Back to taxis in California
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 16:22 last edited by
lCourt Ruling Could Kill Uber and Lyft in California
Just days before Californians themselves were set to decide on the matter, a state appeals court has ruled that app-based ride-sharing companies Uber and Lyft must comply with state law AB5 and classify all of their drivers as employees rather than contractors. The ruling raises the possibility that the companies will simply end operations in the state altogether, both having stated previously that their business model depends on the flexibility of using contractors.
The companies claim, and drivers often confirm, that the flexibility of contract work is key to their operations. Employers are required under federal and state law to schedule and track their employees’ hours for overtime, unemployment, and other purposes. That’s not case with contractors, who are legally considered independent businesses.
Critics of the ride-sharing companies, such as California Gov. Gavin Newsom, claim that’s just a dodge to get out of paying overtime and complying with other workplace regulations. Labor unions have pushed for the drivers to be classified as employees, since contractors cannot join unions.
A three-judge state appeals court panel on Thursday agreed, rejecting the companies’ arguments out of hand. The panel was in full crusader mode, calling the case a “reminder that the foundation of interim injunctive relief lies in equity comes from Justice Ruth Bader Ginsburg, who was renowned for her expertise in procedure long before she became the national icon known as RBG.”
The panel said that there was just no reason to assume that forcing ride-sharing companies to operate as traditional employers would in any way hurt their business model, even as it conceded that that model was built around contractors.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 17:43 last edited by
Prop 22 is the way to think about this. Californians should get what they want.
-
wrote on 27 Oct 2020, 18:28 last edited by
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
-
wrote on 28 Oct 2020, 11:23 last edited by
We had to lay off an employee of the foundation after her position disappeared and wanted to contract her for a while To help close out the program she was working on. This bill prevented us because she was a CA resident.
This is stupid.
-
wrote on 28 Oct 2020, 12:08 last edited by
Is this the same law that was going to kill off gigging musicians?
-
wrote on 28 Oct 2020, 12:11 last edited by
@Jolly said in Back to taxis in California:
Is this the same law that was going to kill off gigging musicians?
https://variety.com/2020/music/news/california-gig-economy-assembly-bill-5-ab5-musicians-1234583320/
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:06 last edited by
@Mik said in Back to taxis in California:
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
What other times, do you think, would you want to put people out of work then?
-
@Mik said in Back to taxis in California:
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
What other times, do you think, would you want to put people out of work then?
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 12:35 last edited by@Axtremus said in Back to taxis in California:
@Mik said in Back to taxis in California:
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
What other times, do you think, would you want to put people out of work then?
People on the dole, tend to like the political party which gives them the most money?
-
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 21:27 last edited by
@Mik said in Back to taxis in California:
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
They're already out of work. most of them have quit to look for other employment. Try calling uber or lyft in California right now. You will wait much longer and be charged twice as much
Thanks dammed Chinese virus.
-
@Mik said in Back to taxis in California:
Why would you want to put people out of work at a time like this? SMH.
They're already out of work. most of them have quit to look for other employment. Try calling uber or lyft in California right now. You will wait much longer and be charged twice as much
Thanks dammed Chinese virus.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 21:42 last edited by@nobodyssock said in Back to taxis in California:
You will wait much longer and be charged twice as much
So the solution is get rid of it altogether.
Okay.
-
@nobodyssock said in Back to taxis in California:
You will wait much longer and be charged twice as much
So the solution is get rid of it altogether.
Okay.
wrote on 29 Oct 2020, 21:54 last edited by@George-K said in Back to taxis in California:
@nobodyssock said in Back to taxis in California:
You will wait much longer and be charged twice as much
So the solution is get rid of it altogether.
Okay.
I never claimed a position on the proposition. Leave them the hell alone if thats what they want i say. I was just stating the current status of ride availability bility
-
topic:timeago-later,10 months
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2021, 03:52 last edited by
A California court rules “Prop 22” unconstitutional. More legal battles ahead, I supppse.
-
wrote on 21 Aug 2021, 13:57 last edited by
This is a case where I can see both sides. Hope they find a way to split the baby to the benefit of all.