees can also sign arbitration agreements and many companies are using them now.



ValleyAntMan said:


> I wouldn't think so. PAGA suits are when a citizen or citizens sue on behalf of the State, which gets most of the money that's won. The person that sues gets 20% of the money. You make a good point about the arbitration clauses limiting the ability of most drivers to sue though. But that may change after AB5 turns drivers into employees. The old contracts may no longer be in effect.


25%.

PAGA suits are filed on behalf of the employee and/or other employees and the state.

https://www.dir.ca.gov/Private-Attorneys-General-Act/Private-Attorneys-General-Act.html


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> 25%.
> 
> They may or may not be invalid. Employees can also sign arbitration agreements and many companies are using them now.
> 
> ...


The exact % is somewhat irrelevent. The point is that the State gets most of the money. As for the contracts, the point is that our contracts classify us as IC, not employees. If the law says we are actually employees, which happens when AB5 takes effect, our contracts may no longer be valid. Maybe just parts will be invalid, but maybe the entire contract.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> The exact % is somewhat irrelevent. The point is that the State gets most of the money. As for the contracts, the point is that our contracts classify us as IC, not employees. If the law says we are actually employees, which happens when AB5 takes effect, our contracts may no longer be valid. Maybe just parts will be invalid, but maybe the entire contract.


I would think that with Dynamex any driver can file a case with the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement for misclassification and not need to go through PAGA in the first place.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

jocker12 said:


> I was thinking about this rideshare triangle - competition, subsidized rides, and fairness.
> 
> I remember how both platforms started lowering the rates because they've needed to eliminate any competition, including public transit. If we look at that already heavily subsidized public transit cost level, logic goes out the window.
> 
> ...


Businesses largely go public because they need money to pay down debt or to re-invest in the company. 
Plenty of bad businesses go public.


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

observer said:


> I would think that with Dynamex any driver can file a case with the Division of Labor Standards and Enforcement for missclassification and not need to go through PAGA in the first place.


OK. I have no personal experience with that, so I can't say.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

ValleyAntMan said:


> No, they're not. You can see the actual ads for drivers here -
> 
> https://www.tforcefinalmile.com/come-drive-with-us/united-states/
> 
> You can see ads for drivers with cars in a variety of locations, including San Francisco and San Diego. So there's a subtlety in the use of independent contractors that I think is missing from your point (which is correct) that hiring companies share legal responsibility for workers brought on from staffing companies. I'm not insisting that U/L will go to third-party staffing for drivers after AB5 is passed and signed. But I think it's a possibility.


Third party staffing would further dilute Uber's operating cash


----------



## ValleyAntMan (Mar 14, 2019)

Diamondraider said:


> Third party staffing would further dilute Uber's operating cash


Just part of the cost of doing business. However, virtually all companies that use staffing companies do so to reduce costs (costs of hiring, etc.).


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Just part of the cost of doing business. However, virtually all companies that use staffing companies do so to reduce costs (costs of hiring, etc.).


It makes it really easy to get rid of employees. Instead of firing them you just tell the agency to send you someone else the next day.

It also lowers your workers comp MOD rate because any claims are funneled to the staffing agency and not your company.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

ValleyAntMan said:


> Just part of the cost of doing business. However, virtually all companies that use staffing companies do so to reduce costs (costs of hiring, etc.).


Adding a fourth party to the transaction only increases costs.


----------



## njn (Jan 23, 2016)

SamNYC said:


> Lyft sends this message to the drivers in NYC
> 
> You can go online and drive whenever you want during these times of the week.
> Open driving times
> ...


Looks like NYC got block hours.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

observer said:


> If you look at most of the exempted professions, they all have one thing in common, the ability to control what they charge.
> 
> What the state should do is deregulate the industry so drivers aren't bound to Uber/Lyft.
> 
> ...


Considering the fact that Uber and Lyft elbowed their way into an industry that was previously regulated and which regulations excluded them, they hardly in a position to object to deregulation, although they probably will anyhow.

The Uber Dream was to dominate transportation in the new "Subscription Economy", not just to take over the taxi and limo businesses. The valuation of Uber of $70 Billion or so would never be justified just with taxis.


----------



## Atavar (Aug 11, 2018)

If drivers get classified as employees U/L will probably just hire drivers through temp agencies anyway. Lol


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Ylinks said:


> Uber can control this pretty easily by limiting the ability of drivers to logon when they think they have enough coverage. Sort of like reverse surge.


Yeah but still, if they start paying by the hour, clocks are gonna start getting milked in 100 different ways, there is no manager checking up on drivers, a system is a system and given most of today's drivers are lowlife's (dunno if you ever worked at a warehouse) all they will do is milk the clock one way or another.

They are digging a deeper hole with employment.


----------



## ST DYMPHNA son (Aug 10, 2017)

arcterus said:


> Wouldn't this put the remaining California taxi companies out of business? It seems like if Uber was smart, they would support this bill and finally get their pseudo-monopoly. Then they could raise prices to $3/mile and give their drivers minimum wage. What am I missing?


...you are missing the car uber would have to provide and pax who would give uber a "middle finger"...


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

O-Side Uber said:


> Honestly both U/L need to do exactly that. Think about it! There are a ton of drivers sitting at home waiting for a ping , crying about how slow it is. It's turned our apartment complexes into airport queues. U/L should sign out any drivers not willing to drive to a busier area. If I was guaranteed $5 or higher rides by driving a couple miles to a specific area, I would gladly follow the app to that area. My time is valuable! The lazy drivers are clogging the system


5.00 rides?

