Uber Driver Protest

[tinselwolverine]

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer was on CBS tonight.

From 1964.

It's my favorite show ever, I think; actually now I put it on YouTube on my phone and fall asleep to it almost every night.

Got me to thinking...people here could disagree on ideas without calling each other names.

 

[Spartanmack]

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer was on CBS tonight.

From 1964.

It's my favorite show ever, I think; actually now I put it on YouTube on my phone and fall asleep to it almost every night.

Got me to thinking...people here could disagree on ideas without calling each other names.

Not likely, but that is one of the better Christmas specials - I also like The Year Without a Santa Claus. I saw an ad for Rudolph the other day and set the DVR to record it. It will definitely be the first time my almost 3 year old has seen it, if we let her (it can pretty scary for a toddler) and possibly a first for our other 2 (5 and 6 years old).

 

[Thumb]

Got me to thinking...people here could disagree on ideas without calling each other names.

qfe

For the poster(s) that missed it

 

[elrod817]

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer was on CBS tonight.

From 1964.

It's my favorite show ever, I think; actually now I put it on YouTube on my phone and fall asleep to it almost every night.

Got me to thinking...people here could disagree on ideas without calling each other names.

qfe

For the poster(s) that missed it

It's a novel idea and really not that hard to do...

 

[TheVictors]

As a matter of business I use Uber, but I'm not one who "Ubers" places all the time like some I know. In markets like Las Vegas where the Taxi Union is very strong and the the livery business as busy as anywhere, there is huge resentment and even assaults on Uber/Lyft drivers as they're seen as a threat to taxis.

As for the process and execution of the service, it seems to be changing and adapting all the time.

For starters, there are many levels of Uber drivers - on the low-end, you might have some driver show up in a beat up old Corolla with stained back seats and a funky smell but on the high-end, it's equivalent to a limo/livery service, often with water bottles, reading material and a clean, well kept car. Herein lies the 'open market' aspect of Uber.

As for the rates - that too has changed. Now you can enter the destination when requesting your car so the driver absolutely knows where you're going (whether he knows how to get there is another thing and most don't, not without their iPhone and MAPPING App, anyways) and you get an estimated fare. Then there's good old SURGE pricing. This is when Uber gouges the customer during peak service times. A co-worker of mine who took an Uber home after midnight on a Friday, and not wanting to drive drunk (good decision) was charged over $200 for a ride that he said normally was about $75, max.

And that's the final aspect of it that's a bit opaque - your credit card on file gets charged automatically and you never see the actual fare until AFTER you've paid it - no meter and no "tips," but often some surprises.

Finally, I have a friend who did it on the side for a while as a small business owner (a couple delis) and made some decent money but said it wasn't worth it in the long run as a part time job. Not sure if it was the money or just the hassle or spending your day driving random people around when most people don't do that.

 

[Gulo Blue]

What can I tell you? - the value of buggy whip making equipment once dropped too.

Maybe as Uber drivers become disenchanted - which apparently many are - they'll get out of that business, and the values of the medallion will go back up.

EDIT: The "invisible hand" of the free market will likely end up working all this shit out for itself.

I don't take taxis or uber. I drive or I take public transit.

Naw. Self-driving cars will drive it all to zero. I think Uber's end goal is a fleet of self-driving cars, but automaker would prefer to cut them out of the loop.

 

[Michchamp]

here's an article in the UCLA law review about why ?ber drivers are actually employees and not "independent contractors" as the company claims: link.

for those too lazy or stupid to read an entire law review article, here's a key passage:

The commission held that Uber exercises control over many aspects of the operation.[23] First, Uber vets prospective drivers, who must provide banking and social security information as well as pass Uber’s background and DMV checks.[24] Second, Uber exercises control over the tools that drivers use.[25] Uber drivers register their vehicles with Uber and the vehicles must be less than 10 years old.[26] Finally, Uber, and not the drivers, has the ability to negotiate trip pricing and cancellation fees with passengers.[27]​

the commission went on to dispell with the myth that the driver owns his own car making him an ind. contractor by pointing out that pizza delivery people and other messengers like that do as well but have long been held to be employees.

a court in Kansas looked at the relationship of ?ber drivers to the company and found based on the totality of the circumstances, found they were more akin to Fedex delivery drivers than ind. contractors.

the fact that the drivers can't set or negotiate compensation and don't take payments is a big deal in terms of the analysis.

 

[Michchamp]

Rudolph the Red Nosed Reindeer was on CBS tonight.

...

Got me to thinking...people here could disagree on ideas without calling each other names.

well... this contradicts the strong stance you took against civil disagreement in this thread. see byco's comment in post #54 and your response to it in post #55.

 

[tinselwolverine]

OK.

