California voters pass Proposition 22, eliminating employee protections for Uber and Lyft...

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,219
It‘s still a subsidy, I.e. corporate welfare. I don‘t think it‘s good for anyone becoming dependent on government hand outs
What corporate welfare program do you believe is exposed in that Monty Python film you linked?
 

Irata

Posts: 1,756   +2,936
Maybe I didn't relay my question well. I'll put it another way:

If you were able to interview/survey rideshare drivers personally, and discovered that nearly all of them do not want your help and want to retain their independent contractor status, would you honor their wishes and vote to support their position?
Highly constructed case but yes, I would. If I were able to interview them privately without anyone knowing I did. What would interest me most in that case is why they did not want things to change.

Return question: If you knew a couple and knew that one of them regularly beat up the other one, but that person told you it‘s fine and (s)he probably deserved it, would you do anything or respect his/her wishes and do nothing? Oh, in this scenario, let‘s assume that you would pay part of that person‘s medical bill via your taxes.
 

Avro Arrow

Posts: 1,812   +2,158
TechSpot Elite
That's not at all clear to me. For that to be true, the job would have to be the current source of health care (as opposed to say a main dayjob which was the original point of the rideshare economy); remain available; to be able to afford those benefits; the driver would still have to be in the job; and it assumes there would not be a national healthcare program when the time came.

I think the chance of all those remaining true is pretty small for most people.
I may have not been very clear, sorry about that. I'll reword it:

You're right that it's not true (having health care) at the moment because they're considered independent contractors. If they were considered employees, then Uber would've had to give those benefits at some point. The drivers wanted what was easier and more expedient now instead of taking the path that would be more difficult today but would have reaped greater long-term rewards for them.

That's what I meant by "The Grasshopper and the Ant". It's like if something is hard to do now, then it's not worth doing, regardless of the long-term benefits.
 

Irata

Posts: 1,756   +2,936
That makes me snicker because only Americans find that idea abhorrent. To the rest of us, that scenario is every day and we like it that way.
Yup, my „socialist“ health care is one thing I would never want to give up.
An overlooked point is that no health insurance plus no / very few sick days means chance of transmitting diseases is much higher.
 

Bp968

Posts: 236   +167
Just as much as it’s up to you. This is just my opinion.

Frankly, if someone‘s business idea is to underpay while not having to keep standards, it‘s not a good business idea and corporate welfare - guess who picks up the tab if „free lance contractors“ do not earn enough to make an honest living.

I assume you are not working for minimum wage or less with zero security or benefits. Neither am I, btw, but I don‘t expect anyone to do it for my benefit.

Uber was designed from the beginning as a way for people to make money on the side while bored, between jobs, while going to school, for a stay at home parent to earn some fun money, etc. Yet some people decided it was a cool way to work full time so they left the app running 8+ hours a day. Just because someone offers to work 2 or 3 peoples jobs doesn't make that job suddenly "full time with benefits". And worse, requiring that the company only hire full time + benefits employees essentially kills the ride sharing app job as a usable side hussle for all the previously listed people.

Are they going to hire the guy who made a few hours work in a rural area full time with benefits? No. Their going to turn his app off and now that area gets no service and he gets no money.

The law was dumb and poorly written to begin with so this outcome is no real surprise. Their job is to write law, you think the least we should require is that they don't suck at it.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,219
That makes me snicker because only Americans find the idea [of paying other people's medical bills] abhorrent.
Americans have always cared a bit more about freedom. Forcing one person to work for another's needs is slavery, no matter how euphemistically attractive it's packaged.
 

Bp968

Posts: 236   +167
That makes me snicker because only Americans find that idea abhorrent. To the rest of us, that scenario is every day and we like it that way.

Its more about how its done. People say this stuff to imply Americans are selfish or cruel yet America has the highest rate of private giving in the world.
 

Endymio

Posts: 1,334   +1,219
Its more about how its done. People say this stuff to imply Americans are selfish or cruel yet America has the highest rate of private giving in the world.
From a 2015 Survey on charitable giving from Pulse Opinion Research:

"The results...found that Americans out-donate Britain and Canada two-to-one and nations like Italy and Germany 20-to-one..."
 

Norsiiii

Posts: 86   +110
Highly constructed case but yes, I would. If I were able to interview them privately without anyone knowing I did. What would interest me most in that case is why they did not want things to change.

Return question: If you knew a couple and knew that one of them regularly beat up the other one, but that person told you it‘s fine and (s)he probably deserved it, would you do anything or respect his/her wishes and do nothing? Oh, in this scenario, let‘s assume that you would pay part of that person‘s medical bill via your taxes.

Does your savior complex know no bounds? The scope of your mental gymnastics to allow you to paint your position as one of a righteous warrior battling to save the poor downtrodden workers who know no better is getting a bit ridiculous.

Your comparison to spousal abuse is not only folly but is deeply insulting. You deliberately choose such an erroneous comparison because its a loaded question - in your scenario it is a pre-established fact that one party is physically abusing to the other, however, in trying to equate this to the situation of ride-share drivers, you are requiring that it is already an undeniable established fact that their working situation is an equally clear-cut example of abuse, which is simply a lie.

Further, the irony is not lost on the rest of us that in the very same comment where you claim "yes, if the ride-share drivers were of X position then I would support them fully" you simultaneously go on to say that actually "these workers are being abused and they don't even know it, just like a person being abused by their spouse, and simply won't admit it, therefore the opinions that they express are not valid, and I still know what's best for them".

So you claim that you'd support them fully whatever their own opinion on their own situation is, and then you do a complete backflip and claim that their own opinion about their own situation is not actually valid...

Truly incredible...