# California - bill up for a vote Monday 20 April - call your assembly member



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

*Contact your Assembly member
*
Here is the story:

http://www.latimes.com/business/technology/la-fi-tn-ab-24-bill-tnc-uber-lyft-20150305-story.html
*
Find your assemblymember
*
http://findyourrep.legislature.ca.gov/*

From Uber*

Dear Sacto Burbs,

Your leaders in Sacramento are voting *this Monday, April 20,* on backward-looking legislation (AB 24) that would put the future of ridesharing at risk in California. State leaders need to hear from entrepreneurs like you. Will you tell Assemblymember Garcia that ridesharing is important to you?

Email Assemblymember Garcia to Vote *NO* on AB 24

If you care about the future of ridesharing in California and you believe ridesharing deserves a future in the Golden State, make sure to tell Assemblymember Garcia to vote *NO* on AB 24.
We don't have much time, and anti-ridesharing interests hope you'll stay quiet while this bill slips through the state Assembly - but we're confident that with your voice this won't be the case.
Sincerely,
Team Uber California

I called and asked them to vote YES on the bill.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

It's needed 
Filter the bad apples


----------



## Sweet Ping (Jan 20, 2015)

"(I) It provides for a mandatory controlled substance and alcohol testing certification program as adopted by the commission pursuant to Section 1032.1."

I can't argue with that.


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

If this Bill does not pass a next one will follow. The process will repeat itself. The people who vote get greased. It's seems to be more like a ransom. Everyone needs to get there cut..


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Make chi1cabby proud 
Call your assemblymber. !!!


----------



## UberComic (Apr 17, 2014)

I'm for drug testing as long as it's paid for by Uber. 

I'm not for requiring us to register with PUC, or putting stickers on our cars. This part of the bill would hurt rideshare since hardly anyone will want to comply with it, especially part timers. That Assemblyman has previously shown that he's being paid off by the taxi industry.


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

UberComic said:


> I'm for drug testing as long as it's paid for by Uber.
> 
> I'm not for requiring us to register with PUC, or putting stickers on our cars. This part of the bill would hurt rideshare since hardly anyone will want to comply with it, especially part timers. That Assemblyman has previously shown that he's being paid off by the taxi industry.


First it's drug testing, then next year it will be upgraded insurance requirements. Five years from now, through incremental legislation, "ridesharing" will be just as heavily regulated as the taxi industry is.

You don't think all the regulations that govern the taxi industry happened overnight, do you?


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

I think people may be missing the point here w decals and drug tests. Its a start. What i would love to see is less power and manipulation by Fuber. The insurance, the commissions...it all ties in to Fuber quietly controlling the independant contractor like an employee. Setting the rates as Fuber sees fit will NEVER include what rates the drivers SHOULD HAVE. Small steps in regulation move towards more steps in the future and eventually to a fair market where Fuber and Lyfft arent ruling and abusing. If the rates were regulated by the PUC it becomes a MUCH different ball game where the best Customer Service (DEFINATELY NOT FUBERS FORTE...YET) and customer satisfaction get the business without this strong armed yet ******ed rating system we have now. Open your eyes gentlemen.


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

UberComic said:


> I'm for drug testing as long as it's paid for by Uber.
> 
> I'm not for requiring us to register with PUC, or putting stickers on our cars. This part of the bill would hurt rideshare since hardly anyone will want to comply with it, especially part timers. That Assemblyman has previously shown that he's being paid off by the taxi industry.


They don't pay for car inspections or anything else. We will get stuck with it. Go down this road and we will be the taxi industry


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

LAndreas

Well...the multiple participants as of now are ass raping everyone with less than a buck per mile, no base normal rates just for starters.

The taxi bus was over regulated and expensive but before Fuber cam along all were making money. Plenty of business. Now, Uber is the only one making any real money while the drivers suck up all the risk with very little reward.


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

@ scrnicriuser

WE ALREADY ARE THE NEW TAXI BUSINESS! 

What planet are you on?


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

LAndreas

That "taxi madallion" at least required a fingerprint chack at a police station that guaranteed that the "asshole" behind the wheel was in fact "that asshole" and not a pediphile or bank robber or drunk driver. He had no criminal record for at least 7 years and was NEVER a sex or violent offender. 