If it was me, and Uber wasn't getting it for me, and I wanted to be a W-2 employee, I wouldn't fuck with fighting Uber in court for it.

I would just quit and get a W-2 job doing something else.

I guess I would go deliver pizzas, or apply at FedEx.

 

[tinselwolverine]

well... this contradicts the strong stance you took against civil disagreement in this thread. see byco's comment in post #54 and your response to it in post #55.

Oh.

I guess it does.

Carry on then.

 

[Michchamp]

this is correct, they don't fit the the definition of an employee under US labor laws. ...

you don't know SHIT about US labor laws, ASSFACE.

 

[Gulo Blue]

y..., ASSFACE.

That's my line.

 

[Spartanmack]

It wasn't a California court that made the determination that Uber drivers are employees, it was the California Labor Commission - the State's leading labor advocate in one of if not the least business-friendly states in America. Most lawyers would know that. Is it a huge surprise that they misapplied their own Economic Realities test to make a judgement in accordance with their bias toward labor?

Most of this...

The commission held that Uber exercises control over many aspects of the operation.[23] First, Uber vets prospective drivers, who must provide banking and social security information as well as pass Uber’s background and DMV checks.[24] Second, Uber exercises control over the tools that drivers use.[25] Uber drivers register their vehicles with Uber and the vehicles must be less than 10 years old.[26] Finally, Uber, and not the drivers, has the ability to negotiate trip pricing and cancellation fees with passengers.[27]

is about protecting the public safety and/or facilitating commerce, not exercising managerial control over drivers who aren't actual employees. Virtually every other state that has decided on the matter went the other way, determining that drivers are not employees, including New York - a union stronghold state.

 

[Spartanmack]

you don't know SHIT about US labor laws, ASSFACE.

and still I know more about them than you, and you're a lawyer for crap's sake. I've already pointed out that it wasn't a California court that made the determination, as you incorrectly stated earlier. I guess I need to also point out the California labor commission did not apply US labor laws, they used the economic realities test from the California Department of Industrial Relations. Shithead.

 

[Michchamp]

It wasn't a California court that made the determination that Uber drivers are employees, ...

I never said it was, retard. I specifically mentioned the commission in my post. you fail reading comprehension 101.

 

[Spartanmack]

I never said it was, retard. I specifically mentioned the commission in my post. you fail reading comprehension 101.

Yes you did, dipshit. It's right here from post 18 on page 2, well before you said anything about the labor commissioner (emphasis added):

in Ca a court found they fit enough of the definitions of an employee to be qualified as employees. It's been a while since i read up on it so i will have to find the ruling.

From what I remember, ?ber exercises control over drivers in more ways than that. yes they can set schedules, and have to provide their own cars, but there's more to the test than that.

Nice language - you don't even know what you've said and you call me a retard - classic turd. So you're a racist, homophobe who hates caldeans and religious people and uses hateful, despicable language to disparage people who disagree with you. You're just a miserable little shit, aren't you?

 

[TheVictors]

and still I know more about them than you, and you're a lawyer for crap's sake. I've already pointed out that it wasn't a California court that made the determination, as you incorrectly stated earlier. I guess I need to also point out the California labor commission did not apply US labor laws, they used the economic realities test from the California Department of Industrial Relations. Shithead.

Do you know what type of lawyer...?

 

[Spartanmack]

Do you know what type of lawyer...?

the shitty type, apparently.

 

[Michchamp]

Yes you did, dipshit. It's right here from post 18 on page 2, well before you said anything about the labor commissioner (emphasis added):



Nice language - you don't even know what you've said and you call me a retard - classic turd. So you're a racist, homophobe who hates caldeans and religious people and uses hateful, despicable language to disparage people who disagree with you. You're just a miserable little shit, aren't you?

oh geez, I said that in the same post where I state its been a while since I read it, & would need to look it up, not the later post I corrected myself, that you first quoted. Got me there.

hey, you're good at arguing... has anyone ever told you that you shouldve gone to law school?

 

[Spartanmack]

oh geez, I said that in the same post where I state its been a while since I read it, & would need to look it up, not the later post I corrected myself, that you first quoted. Got me there.

hey, you're good at arguing... has anyone ever told you that you shouldve gone to law school?

This isn't an argument. I'm simply pointing out the facts. only a shithead lawyer would make an argument about an indisputable fact. he would say something like "I never said that, retard" and other posts like "you don't know shit about US labor law" to someone who knew all along that it wasn't a court decision or US labor law that was in question. Then when he is shown that he in fact, did say it and was also wrong about what law was being applied, instead of saying "my bad, I was mistaken" he would make up some snivelling excuse for why he isn't actually an idiot.

and yes, plenty of people told me I should consider law school, but since I'm not a scumbag and/or a parasite, I decided to go a different route.