Seriously?

I keep telling people to enforce the minors/va


The Entomologist said:


> I don't see a single way in which that will work, even if they were to make you accept everything, the possibilities of gaming the system are astronomical, people would be collecting while drinking at the bar, at least me I would put 8 friends into farm mode while collecting half their wage, If i think big, I can grab up to 20 people and stop ubering all together, living off milking a clock.
> 
> The more they try to screw drivers the harder drivers will get them back or have you not noticed how much scamming uber has scaled since like 4 years ago? At least in my area, south florida, Uber gets scammed so badly they have special rules for the area.


How can you milk a clock when you have to accept the ping.
You only get paid for your miles and minutes.
They just stop sending you pings when you hit a minimum pay amount.
System detects you are "on a ride" but not moving it cancels you out.
How would your "friends" be able to help you by "sitting around"? If they already have magical ways to generate money without doing anything why would you have them paying that money, that they didn't have to earn, for you to "farm".

Or did you forget that, no matter how much you, the driver, earn the rider pays more than that to Uber first?

Like all the idiots that wanted to try to game the system by having their spouse "take a long ride" with them being their driver...I mean, sure, you might make 5.00 off of a "first ride credit" but min fare here is 7.65 so, you would have to pay 2.65 to make 4.20 so not 1.55...


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> How can you milk a clock when you have to accept the ping.
> You only get paid for your miles and minutes.
> They just stop sending you pings when you hit a minimum pay amount.
> System detects you are "on a ride" but not moving it cancels you out.
> ...


If they start using people as employees, they will have to guarantee a minimum wage per hour whether you get a trip or not, thats where the farming comes in, I can think of 100 ways in which you can drive and not get a ping, without even driving your car, to have control over that... they would have to revamp the entire system and implement new methods which will be tested/failed or successfully work and then get bypassed again, tricks, hacks and bugs will be their undoing within a year and yeah I was overdoing it by saying I would collect half my friends earnings but at least 20% of it for free money? That's a deal while you do say... Lyft? real work?

Here in Miami we game Uber in ways you can only dream and make no mistake they don't even know it or take long to see it.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

The Entomologist said:


> If they start using people as employees, they will have to guarantee a minimum wage per hour whether you get a trip or not, thats where the farming comes in, I can think of 100 ways in which you can drive and not get a ping, without even driving your car, to have control over that... they would have to revamp the entire system and implement new methods which will be tested/failed or successfully work and then get bypassed again, tricks, hacks and bugs will be their undoing within a year and yeah I was overdoing it by saying I would collect half my friends earnings but at least 20% of it for free money? That's a deal while you do say... Lyft? real work?
> 
> Here in Miami we game Uber in ways you can only dream and make no mistake they don't even know it or take long to see it.


Nope, there would be minimum work requirements for the minimum pay.
Pretty simple to code.
You, seriously, can't have ever been a computer programmer.

Personally I ***** about how incompetent Ubers programmers are all the time but even they can figure this part out.

And, if you know of a way to prevent the system from sending you pings AND showing you online, other than being out of the areas they will tell you you are allowed to wait for rides at...go for it.

I mean, you obviously think they won't have either mandatory staging locations with periodic "shifting" for "staffing purposes" that will require you to move from these mythical fairytale hideaways you think you will be able to sit in without getting rides.

Oh, and let us not forget that they will not only require you to accept all pings they will have minimum quotas for you...like must do 12 rides a day or you will be fired for cause (no funemployment for you) for breach of employment requirements.

And, you can just bet they will institute random drug/alcohol/cleanliness inspections and require wearing uniforms that you will be required to supply/pay for.

I support Uber/Lyft being forced to pay properly and even being required to limit the number of cars on the road (automatically increasing the pay to drivers by increasing the number of decent rides).
But, that isn't what any of these laws are going to do.
Because the ******* we elect don't have the balls to stand up to companies like Uber.
If they did, New York would have brought TK up on criminal charges and put him in jail for running a ********* company.


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Nope, there would be minimum work requirements for the minimum pay.
> Pretty simple to code.
> You, seriously, can't have ever been a computer programmer.
> 
> ...


Minimum work, what work if you aren't getting pings? Do you seriously think it's that simple to fix every way a system can be exploited? Lol, have you any idea how many exploits come out daily for a program, app or OS?

This way past coder incompetence, it's along the lines of "making self driving cars", we speak about impossibilities done in a short time.

Quotas... hmmm I guess unemployment and lawsuits will kick in after that given you weren't getting pings and it's not your fault (you can try and prove it!), in order to have that much control, they would have to hire someone to personally check at least 10 drivers increasing the operational cost, if they are having problems hiring CSR do you see them hiring managers for drivers? I don't, lol.

Forget coders and anything automated, the only way they will not get scammed is with an army of managers.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

The Entomologist said:


> Minimum work, what work if you aren't getting pings? Do you seriously think it's that simple to fix every way a system can be exploited? Lol, have you any idea how many exploits come out daily for a program, app or OS?
> 
> This way past coder incompetence, it's along the lines of "making self driving cars", we speak about impossibilities done in a short time.
> 
> ...


Nope, your app would be required to "stay in contact" with the servers (since you obviously know nothing about tech look up Ping Time Out but keep your results to like 6th grade level explanations as you seem to have a hard time understanding how it works).