You obviously know little about the transportation industry.

Trust me when i say i know the taxi drivers are not saints and have a bad reputation with good reason. They need to be replaced or seriously revamped. I drove for 10 years. There were many assholes and just as many "stand up" hard working, GOOD men.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian.. if you know anything about the Socal taxi and livery mafia, Mr. Nazarian's name has a very familiar ring to it..
> 
> So he wants us to display a decal? I'm displaying the Uber trade dress, always. That should do? Oh no! I see! A decal comes with a fee. So we can pay for more bureaucracy and more jobs for Mr. Nazarian's cronies in all the commissions politicians can create with the money that will come - you guessed it, out of my and your pockets (and, as always, we also will be left holding the bag as consumers, because as soon as you have decals, you have politicians that can start rationing them, so we'll be back with a few "connected" cabs that still strangely suck badly).
> 
> If you told your assemblyman to vote "yes" on this, Sacto Burbs, you are an unbelievable sucker not furthering your own interests.


I know. This minimum wage gig is so precious to me. Just think, they want to make sure I'm not a meth head. What am I thinking of. Oh, right, I'm thinking about the $2,500 deductible on the accident that I was not at fault on ... Silly me. What next, state mandated higher fares? What an appalling thought. That's like minimum wage ... And everyone knows that is a communist plot and it destroyed the U.S. economy ... Wait that's not ... Now again where does my self interest lie ... Cookies, brownies, Sees Chocolates, deviled eggs, who got the munchies?

/ sarcasm alert


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

Open your eyes Gentlemen


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

onefuctubersheep said:


> Open your eyes Gentlemen


Why? I'm sleepy.


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

onefuctubersheep said:


> @ scrnicriuser
> 
> WE ALREADY ARE THE NEW TAXI BUSINESS!
> 
> What planet are you on?


Agreed, but we have the advantage of no regulation allowing us to drive the cars we want without the meters, back seat barriers, signage. If uber would like us to form a drivers association for training, drug testing and skills...we can do that. but to have the government start meddling we will have no advantage. Want to compete for a spot on black or suv...you cant, not allowed. Want to go be a legal taxi on your own...sorry you need a bunch of crap that is useless. Decided on by people that don't do it. I know uber is not all we want it to be.
I'm on the planet that briefly allowed me to drive people that wanted to be driven. Uber muks it up but I need them to connect me to the rider. I need the state of California to stay out of the way. Uber can be replaced or forced to improve by competition. 
Over regulation by the state is difficult to reduce.
Government provides transportation now and it sucks. When they fix thier shit then they can come fix ours. Till then we don't need them nor do the pax. All I need is 60 cents more a mile. Pax will pay that as shown by surge pricing. Everything else is fine, thanks


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Scenicruiser said:


> Agreed, but we have the advantage of no regulation allowing us to drive the cars we want without the meters, back seat barriers, signage. If uber would like us to form a drivers association for training, drug testing and skills...we can do that. but to have the government start meddling we will have no advantage. Want to compete for a spot on black or suv...you cant, not allowed. Want to go be a legal taxi on your own...sorry you need a bunch of crap that is useless. Decided on by people that don't do it. I know uber is not all we want it to be.
> I'm on the planet that briefly allowed me to drive people that wanted to be driven. Uber muks it up but I need them to connect me to the rider. I need the state of California to stay out of the way. Uber can be replaced or forced to improve by competition.
> Over regulation by the state is difficult to reduce.
> Government provides transportation now and it sucks. When they fix thier shit then they can come fix ours. Till then we don't need them nor do the pax. All I need is 60 cents more a mile. Pax will pay that as shown by surge pricing. Everything else is fine, thanks


So the government requiring drivers to take a drug test is over regulation in your book? Just checking. As an Uber customer I can't say that I agree with you.


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

Yeah, I do think it's over regulation. I have no problem with uber mandating drug tests. I have no problem with joining a drivers association mandating drug tests, the solution, in my opinion. There is nobody in government that knows more about driving than you do. Why would you look to them for instruction?
I have to point out that you said uber customer instead of tcp customer or taxi customer. Regulation costs money...alot.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> First it's drug testing, then next year it will be upgraded insurance requirements. Five years from now, through incremental legislation, "ridesharing" will be just as heavily regulated as the taxi industry is.
> 
> You don't think all the regulations that govern the taxi industry happened overnight, do you?


