• UberPeople.NET - Independent community of rideshare drivers. It's FREE to be a person and enjoy all the benefits of membership. JOIN US! CLICK HERE

The parts of AB5 people aren't talking about.

Sal29

Active Member
There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.
 
Last edited:

Youburr

Member
I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.
 

Cold Fusion

Well-Known Member
I don't think they need to fire hecka drivers... just require a class B. It's not that tough and only a fraction will bother going thru any type of medical entrance processing. The test is easy, and has four components. Pee in a cup, pass the multiple choice exam, inspect your vehicle, and drive while voluntarily obeying traffic regulations.
Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
and Bonus: result in safer roads✔
 

Youburr

Member
I had a contractor gig with an NDA for a multinational firm. It was humiliating having to work alongside all the employees, but without their benefits. In the end, when the layoffs happened, I found out they were using contracts for some of their best employees. I can't tell you what I worked on, but I can say that it was a company that completely took advantage of Californians. I think AB5 will be good for a company like that, as it would improve morale to onboard the gig pigs, who are actually 5-star people. I have no idea what U/L will do but it seems like they would need a separate app for Cal drivers.
 

Taxi2Uber

Well-Known Member
There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.
It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
Same will likely happen in CA.
 

uberdriverfornow

Well-Known Member
I have no doubt that's how you read it,
You're the guy that just said the only reason they passed AB5 was for the added tax revenue and not to help drivers and you're trying to say that I'm biased ? 😂😂
Post automatically merged:

It should be obvious who cares are drivers here and it's not you.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

nouberipo

Well-Known Member
There's good and bad. The great parts are that low life cheapskates paxholes will not be able to afford uber/Lyft, etc.
The bad part is that since paxhole demand will go down, many drivers will have to be fired. Pay will go up a lot for the many drivers that don't get fired though.
Just as it should be.
Post automatically merged:

It's talked about a lot in NYC. Rider price has gone sky high and ridership is down.
Same will likely happen in CA.
Those low rider prices were given on the backs of the drivers! Those people who would be taking the public bus are taking Uber instead because it is nearly as cheap BUT those cheap fares are being supported by drivers making below minimum wage. If you want a service you need to pay for it and the persons providing the service shouldn't be the ones subsidizing the rides.
Post automatically merged:

Mandatory drug test will whittle down driver excess numbers fast
and Bonus: result in safer roads✔
Drug testing in terms of 420 is irrelevant at this point since it is legal in CA. The only relevance is if they are driving while intoxicated or high. Otherwise, on their free time, they are able to smoke up as much as they want.
 
Last edited:

DeadEndRoad

New Member
Arizona being a "Right to work" state, I don't see any changes in the forcible future. But if and when such a change happens I will not be accepting employment status with uber. And I find it hard to believe that riders will be willing to give up uber for public transportation. That would be a major step down for riders who have become accustomed to the convenience of uber. We as drivers are transporting human lives in a safe timely manner vs a CEO who makes millions for giving driver's nothing more than a reach around. And if that doesn't qualify for fair compensation then uber and its investors can burn in hell.
 

OldBay

Well-Known Member
I've said it before, but being an employee doesn't mean a full time employee. In fact, from a benefit standpoint, they have incentive to have as many PT employees as possible.

It will likely devolve into enforced work shifts. It will look something like how throttling works now, except they will tell you when you are able to accept trips.

This will hurt FT drivers the most. That Ian Richard Markham guy, he's the guy driving 80 hours/week in CA, right? He will log on and be told that because he worked yesterday, he won't be getting any trips today. Maybe he'll finally be able to sort his drug addiction.
 

losiglow

Well-Known Member
I hope this doesn't come to Utah. As a part-time, I most certainly would not be in favor. Of course, Utah is so business-friendly and conservative that I don't think a law like this would pass in a million years here.

I'm all about making the man pay a fair wage but Cali tends to shoot first and ask questions later when it comes to legislation that affects businesses. Another reason why so many are moving from Cali to Utah, Texas, Nevada, etc. Which I kind of wish wasn't happening because it's really jamming things up around here.....
 

CarpeNoctem

Well-Known Member
"California Gov. Gavin Newsom told the Wall Street Journal on Wednesday that he’s still engaged in talks with Uber, Lyft and other gig economy companies about possible negotiations around the bill. " - CNBC

It is not carved in stone yet. I think we all know what "negotiations" means.

I'm not in CA so it doesn't affect me one way or the other but I do agree that it will increase the cost of rides and if people can only afford bus fare then they should be taking the bus!
 

Youburr

Member
There also might be a new thing like how an automatic insurance policy lasts for the duration of the ride. There might be a way to have automated employment status per the trips with all the traditional application and tax documentation generated by the servers.
 

SeanfromDC

Verified Media
Media
Hello folks,

News reporter here. I'm trying to gauge the opinions of rideshare drivers to AB5's likely passage through the Calif. assembly. To start off, I know that reporters aren't always your favorite people. I hung out in this site last year for a story I did on how the federal government furlough affected drivers in the Washington D.C. metro area. You can read that to gain of sense of how I cover gig economy stuff: https://www.washingtonexaminer.com/policy/economy/dc-area-uber-drivers-suffering-twice-over-from-government-shutdown

So I'd appreciate any honest thoughts, comments, reactions, insights etc., on the good, the bad and the otherwise of AB5.

I have no axe to grind. I know that the companies can pinch pennies 'till they scream. I know that politicians, even when they think they are doing the right thing, don't necessarily understand the consequences of what they do and the laws they pass. To be clear, I can't make any promises in terms of what I will write -- no journalist could do that -- other than to quote you accurately and in context.
 
Top