I mean, shoot, how do you think those dumb dumbs (how you seem to think they are) know what your Acceptance Percentage is.
The server knows (and logs your GPS location, and yes, they can tell if you are attempting to spoof your GPS location as part of what their app does is pay attention to what other processes are running) when they have sent you a ping and whether you accpeted/declined/timed out that request.

So, proving you failed to accept pings will be super easy.
And, if they send a ping and your app doesn't acknowledge that ping was received they will log you out remotely (negating your claim of time worked) and eventually remove you from being able to login for "violation of employment terms" (also known as "for cause") so, again, no Funemployment for you.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Ssgcraig said:


> Who is the competition? We all know that a percentage of every Uber fare in the US goes to the taxi industry? Why? Because the taxi industry is the inferior product, Uber really only has Lyft as competition.


Ubers competitors are Cabs, Lyft, busses, trams, trains, people that ride a bike or walk and elevators.
Uber is a superior product on price. Nothing else. If Uber had anything going for it other than price it wouldn't be operating at a loss.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

The Entomologist said:


> Minimum work, what work if you aren't getting pings? Do you seriously think it's that simple to fix every way a system can be exploited? Lol, have you any idea how many exploits come out daily for a program, app or OS?
> 
> This way past coder incompetence, it's along the lines of "making self driving cars", we speak about impossibilities done in a short time.
> 
> ...


Oh, and they have no problems hiring CSRs.
It is an entire call center in the Philippines with pretty much a line of people waiting to get jobs.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Taxi drivers are true contractors. Lease the cab for $500 per week. Work if you want to, fark off if you want to...just pay the $500 on Tuesday!


FARK?! Such language!!


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

everythingsuber said:


> Ubers competitors are Cabs, Lyft, busses, trams, trains, people that ride a bike or walk and elevators.
> Uber is a superior product on price. Nothing else. If Ubers had anything going for it other than price it wouldn't be operating at a loss.


Are you high.
Busses are, by far, cheaper than Ubers. Hell, in my market it only cost 5.00 for an all day pass.
Minimum fare for a single ride is 7.65.

The Only thing Uber does better is show up quickly. 
We are marginally cheaper than taxis thanks to Upfront Pricing which can be 1/3 of taxis (where drivers see Uber not getting 50% of the fare) to as much as equal to taxi pricing (when we see their portion of the fare being 50% or more while our pay remains unchanged).


----------



## The Entomologist (Sep 23, 2018)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Nope, your app would be required to "stay in contact" with the servers (since you obviously know nothing about tech look up Ping Time Out but keep your results to like 6th grade level explanations as you seem to have a hard time understanding how it works).


That can be done, rather than making fun of me for thinking you have to stay connected, let me make fun of you by telling you: You can be connected and not get a ping, easily, off the top of my head I can think of 5 ways, it took me 30 seconds.



Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> I mean, shoot, how do you think those dumb dumbs (how you seem to think they are) know what your Acceptance Percentage is.
> The server knows (and logs your GPS location, and yes, they can tell if you are attempting to spoof your GPS location as part of what their app does is pay attention to what other processes are running) when they have sent you a ping and whether you accpeted/declined/timed out that request.


Hahaha acceptance? oh boy, you truly do not know who I am, huh?

Attempting to spoofhaahsgahsdashdhashaahaa oh man, that kills me, you think you can't spoof anymore?

Put it like this, I have 100% acceptance and my trips do not go under 50 bucks.



Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> So, proving you failed to accept pings will be super easy.
> And, if they send a ping and your app doesn't acknowledge that ping was received they will log you out remotely (negating your claim of time worked) and eventually remove you from being able to login for "violation of employment terms" (also known as "for cause") so, again, no Funemployment for you.


Oh it can be quite difficult and I'm speaking from the explot/hacking side, tricks and malfunctions are a whole different beast.


----------



## everythingsuber (Sep 29, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Are you high.
> Busses are, by far, cheaper than Ubers. Hell, in my market it only cost 5.00 for an all day pass.
> Minimum fare for a single ride is 7.65.
> 
> ...


Bus market here is 5.60 for a ticket.
The cabs are about 10% more than Uber during the day and Uber doesn't impact too much. Uber struggles here.


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Considering the fact that Uber and Lyft elbowed their way into an industry that was previously regulated and which regulations excluded them, they hardly in a position to object to deregulation, although they probably will anyhow.
> 
> The Uber Dream was to dominate transportation in the new "Subscription Economy", not just to take over the taxi and limo businesses. The valuation of Uber of $70 Billion or so would never be justified just with taxis.


Guess you missed the news but Uber may have priced their stocks at IPO based on ~82billion but the actual market dropped it to ~6


everythingsuber said:


> Bus market here is 5.60 for a ticket.
> The cabs are about 10% more than Uber during the day and Uber doesn't impact too much. Uber struggles here.


So the minimum fare, to the rider not what you the driver get, is higher than the busses and only 10% cheaper than taxis (worse than this market).
So, yup, confirms that the only thing Uber does better consistently is arrive quickly.


----------



## ABC123DEF (Jun 9, 2015)

Michael1230nj said:


> Just raise the Rates. Uber can make money and do the right thing. Drivers would be supportive if Uber would stop being piggish.


*snort snort* *oink* *SQUEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEL!!!!* ?????