Bingo!!!!!!!


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> Assemblyman Adrin Nazarian.. if you know anything about the Socal taxi and livery mafia, Mr. Nazarian's name has a very familiar ring to it..
> 
> So he wants us to display a decal? I'm displaying the Uber trade dress, always. That should do? Oh no! I see! A decal comes with a fee. So we can pay for more bureaucracy and more jobs for Mr. Nazarian's cronies in all the commissions politicians can create with the money that will come - you guessed it, out of my and your pockets (and, as always, we also will be left holding the bag as consumers, because as soon as you have decals, you have politicians that can start rationing them, so we'll be back with a few "connected" cabs that still strangely suck badly).
> 
> If you told your assemblyman to vote "yes" on this, Sacto Burbs, you are an unbelievable sucker not furthering your own interests.


This will reduce the number of drivers for sure 
I bet the ones that get cut (clowns) are the ones that do no good to your brand 
Basic regulation will favor you

Decal : is a small price to pay 
Most legit industry require uniform or a clear identifier even security guards & pizza delivery


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> If this Bill does not pass a next one will follow. The process will repeat itself. The people who vote get greased. It's seems to be more like a ransom. Everyone needs to get there cut..


100%


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> I also fail to see how a decal will create "the opportunity to show consumers how safe and friendly their (Uber's/Lyft's/=us) drivers can be".
> It's funny, because I've never once felt that the taxi medallion made the cab drivers that picked me up at LAX any safer or friendlier. Guess Mr. Nazarian's decals must have some magical properties that the medallions lacked..


Maybe a bill to deregulate transportation across the board will get your support rigth?


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

onefuctubersheep said:


> I think people may be missing the point here w decals and drug tests. Its a start. What i would love to see is less power and manipulation by Fuber. The insurance, the commissions...it all ties in to Fuber quietly controlling the independant contractor like an employee. Setting the rates as Fuber sees fit will NEVER include what rates the drivers SHOULD HAVE. Small steps in regulation move towards more steps in the future and eventually to a fair market where Fuber and Lyfft arent ruling and abusing. If the rates were regulated by the PUC it becomes a MUCH different ball game where the best Customer Service (DEFINATELY NOT FUBERS FORTE...YET) and customer satisfaction get the business without this strong armed yet ******ed rating system we have now. Open your eyes gentlemen.


Bingo!!!!!!


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

LAndreas said:


> @ onefuctubersheep
> 
> So politicians set prices better than a private marketplace that has multiple participants in competition with each other?


Level plain required first


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

onefuctubersheep said:


> LAndreas
> 
> Well...the multiple participants as of now are ass raping everyone with less than a buck per mile, no base normal rates just for starters.
> 
> The taxi bus was over regulated and expensive but before Fuber cam along all were making money. Plenty of business. Now, Uber is the only one making any real money while the drivers suck up all the risk with very little reward.


The a$$ raping is mainly to uber drivers regulation will help
As of now UBER drivers have cero leverage other than
Been able to kick out customers
The kicking out it self further destroys the driver chance to make $$
The kicking should be to UBER gov can help


----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

Scenicruiser

No one is going to start putting dividers in the cars and all that bullshit that the taxis put up with DECADES ago. This is a new Era and it will be much more conducive to drivers and passengers. The idea that Fuber and its competitors (of which there are none really) will right itself in regards to the driver is just plain denial of the obvious. Fuber has NEVER done anything going forward to enhance the drivers paycheck nor will they in the future. Everything they do is deviuos, vague and deceptive and have an agenda that just does not include us in the long term. Why shoul we do it their way so we can help them build us out of our own jobs. We are the larger half of the equation that is making them a EPICLY HUGE CONGLOMERATE and we most certainly deserve more for it! THEY HAVE NO INTEREST IN GIVING IT TO US!


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

I think thier stupid for not giving it to us. Maybe somebody else will. I think uber's advantage is the drivers, because we are unregulated...tcp already exists if you need regulation.

