Sounds like they're evening the playing field. The Taxi business has always had to abide by these regulations, as long as Uber has existed at least. Uber exploited a new business model and was successful in the time it took government to catch up with regulations. Now they have to do what ever other business does, and deal with the government classifying their employees and their business model and use the money they made in the interim to facilitate that. This is how it always works when new business models spring up. The good ones are the ones who innovate and survive a changing landscape, and that includes a regulatory landscape.

Uber is wanting to have their cake and eat it too. They want the freedom to not give benefits to their employees, but also mandate everything about how their employees do their job. That's just not the business landscape we've adopted in the United States because our fundamental economic benefit is derived from our employment. Everything from our retirement accounts to our healthcare is regulated through our workplace. If you want to free businesses like Uber from this you have to fundamentally change the landscape such that these things can be reasonably acquired without being classified as an employee, because right now it can't be. I mean, sure, you could buy your own insurance, but a gig worker isn't gonna be able to afford the 1k a month to have decent healthcare because they have no group negotiating power.

Honestly, this is just another reason we need a national healthcare system. Economic freedom of the workers and freedom of the businesses to not have to provide that benefit.

This post was edited by Thor123422 on Aug 20 2020 02:14pm

Ill disagree on this one. Prices should be passed to the consumer, if the price is to high it means the consumer is finding cheaper alternatives that are filling their need. If they want to survive they will alter their business model in a way that works, or perhaps it just does not work, declare bankruptcy and move to the next venture.

If there's an existing demand jobs will simply be moved from one area to the area that is now in demand.

A day of reckoning is coming for these unprofitable tech companies just pissing share allotment money away. Dilution, dilution, debt, debt, debt.

Shit or get off the pot.

This post was edited by SBD on Aug 20 2020 03:51pm

The taxi industry is a case study in how local legislation can create barriers to entry that protect operators at the expense of the wider community.

The media will never cover this.

Liberals would rather die than stop ruining our country.



You're only making income equality worse with your terrible policies.

This post was edited by EndlessSky on Aug 20 2020 05:19pm

Um, it's literally on the front page of CNN, NY Times, and CBS...

California is in the midst of a fairly large exodus of people due to their carzy regulations and taxes. They are going to Arizona, Texas, and even Idaho of all places. Hopefully the people leaving won't be stupid and vote for the very things they flee from.

They are blaming the companies.

The media literally has Gavin Newsom's magic stick down their throat. They couldn't make it any more obvious that they are prostitutes for the Democrat campaigns.

Which articles did you read say that?

Anyway, a California court ruled that the two companies have time to comply (seems to be Oct 13)

I laughed when this legislation was praised by all the lefty journalists, then their own companies had to downsize because of it. California is a pretty decent size gig economy and it only hurts those employees who work for companies who can't afford to insure part-time workers.

The one where they gave Gavin Newsom an sbj.

Making a bad law slightly less bad is still bad.