ValleyAntMan said:


> It's funny you mention that. They DID use a third-party company named Rasier until the CPUC put a stop to it. If you recall, Uber took the Rasier name off our contracts some months back. After an investigation, the CPUC found that the company was just a front for Uber. They fined Uber and forced them to put the State license for the TNC company in their own name. I've attached the file that provides the details. The dodos in Uber management registered the Rasier name with the exact same address as Uber and workers comp docs listed the exact same employees working for both companies.I don't know why the media never caught wind of this document, which is just a year old. So, if anyone ever floats the ridiculous idea that Uber is not a transportation company, that they are just a third-party tech company helping drivers and riders connect (which Uber management CONSTANTLY claims!), you can put them in their place by pointing out that Uber is licensed as a transportation company, not a tech company! Here are some quotes from this document that I sent to the State Senate this week in support of AB5 -
> 
> "Any passenger wishing transportation service with RasierCA via the Uber App must download the passenger version of the Uber App to a smartphone and create an account with Uber."
> 
> ...


"Uber is a tech company and not a transportation provider."


----------



## Nats121 (Jul 19, 2017)

TwoFiddyMile said:


> Taxi drivers are true contractors. Lease the cab for $500 per week. Work if you want to, fark off if you want to...just pay the $500 on Tuesday!


Because taxis are heavily regulated in most markets, they're in a category of their own.

If they lease the cab they're under the thumb of the cab company, just like uber/lyft drivers are under the thumb of U/L. and are not true ICs.

If they own the cab but are required to be associated with a cab company or co-operative they're not ICs.


----------



## Michael1230nj (Jun 23, 2017)

Show me the Money. And call it what you will.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Guess you missed the news but Uber may have priced their stocks at IPO based on ~82billion but the actual market dropped it to ~6


Currently, the valuation of Uber is $74 Billion, an incredible sum far more than American, United and Southwest Airlines combined.

This kind of valuation is based on anticipated and hoped for growth in revenue far exceeding what the livery business does


----------



## Asificarewhatyoudontthink (Jul 6, 2017)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Currently, the valuation of Uber is $74 Billion, an incredible sum far more than American, United and Southwest Airlines combined.
> 
> This kind of valuation is based on anticipated and hoped for growth in revenue far exceeding what the livery business does


Considering they set their valuation at over 120billion at IPO and failed to hit even close to that...they are still dealing with the ringing in their ears from the knockout punch the market dealt them on opening day.
Oh, and to drive it home.
They opened at 45.00, closing below that mark opening day. 
The highest it has traded, on spec, was just over 47.
And, today is 43.99.

So, yeah. And, still declaring losing money.


----------



## got a p (Jan 27, 2018)

this is pathetic that reps for the drivers and uber/lyft can't come to the table to negotiate.

having the government step in is like having a parent separate their squabbling children. uber/lyft much bigger babies than the drivers i may add. all the drivers want is to NOT subsidize their autonomous endeavors through money out of our pockets.

they want to research and develop autonomous cars they need to setup a "side-hustle" with it's own VC's and debt separate from the uber/lyft that involves divvying up the passenger fares.

and having a democrat super-majority is a horrible thing. california has major issues atm.


----------



## stpetej (Jul 3, 2017)

njn said:


> Gig-work bill passes Senate committee as crowds rally for and against it
> 
> The Senate's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee passed California's groundbreaking gig-work bill, 3-1, at a hearing Wednesday.
> 
> ...


I wish them all the best! ? Alas, FL would never even come close to considering. And the best housing I could afford in CA is a cardboard box. Hopefully, a sturdy box over a grate. But that's pushing it.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> Considering they set their valuation at over 120billion at IPO and failed to hit even close to that...they are still dealing with the ringing in their ears from the knockout punch the market dealt them on opening day.
> Oh, and to drive it home.
> They opened at 45.00, closing below that mark opening day.
> The highest it has traded, on spec, was just over 47.
> ...


Actually Uber claimed 2 cents a share net earnings, a P/E just north of 2400.

But that's the real problem. Even if Uber were to reduce its outlays on Drivers and other expenses, its gross revenues are hardly enough to justify even the current valuation.

Uber's problem is that they have nothing to distinguish themselves from anyone else. If I'm at the airport and I need a ride, there is no point in paying even a one cent surcharge to choose Uber as opposed to Lyft. Just whoever is cheapest.

Makes the whole concern really vulnerable even from its current position.



stpetej said:


> I wish them all the best! ? Alas, FL would never even come close to considering. And the best housing I could afford in CA is a cardboard box. Hopefully, a sturdy box over a grate. But that's pushing it.


What I like about California is that it isn't considered a breach of etiquette in that state just to crap on the streets. The ultimate in convenience. If you need to go, just squat and go.


----------



## stpetej (Jul 3, 2017)

I_Like_Spam said:


> Actually Uber claimed 2 cents a share net earnings, a P/E just north of 2400.
> 
> But that's the real problem. Even if Uber were to reduce its outlays on Drivers and other expenses, its gross revenues are hardly enough to justify even the current valuation.
> 
> ...


Lovely!


----------



## Lee239 (Mar 24, 2017)

Good think it's Californian because on a federal level the Republicans hate workers and only care about the rich and powerful and the huge corporations that they gave a tax cut to.


----------



## Unclemony (Dec 10, 2018)

everythingsuber said:


> Fairly with any competition that does not exploit its workers.
> 
> Ubers business model is based on its workers subsidising its losses.
> 
> Uber is free to operate at a loss as long as its employees are not forced too.


What a profound statement: "Uber's business model is based on its workers subsidizing its losses" couldn't have said it better. Stupid drivers just cannot wrap their feeble minds or the lack there of around this simple fact.