I didn't mean to make you yell. It's not like I'm gonna not like I'm trying to change the world, here. Just killing time, shooting the breeze between pings


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> So the government requiring drivers to take a drug test is over regulation in your book? Just checking. As an Uber customer I can't say that I agree with you.


Drug testing for being hired is one thing, so is after an incident. But for those shouting that drug tests are a great thing, how many would we be subjected to? Once a month,year? 
First step should be fingerprint background checks.


----------



## Sweet Ping (Jan 20, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> Drug testing for being hired is one thing, so is after an incident. But for those shouting that drug tests are a great thing, how many would we be subjected to? Once a month,year?
> First step should be fingerprint background checks.


It should be random, even if 3 times a week some times and nothing for 5 years some other times.

You get a ping, you drive there, and you see travis holding a piss cup.

You give him 4 oz of piss - he gives you $4 minus 20% and safe rider fee.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Sweet Ping said:


> It should be random, even if 3 times a week some times and nothing for 5 years some other times.
> 
> You get a ping, you drive there, and you see travis holding a piss cup.
> 
> You give him 4 oz of piss - he gives you $4 minus 20% and safe rider fee.


That's bull shit. Pilots don't test that much. Drug testing has not been found to stop abuse. It has been a money maker like the private prison industry. With contributions going to those with policies hardcore anti drug. So somebody who goes to a state where pot is legal and smokes a joint, then goes home to another state has to sweat for 30 days? While the ****ing meth head stays clean for 3 days or so and is ok? Drug testing at hire and after accidents if called for by law enforcement is one thing. Random? I don't get paid enough.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> Drug testing for being hired is one thing, so is after an incident. But for those shouting that drug tests are a great thing, how many would we be subjected to? Once a month,year?
> First step should be fingerprint background checks.


Drug test is once a year random
Any law enforcement can order
One in case of any incident ( accident or complaint etc)


----------



## Sweet Ping (Jan 20, 2015)

frndthDuvel said:


> That's bull shit. Pilots don't test that much. Drug testing has not been found to stop abuse. It has been a money maker like the private prison industry. With contributions going to those with policies hardcore anti drug. So somebody who goes to a state where pot is legal and smokes a joint, then goes home to another state has to sweat for 30 days? While the ****ing meth head stays clean for 3 days or so and is ok? Drug testing at hire and after accidents if called for by law enforecement is one thing. Random? I don't get paid enough.


Want to be a pothead - stay away from driving jobs!
Random testing program is the way to go for regulators.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Scenicruiser said:


> I think thier stupid for not giving it to us. Maybe somebody else will. I think uber's advantage is the drivers, because we are unregulated...tcp already exists if you need regulation.
> 
> I didn't mean to make you yell. It's not like I'm gonna not like I'm trying to change the world, here. Just killing time, shooting the breeze between pings


Regulation takes this guy out 
There are to many of these driving for uber


----------



## Scenicruiser (Oct 17, 2014)

Damn taco licking uber drivers...they're the worst.
Maybe you guys are right...regulation will save us all


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Scenicruiser said:


> Damn taco licking uber drivers...they're the worst.


I said some 
The bad ones give the rest a bad rep


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Sweet Ping said:


> Want to be a pothead - stay away from driving jobs!
> Random testing program is the way to go for regulators.


Want to be human? Don't tell others what they can do when they are not driving. Now if you do not drink alcohol at anytime, perhaps you are not the hypocrite you likely are.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> Want to be human? Don't tell others what they can do when they are not driving. Now if you do not drink alcohol at anytime, perhaps you are not the hypocrite you likely are.


Regulators : we need regulation exhibit 1 UBERPEOPLE.NET
this is why


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> Regulators : we need regulation exhibit 1 UBERPEOPLE.NET
> this is why


I never said I smoked pot. But you assume so? Well we know that must make you an ass right? But because I am not for drug testing beyond at hire and accidents,drug testing that enriches the drug war industry you want law makers to test all UBER drivers? Oh,ok!


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> I never said I smoked pot. But you assume so? Well we know that must make you an ass right? But because I am not for drug testing beyond at hire and accidents,drug testing that enriches the drug war industry you want law makers to test all UBER drivers? Oh,ok!