SurgeMasterMN said:


> Additional Annual Operating Costs in California Alone when this bill becomes law.
> 
> Uber $500,000,000
> Lyft $290,000,000
> ...


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Unclemony said:


> What a profound statement: "Uber's business model is based on its workers subsidizing its losses" couldn't have said it better. Stupid drivers just cannot wrap their feeble minds or the lack there of around this simple fact.


I don't think anyone is "stupid", but there are a number of drivers out there who really don't know how to count the cost of driving their own car to really know how much they are benefiting from the work.

And Uber definitely use that to their advantage.

It takes time and effort to clean your car for ride share, to do more maintenance on your car, do a more complex tax return, etc., than people are really factoring into this.


----------



## I_Like_Spam (May 10, 2015)

Unclemony said:


> What a profound statement: "Uber's business model is based on its workers subsidizing its losses" couldn't have said it better. Stupid drivers just cannot wrap their feeble minds or the lack there of around this simple fact.


I don't see this California proposal becoming law in its current form.

Uber, as it is, is very popular with the sophisticated urban crowd. What they really like about it, is the idea of merging custom door-to-door service on demand with bargain basement prices. If this were to go through , it would force a large increase in fares.

These are the folks the California is really trying to impress. Folks in rural areas of the state or small cities,they could care less.


----------



## KevinH (Jul 13, 2014)

I_Like_Spam said:


> I don't see this California proposal becoming law in its current form.
> 
> Uber, as it is, is very popular with the sophisticated urban crowd. What they really like about it, is the idea of merging custom door-to-door service on demand with bargain basement prices. If this were to go through , it would force a large increase in fares.
> 
> These are the folks the California is really trying to impress. Folks in rural areas of the state or small cities,they could care less.


Both labor lobbyists and politicians agree that there is a significant change in the way that U/L are viewed in the State Capitol. Legislators are hearing from cities about the problems associated with safety, congestion, etc. They are also very aware of the gig-economy's sub-standard employment terms. Even conservatives realize that the State is getting short-changed on employer contributions to taxes and social safety net benefits that are already costing them $millions. I am told that U/L are lobbying hard but are not being listened to.


----------



## Ubermcbc (Sep 25, 2016)

everythingsuber said:


> Problem is every outcome kills Uber.
> Uber is dying a slow enviable death. Automomus vehicles that are somehow cheaper than humans in the next 3 years is the only thing that saves Uber and its a delusional dream.
> Any negotiation that forces Uber to meet any form of social responsibility to its drivers brings Ubers to its death sooner than it's current business model.
> Uber can't negotiate because it has no margin and can not compete with competition ( as per it's S-1) if it raises prices.
> All Uber can do is stall.


You believe autonomous vehicles will become a reality in 3 years? What have you been smoking? If it is, it should be running in every major city in the USA for atleast 2 years for data gathering process. Have you seen SDC car in NYC or anywhere in Texas where you see one accident right in front of you every week if you are a full time driver? Wake up. It's atleast 8-10 years away before people will start trusting the technology. But the truth is, it will be fun to watch the further rapid downfall if either rideshare company will put these vehicles on the streets in the next 2-3 years.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> This is luxury living for all the illegal immigrants who walked over the border from other 3rd-world shitholes so they could drive for Uber/Lyft in the sanctuary city of San Francisco.
> 
> This is the loop-hole Uber/Lyft will use if AB5 is approved in its current form. Uber/Lyft will reach out to its drivers and ask _"how much per mile do you want to charge?" _The hard-cores will request $3 per mile. The ants & illegal immigrants will request .87 cents per mile.
> Guess who will get all the pings?


stand up for your selves ants , have some damn balls.


----------



## Uber's Guber (Oct 22, 2017)

kevin92009 said:


> stand up for your selves ants , have some damn balls.


Ants have no balls, because if they did, they be dragging!


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Uber's Guber said:


> Ants have no balls, because if they did, they be dragging!


??


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Diamondraider said:


> Adding a fourth party to the transaction only increases costs.


It does increase costs but not by much. At a company where I previously worked we had hundreds of tempstaff workers.

I don't remember the exact markup but it was in the +30 to 40%. Which sounds like a lot but it wasn't really since this included all employee costs. Social security, workers comp, unemployment, safety equipment, etc..

It also saved us tons of time hiring and firing. If someone didn't work out for whatever reason you just called the temp agency and had them send out a different person the next day.


----------



## zeroperminute (Jun 19, 2019)

observer said:


> It does increase costs but not by much. At a company where I previously worked we had hundreds of tempstaff workers.
> 
> I don't remember the exact markup but it was in the +30 to 40%. Which sounds like a lot but it wasn't really since this included all employee costs. Social security, workers comp, unemployment, safety equipment, etc..
> 
> It also saved us tons of time hiring and firing. If someone didn't work out for whatever reason you just called the temp agency and had them send out a different person the next day.


well if they gotrid of the useless college educated hr department they wouldn't have that problem

back in the day you showed up filled out an app or left a resume, if you passed background check yoy were hired with 90days probation, make it past probation hired full time if not oh well try another place

now its an app that you can use a fake identity on to fool background check, os negligebt in verifying insurance, inspection forms so most are fake which is a safety issue, that comitts fraud, steals from you all day without a gun or accountability, then 90% of the time attempts to human traffic me (someone is driving from farther being human trafficked if im cancelling/ignoring blank slave requests)


----------



## Uberbrent (Mar 22, 2016)

There is one option for Uber/Lyft to consider that no one has talked about yet and that is simply pulling out of California. To say it would never happen is false. They both pulled out of a major city in Texas (Austin) that decided to put forth a law requiring fingerprinting of all drivers. The only reason that they are back now is that the state took over all of the requirements for TNC drivers and excluded any fingerprinting requirements. The state also removed many of the city requirements of vehicle inspections at that time as well.

If Uber/Lyft decided to leave California because of much higher costs of having employees, the people that would be impacted (besides the drivers themselves) would be the people that depend on TNC for daily travel. I’m sure that disgruntled voters would then be attempting to have their representatives rescind the law.


----------



## Diamondraider (Mar 13, 2017)

observer said:


> It does increase costs but not by much. At a company where I previously worked we had hundreds of tempstaff workers.
> 
> I don't remember the exact markup but it was in the +30 to 40%. Which sounds like a lot but it wasn't really since this included all employee costs. Social security, workers comp, unemployment, safety equipment, etc..
> 
> It also saved us tons of time hiring and firing. If someone didn't work out for whatever reason you just called the temp agency and had them send out a different person the next day.


A. The markup is likely much higher since benefits and taxes run 40%+ without adding in operating profit for the agency. 
B. The base pay is no longer the domain of Uber, it is now the agency's bailiwick. 
C. Agencies attract workers by offering short term, steady scheduled shifts. Uber cannot provide that now. How will they outsource highly volatile worker requirements without scheduling shifts a la Amazon?


----------



## nouberipo (Jul 24, 2018)

Diamondraider said:


> A. The markup is likely much higher since benefits and taxes run 40%+ without adding in operating profit for the agency.
> B. The base pay is no longer the domain of Uber, it is now the agency's bailiwick.
> C. Agencies attract workers by offering short term, steady scheduled shifts. Uber cannot provide that now. How will they outsource highly volatile worker requirements without scheduling shifts a la Amazon?


Maybe they should have considered these things as they consistently decreased the pay of drivers over the years to a point where most are losing money by driving for them. Instead they figured exploitation would work endlessly. As for figuring out how to restructure into a less-exploititive model.....well they managed to work their magic all of these years in terms of figuring out how to best exploit drivers I am sure if they really wanted to they could figure out the opposite being paying fair wages based on employment regulations/laws.



I_Like_Spam said:


> Currently, the valuation of Uber is $74 Billion, an incredible sum far more than American, United and Southwest Airlines combined.
> 
> This kind of valuation is based on anticipated and hoped for growth in revenue far exceeding what the livery business does


as Buffet has said, airlines are some of the worst investments one can make. Thus your example is pretty good considering he also looked at Uber and passed on it. Now, just because the valuation is high means nothing especially when we see the 180 day free-for-all when VC and those locked out dump their shares in drove. It should be considered a national holiday celebrating the ability for people in this country to help determine what businesses are beneficial to society and what businesses thrive on skirting the law, ignoring regulations, thrive on having no moral or ethical compass, and could care less about the society which they are raping in plain view of its citizens. Time for Uber and Lyft to be taken down.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Diamondraider said:


> A. The markup is likely much higher since benefits and taxes run 40%+ without adding in operating profit for the agency.
> B. The base pay is no longer the domain of Uber, it is now the agency's bailiwick.
> C. Agencies attract workers by offering short term, steady scheduled shifts. Uber cannot provide that now. How will they outsource highly volatile worker requirements without scheduling shifts a la Amazon?


You seem to know more about how much the mark up is than I do. 
Can you please provide a breakdown of the mark up.


----------



## AvisDeene (Jun 7, 2019)

Uberbrent said:


> There is one option for Uber/Lyft to consider that no one has talked about yet and that is simply pulling out of California. To say it would never happen is false. They both pulled out of a major city in Texas (Austin) that decided to put forth a law requiring fingerprinting of all drivers. The only reason that they are back now is that the state took over all of the requirements for TNC drivers and excluded any fingerprinting requirements. The state also removed many of the city requirements of vehicle inspections at that time as well.
> 
> If Uber/Lyft decided to leave California because of much higher costs of having employees, the people that would be impacted (besides the drivers themselves) would be the people that depend on TNC for daily travel. I'm sure that disgruntled voters would then be attempting to have their representatives rescind the law.


Not the same since they would have to pull out of a whole state vs pulling out of a city like Austin. The moment they pull out, several start up rideshare companies would enter the market. LyUber wouldn't risk losing the ton of money they would by abandoning California.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Didi and Ola have already opened offices in the Bay area. 

It won't be long before they start hiring drivers and they will be starting without owing drivers a single cent.


----------



## Uberbrent (Mar 22, 2016)

Other rideshare companies tried to start in Austin, but with no success since they had to follow the same restrictions. If Uber/Lyft can’t make (or lose “reasonable” amounts of money as the case may be) money in a situation, what makes you think a competitor would come running just to lose tremendous amounts of cash due to regulation?

If it comes down to paying reparations for three years of screwing drivers and then making them employees that would cause an upheaval in the entire operation or pulling out, I think they would use the nuclear option.


----------



## observer (Dec 11, 2014)

Uberbrent said:


> Other rideshare companies tried to start in Austin, but with no success since they had to follow the same restrictions. If Uber/Lyft can't make (or lose "reasonable" amounts of money as the case may be) money in a situation, what makes you think a competitor would come running just to lose tremendous amounts of cash due to regulation?


Both Didi and Ola have tons of money behind them. Some of the same that invested in Uber/Lyft.