I support to legalize pot , I've seen people use hard drugs for years that is not the problem I don't care what each do on their private time 
I never said you smoked 
But let me ask you would you feel ok letting your close ones in a vehicle 
When you know nothing about the driver ? Seriously


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> Drug testing for being hired is one thing, so is after an incident. But for those shouting that drug tests are a great thing, how many would we be subjected to? Once a month,year?
> First step should be fingerprint background checks.


Tell if I'm wrong
Based on this forum

It is wrong for drunk customer to offend "soccer dad "with his existence

But it's ok for a crack head to drive "soccer dad's " teen daughter

Back seat drunk customer bad , front seat driver crack head ok ?


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> I support to legalize pot , I've seen people use hard drugs for years that is not the problem I don't care what each do on their private time
> I never said you smoked
> But let me ask you would you feel ok letting your close ones in a vehicle
> When you know nothing about the driver ? Seriously


We let our close ones interact with drivers we know nothing about everytime they are in a car.
Life has risks. I would rather a loved one be in a car with a Driver who smoked 8 hours previously than one who was drunk 8 hours earlier. People wake up drunk, not high. But yes, nobody wants an impaired driver behind the wheel at anytime. Random drug tests does not really address that. YMMV


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

frndthDuvel said:


> We let our close ones interact with drivers we know nothing about everytime they are in a car.
> Life has risks. I would rather a loved one be in a car with a Driver who smoked 8 hours previously than one who was drunk 8 hours earlier. People wake up drunk, not high. But yes, nobody wants an impaired driver behind the wheel at anytime. Random drug tests does not really address that. YMMV


Crack , cocaine , speed , lsd , heroine , pharmaceuticals , meth ?????


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

20yearsdriving said:


> Tell if I'm wrong
> Based on this forum
> 
> It is wrong for drunk customer to offend "soccer dad "with his existence
> ...


Huh?
Not sure I understand the soccer dad reference. Perhaps another thread pertains to that reference?
That is the problem with drug tests, the crack head can be clean in a matter of days. A portly dude who visited Colorado weeks ago would still not be clean. So what good is the test? Except for the drug testing company and the politicans they pay. When they can get the test that shows current impairment, rather than the past 30 days of whatever, that will be an improvement. I think the soccer dad would rather the Driver's background check included fingerprints and run through the FBI database rather than worrying about what the Driver did weeks ago.

Nice 2 XL trips from home while writing this. Cowboys headed to the local rodeo
Who knew cowboys tipped so well? 23.47 in net fares, 15 dollars in tips. All from the comfort of my couch. Of course picking up the drunk cowboys later might be fun.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Drunk customer bad

Driver under influence of drugs is ok

Correct?


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

You guys can't be serious, you mean I'm supposed to be clean and sober when I drive for this company? You gotta to be kidding me?/Sarcasm alert

I promised 1 million sarcastic remarks to some guy on one of the other threads so I decided to start counting them


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Give me the link to the article showing the research that says that drug testing doesn't work, please.


----------



## frndthDuvel (Aug 31, 2014)

Sacto Burbs said:


> Give me the link to the article showing the research that says that drug testing doesn't work, please.


Damn there goes my streak of 3 trips from the couch with tips in a row. Damn 4th trip. Though a 20 minute couch to couch 20 dollar net works.

Give me the link that it helps the poor, give me the link that it keeps students off drugs. Give me the link that says drug testing welfare recipients is a good thing. I am not advocating that UBER drivers be impaired. I am saying the drug war has been a complete failure for the last 100 years. Drug testing was never about making people safer. It was about the appearance of safety and profits. Does it act as a hammer to deter people from smoking pot, yeah sure. Not so much for coke,meth,or pharm people. Does it increase productivity or make companies safer. That is another question.


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

It is a failure because you cannot make war on a noun. Nor should you wage war on your own citizens. I don't have any answers, but I do think that there is a connection between being told you can make fast money easily and a light bulb going off on the head as someone looking for their next fix. No harm in a little bit of preventative medicine, it doesn't catch everybody, but it catches a few.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)




----------



## oneubersheep (Nov 27, 2014)

I wasnt yelling.