They have the money to create a well known national brand.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

Uberbrent said:


> There is one option for Uber/Lyft to consider that no one has talked about yet and that is simply pulling out of California. To say it would never happen is false. They both pulled out of a major city in Texas (Austin) that decided to put forth a law requiring fingerprinting of all drivers. The only reason that they are back now is that the state took over all of the requirements for TNC drivers and excluded any fingerprinting requirements. The state also removed many of the city requirements of vehicle inspections at that time as well.
> 
> If Uber/Lyft decided to leave California because of much higher costs of having employees, the people that would be impacted (besides the drivers themselves) would be the people that depend on TNC for daily travel. I'm sure that disgruntled voters would then be attempting to have their representatives rescind the law.


Uber DIDN'T pull out of Houston when we had fingerprinting (plus FBI background check, drug, medical tests, etc.). For a while (until the TX legislature was paid off) we were the only city besides NY to have fingerprinting. FYI LYFT DID leave Houston during this time.

Austin is NOT that big a market. Houston is. And compared with CA? Not even comparable.



Uberbrent said:


> Other rideshare companies tried to start in Austin, but with no success since they had to follow the same restrictions. If Uber/Lyft can't make (or lose "reasonable" amounts of money as the case may be) money in a situation, what makes you think a competitor would come running just to lose tremendous amounts of cash due to regulation?
> 
> If it comes down to paying reparations for three years of screwing drivers and then making them employees that would cause an upheaval in the entire operation or pulling out, I think they would use the nuclear option.


The restrictions didn't hurt the companies. Uber was doing fine in Houston with fingerprinting. We STILL had too many drivers. The other companies in Austin only started hurting when Uber and Lyft came back.

I've been with both companies in Houston since 2014.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Nats121 said:


> Because taxis are heavily regulated in most markets, they're in a category of their own.
> 
> If they lease the cab they're under the thumb of the cab company, just like uber/lyft drivers are under the thumb of U/L. and are not true ICs.
> 
> If they own the cab but are required to be associated with a cab company or co-operative they're not ICs.


On a technicality? Sure. There's a company here called "Ultimate Taxi" (not the real name) which sells you the outfit (meter radio credit card machine) for about $1000. You never make a franchise payment after that. It's up to you with that outfit to find pax. How are those owner operators "under the thumb" of that company?


----------



## Revolution2k8 (Oct 3, 2018)

njn said:


> Gig-work bill passes Senate committee as crowds rally for and against it
> 
> The Senate's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee passed California's groundbreaking gig-work bill, 3-1, at a hearing Wednesday.
> 
> ...


Uber founded the governor's campaign and many others politicians. That's why they abuse, exploit their drivers for so long in California while getting away with it. Truth came out and his hands will be tight.


----------



## Uberchampion (Oct 17, 2015)

njn said:


> Gig-work bill passes Senate committee as crowds rally for and against it
> 
> The Senate's Labor, Public Employment and Retirement Committee passed California's groundbreaking gig-work bill, 3-1, at a hearing Wednesday.
> 
> ...


If the gig companies paid legitimate taxes in the jurisdictions they operated in instead of setting up in tax havens such as the Netherlands Im sure they would have more support...

Screw the tax dodgers. A full time employer puts back into the economies of the communities they are in.


----------



## kevin92009 (Sep 11, 2016)

Uberchampion said:


> If the gig companies paid legitimate taxes in the jurisdictions they operated in instead of setting up in tax havens such as the Netherlands Im sure they would have more support...
> 
> Screw the tax dodgers. A full time employer puts back into the economies of the communities they are in.


uber and lyft don't believe they need to pay taxes they think they are special


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

Asificarewhatyoudontthink said:


> 5.00 rides?
> 
> Seriously?
> 
> ...


Yeah bro , I only want $5 rides ??‍♂ . The way I wrote it said $5 + (plus) as in don't give me any rides for LESS than $5. That's the starting rate... see ?


----------



## zeroperminute (Jun 19, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> Yeah bro , I only want $5 rides ??‍♂ . The way I wrote it said $5 + (plus) as in don't give me any rides for LESS than $5. That's the starting rate... see ?


 seriously where are they finding you children? as a teenager in highschool in the early 90s before the song about weed in high school you needed "5 on it" for a ride & you were my friend probably going tbe same place with .90 per gallon gas










$5 gross rides are still $5 short from being a legal minimum wage

the next crash is going to be so biblical i really hope people are prepared, millions of "adults" acting so pathetic & willing to be degraded by an app 2 tacos at a time

your friggen costs are $2-4 per ride genius i dont care what you driving thats means a $5 ride is FREE labor got "adults" risking life & limb for a klondike bar & actually appreciate and want a $5 ride that costs them $4 & 20 minutes lmao


----------



## Ssgcraig (Jul 8, 2015)

everythingsuber said:


> Ubers competitors are Cabs, Lyft, busses, trams, trains, people that ride a bike or walk and elevators.
> Uber is a superior product on price. Nothing else. If Uber had anything going for it other than price it wouldn't be operating at a loss.


I disagree, Uber by far is the most convenient. Most people do not want to take a cab or anything else because Uber/Lyft are so easy. I ask pax all the time, would you pay more for Uber than a cab? So far all have said yes.


----------



## zeroperminute (Jun 19, 2019)

Ssgcraig said:


> I disagree, Uber by far is the most convenient. Most people do not want to take a cab or anything else because Uber/Lyft are so easy. I ask pax all the time, would you pay more for Uber than a cab? So far all have said yes.


not convenient less than costs

raise prices to actual costs $10+ & half the pax go back to the bus or bumming rides

anectdotal is anectdotal

uber Lyft competition is nike & adidas
no real company on the planet wants "customers" who cant afford something a 16 year old can save for in 3 minths, a CAR lol

actual legit companies want customers that have actual $$$ to spend not people who think a $8 chauffeur is too expensive lmao

i stopped associating with "adults" that dont own cars when i turned 16 & bought one lol, outside of ny its what "adults" do, cabs were never meant to be takwn daily, private drivers & chauffeurs is not in a poor petsons budget

have absolutely no desire to share oxygen with anyone over 18 that doesn't have a car lol like i assume most women or adults tbat have least a few hundred dollars in cash or credit to their name


----------



## O-Side Uber (Jul 26, 2017)

zeroperminute said:


> seriously where are they finding you children? as a teenager in highschool in the early 90s before the song about weed in high school you needed "5 on it" for a ride & you were my friend probably going tbe same place with .90 per gallon gas
> 
> View attachment 336013
> 
> ...


What the hell are you talking about? The minimum fare is $3 right now ... I'm saying the minimum fare should be $5... what's wrong with that. Slow your roll old timer ??


----------



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

Nats121 said:


> Because taxis are heavily regulated in most markets, they're in a category of their own.
> 
> If they lease the cab they're under the thumb of the cab company, just like uber/lyft drivers are under the thumb of U/L. and are not true ICs.
> 
> If they own the cab but are required to be associated with a cab company or co-operative they're not ICs.


Taxi drivers fall on a spectrum, From employee at one end, to independent freelance businessmen at the other.

When i first got into the industry, i was 100% independent. I discovered how stupid easy it was to get permits and get everything together I jumped on it. (relative to getting a medallion)

I was no more an employee than i was an employee to Visa (yes the credit card company)

Now i'm an IC for a cab company, one of the biggest in the country (700+ cabs on the road)

The reality is that the level of "control" they exert varies. It is infact possible to get "fired" so there's that. They also have rules (many of which were written by the Walt Disney Company, or the City of Orlando.

If I wanted to ignore the company dispatch system and make my own client base i could, if i wanted to just sit at the airport i could. If i wanted to just cruise around looking for flag downs i could.

If i wanted to sign out a car for 24 hours,, take it home go to bed and start my day 6 hours later i could.

Most drivers are also "weekly renters" meaning they take out the car by the week and make their own schedule. The relationship seriously more reflects the relationship that the drivers have with hertz rental or Enteprise than anything.


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Stevie The magic Unicorn said:


> Taxi drivers fall on a spectrum, From employee at one end, to independent freelance businessmen at the other.
> 
> When i first got into the industry, i was 100% independent. I discovered how stupid easy it was to get permits and get everything together I jumped on it. (relative to getting a medallion)
> 
> ...


In other words, we are DIRECT CUSTOMERS of the cab company. You rent the car. I pay a flat fee for "qualified leads".
On a flat lease system, the "company" pawns their "customers" off to drivers who bid for these pax. The pax is MY customer. I am the COMPANY'S customer. It's a relationship where the "company" is only connected to the rider if there's a post pay account involved (like Disney sending their employees home in a cab on vouchers).


----------



## zeroperminute (Jun 19, 2019)

O-Side Uber said:


> What the hell are you talking about? The minimum fare is $3 right now ... I'm saying the minimum fare should be $5... what's wrong with that. Slow your roll old timer ??


no the minimum fare should be $10 GROSS to equal a legal minimum wage

child

I pay $3-$5 for a bottle of beer & $1-2 tip for it to be delivered 50 feet, I pay $3-5 tip for the human who delivers me a 3# pizza from a few miles away & have for probably 25+ years give or take...

cab drivers got $2-3 minimum fares in 19****in71 & didn't have to maintain the car or insure it they got 100% & mofos tipped watch 1979 episodes of taxi Lord almighty my ild timer ass wasn't even born yet & cab drivers made higher minimum fares per mile & minutes whats wrong with you people is this bizzaro world?

I do not deliver hundreds of pounds miles in my personal vehicle 3-10 miles for $2-4 gross lmao nor $5 you 5 year old nor $5-10 because im not a child & i dont work for illegal wages or for free nor will i ever pay for the privilege of driving a stranger who could be a felon, murderer, rapists, robber..
because no rider screening somewhere

now get off my lawn & while you at it get your shine box little kid ill give ya a Klondike bar

superduperscab

people DIED so you wouldn't have to work for uber lyfts wages you know that right? or do they not teach that with the core math that has a multitudes signing up for people to deliver people for 2 tacos a ride? hmmmmm









you also know the only reason they keep cutting pay is because idiots take those rides right? you do know you dont have to work fir free right? thats like 5th grade history combine it with 3rd grade math & you too can succeed at uber lyft corp


----------



## Nobo (Oct 22, 2017)

arcterus said:


> Wouldn't this put the remaining California taxi companies out of business? It seems like if Uber was smart, they would support this bill and finally get their pseudo-monopoly. Then they could raise prices to $3/mile and give their drivers minimum wage. What am I missing?


NOBODY would drive for minimum wage unless they were not driving their own cars at least I hope you guys wouldn't .


----------



## TwoFiddyMile (Mar 13, 2015)

Taxi doesn't have minimum fare. We have a meter drop of $2.50. if you can figure out how far 19% of a mile is, you can get there for $2.50.


----------