----------



## troubleinrivercity (Jul 27, 2014)

If there is to be drug testing our companies will have to pay for it themselves. We are our companies. Not surprising that Uber opposes this pretty reasonable measure. It makes them look more like an employer. They’ll keep fighting regulation on these terms, above all other concerns. Survival of the Uber comes first, it’s the corporate prerogative. All ambitious corps have similar thousand-yard stares.


----------



## Sweet Ping (Jan 20, 2015)

So, what happened to that bill?


----------



## Sacto Burbs (Dec 28, 2014)

Sweet Ping said:


> So, what happened to that bill?


Sent back to committee apparently&#8230;

https://legiscan.com/CA/bill/AB24/2015


----------



## Driver916 (Apr 25, 2015)

I got a call today from a "private number", boink to voicemail. It's Patrick from Uber with a hideously bad connection. 
He says that I should come out on Monday 4/27, to a cafe on 11th street at 1pm, then walk over to the Capitol to stand against AB24. 

Is this really some kind of threat to our jobs? Patrick specifically said that I could lose my "right to drive", so as to motivate me to show up. He also said that it could be the end of Rideshare in California... which made me suspicious because I think we all would be more aware of AB24 if all of Rideshare were shutting down in Cali.

If I were to weigh in on the drug testing; as someone who enjoys cannabis in my free time, and not while I'm driving, nor while working, nor while driving for work, I would be happy to test if only cannabis were legal, and/or the test only considered my state at the moment of testing in the way an alcohol test would.
The point made about waking up drunk, and not waking up high, is valid, except that when "they" test for drugs the results show a 90-day (or more) history of drug use (hair test), while historical alcohol use is not detectable, nor is it an offence. If I lose my job because I got high two weeks ago, meanwhile whoever got drunk last night can drive again the next day, then I'll be pissed off. Seems stupid and unfair, but there's nothing to do about it.


----------



## Sweet Ping (Jan 20, 2015)

Driver916 said:


> I got a call today from a "private number", boink to voicemail. It's Patrick from Uber with a hideously bad connection.
> He says that I should come out on Monday 4/27, to a cafe on 11th street at 1pm, then walk over to the Capitol to stand against AB24.
> 
> Is this really some kind of threat to our jobs? Patrick specifically said that I could lose my "right to drive", so as to motivate me to show up. He also said that it could be the end of Rideshare in California... which made me suspicious because I think we all would be more aware of AB24 if all of Rideshare were shutting down in Cali.
> ...


Joe rogan said that if your job makes you take drug test, you ... I can't remember what was his conclusion.

But you can start a profitable podcast, you are a comedian, right?


----------



## Taxi Driver in Arizona (Mar 18, 2015)

Driver916 said:


> He also said that it could be the end of Rideshare in California... which made me suspicious because I think we all would be more aware of AB24 if all of Rideshare were shutting down in Cali.


That's just Uber hyperbole. They say that every time they're faced with the slightest regulation.



> If I were to weigh in on the drug testing; as someone who enjoys cannabis in my free time, and not while I'm driving, nor while working, nor while driving for work, I would be happy to test if only cannabis were legal, and/or the test only considered my state at the moment of testing in the way an alcohol test would.
> The point made about waking up drunk, and not waking up high, is valid, except that when "they" test for drugs the results show a 90-day (or more) history of drug use (hair test), while historical alcohol use is not detectable, nor is it an offence. If I lose my job because I got high two weeks ago, meanwhile whoever got drunk last night can drive again the next day, then I'll be pissed off. Seems stupid and unfair, but there's nothing to do about it.


While I agree with you about the unfairness of testing for cannabis vs alcohol, the fact is that airline pilots, train engineers, bus drivers, and taxi drivers are all subject to random drug testing. It's coming to the rideshare industry whether you like it or not.


----------



## Driver916 (Apr 25, 2015)

My point is; how is it "random drug testing" when a lock of hair can tell months of months of drug use history. I think the point or random drug testing is, are you using now? Not, did you use two months ago when you were on another continent enjoying Mediterranean herbs. See what I mean? It is what it is. I'm sure it'll be legal here soon enough, but it would suck to lose my job because of it.


----------



## Fuzzyelvis (Dec 7, 2014)

UberComic said:


> I'm for drug testing as long as it's paid for by Uber.
> 
> I'm not for requiring us to register with PUC, or putting stickers on our cars. This part of the bill would hurt rideshare since hardly anyone will want to comply with it, especially part timers. That Assemblyman has previously shown that he's being paid off by the taxi industry.


There are plenty of part timers doing this and more in Houston. And pax love that it's being done.

Of course they also love cheap rides...but every single one I've discussed this with would also be happy to pay more to know they're not being driven by drug impaired criminals.

Maybe it's different where you are?


----------



## Just_in (Jun 29, 2014)

Driver916 said:


> My point is; how is it "random drug testing" when a lock of hair can tell months of months of drug use history. I think the point or random drug testing is, are you using now? Not, did you use two months ago when you were on another continent enjoying Mediterranean herbs. See what I mean? It is what it is. I'm sure it'll be legal here soon enough, but it would suck to lose my job because of it.


 You pay about 70 dollars a year for one mandatory test. They can also randomly call you in on a moments notice. Also if you get in a accident the company can request you take the test.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

LAndreas said:


> @ onefuctubersheep
> 
> So politicians set prices better than a private marketplace that has multiple participants in competition with each other?


There people exposed to the risk of that competition are the drivers, not the people people who have the authority with in the industry to set prices. The competition needs to be established within an established set of reasonable rules.

In PA, a taxi company needs to petition the {UC with a plan. They need to present an idea of how many cars they would put on the road and show what their rate schedule would look like. They need to somehow demonstrate there is enough business to warrant the addition of another taxi Co. That isn't hard to do.

The transportation industry is something the public has an interest in. The idea is that companies are out there competing to improve service, not to put each other out of business. That is Travis' hopes and dreams. The idea is to create some sort of a level playing field, rates fall within a reasonable range to protect both driver and pax.

Uber's price system has major problems, that should be obvious. Many seem to equate the idea that a free market is a component of some sort of "Social Darwinism" comes to the market place. Survival of the fittest. Social Darwinism was proven to be a hoax in short order. Being the last one standing in your field is not the goal of capitalism. Only people like Travis believe that.


----------



## stuber (Jun 30, 2014)

onefuctubersheep said:


> I think people may be missing the point here w decals and drug tests. Its a start. What i would love to see is less power and manipulation by Fuber. The insurance, the commissions...it all ties in to Fuber quietly controlling the independant contractor like an employee. Setting the rates as Fuber sees fit will NEVER include what rates the drivers SHOULD HAVE. Small steps in regulation move towards more steps in the future and eventually to a fair market where Fuber and Lyfft arent ruling and abusing. If the rates were regulated by the PUC it becomes a MUCH different ball game where the best Customer Service (DEFINATELY NOT FUBERS FORTE...YET) and customer satisfaction get the business without this strong armed yet ******ed rating system we have now. Open your eyes gentlemen.


I'm against any entities setting rates. Not the government, certainly not UBER. The price for my service is none of their business.


----------



## Huberis (Mar 15, 2015)

stuber said:


> I'm against any entities setting rates. Not the government, certainly not UBER. The price for my service is none of their business.


In PA, with taxis, the taxi company petitions the PUC for a rate change. I believe you need to petition to drop rates as well. You state your reasons for the request. The request is reviewed, which includes looking to see that the company is in compliance if there are have been concerns in the past. It is slow, but eventually gets done.

"I'm against any entities setting rates. Not the government, certainly not UBER. The price for my service is none of their business." Sounds great, but the world doesn't work that way. It simply doesn't. You are working on public streets, servicing other businesses etc, it simply does not work that way.


----------



## mizzrock (Jan 3, 2015)

Taxi Driver in Arizona said:


> First it's drug testing, then next year it will be upgraded insurance requirements. Five years from now, through incremental legislation, "ridesharing" will be just as heavily regulated as the taxi industry is.
> 
> You don't think all the regulations that govern the taxi industry happened overnight, do you?


Get your $$ while it's easy.


----------



## 20yearsdriving (Dec 14, 2014)

Just_in said:


> You pay about 70 dollars a year for one mandatory test. They can also randomly call you in on a moments notice. Also if you get in a accident the company can request you take the test.


Correct


----------

