• 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

Uber is fighting Dynamex rule

Nats121

Well-Known Member
48c a mile is the record low hit by Uber.
You're too high...

In January 2016, uber cut the per mile rate in Detroit to an unbelievable 24 cents per mile for 80% drivers and 22.5 cents per mile for 75% drivers.

Predictably, it backfired on uber. Surges went thru the roof and after 3 months uber was forced to raise the rates.
 

Ssgcraig

Well-Known Member
better pay, benefits etc etc

but in the end Uber will likely do everything in their power to not allow us to be employees so instead of us being employees we will get a bunch more stuff and stay IE's
I do not want to be an employee. But lets say that you do, better pay and benefits for those that qualify. Meaning, those with a 4 year degree, CDL endorsements, etc will qualify. If you are still an under skilled employee, what makes you think you would qualify for more money? Actually, those without degree's or CDL endorsements will get a pay decrease. I other words, careful what you wish for.
 

MiamiKid

Well-Known Member
I do not want to be an employee. But lets say that you do, better pay and benefits for those that qualify. Meaning, those with a 4 year degree, CDL endorsements, etc will qualify. If you are still an under skilled employee, what makes you think you would qualify for more money? Actually, those without degree's or CDL endorsements will get a pay decrease. I other words, careful what you wish for.
Watching this, play out from Georgia, where I don't have a thing to worry about.

Pure entertainment. Going to enjoy, seeing what happens to these whiners, if this socialist bill passes.

Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.

They do not deserve the repercussions from this special interest legislation.
 

Thepeoplewearent

Active Member
After the way they treat you as an independent contractor, you want to become a corporate employee?

WHY?
Because working at Walmart is an economically wiser decision then working for Uber.

Because laws and practices.

Because duh.
Post automatically merged:

Watching this, play out from Georgia, where I don't have a thing to worry about.

Pure entertainment. Going to enjoy, seeing what happens to these whiners, if this socialist bill passes.

Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.

They do not deserve the repercussions from this special interest legislation.
Sitting in Georgia. Thinking in Georgia. About only Georgia. World View A.F. buddy.
 

BobMarley

Active Member
they can't stipulate we can't work separate apps unless we sign some sort of agreement and we arent in a position to reveal any secrets of the companies to begin with

that is a non issue
Yes they can. If you are an employee they can stipulate whatever they want. Like you can't simultaneously work for a competitor. Shit, in most states they can stipulate that you don't work for anyone else on a W-2.
 
Last edited:

The Gift of Fish

Well-Known Member
Just really feel sorry for the true business types who don't deserve this. Those who respect and appreciate their independent contractor status.
That someone would make a comment like this shows just how effective Uberlyft's propaganda has been. Uberlyft's independent contractor drivers are independent contractors in name only. If the agreement was one of true IC, not of employee-disguised-as-IC then this legislation probably would never have happened. It took the abuse of the relative freedom from government intervention in business-to-business transactions to kick-start interest from politicians. Again, Uberlyft only has itself to blame.

To put it in other words, government has a relatively hands-off approach when it comes to regulating how businesses transact with other businesses. However, government has a very hands-on approach when it comes to regulating how businesses deal with their employees. It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.

This is where this all comes from, rather than any concern from the state for the wellbeing of workers. It could be argued that making drivers employees and transferring the burden back onto the companies themselves it is not socialist. It could be argued that it is a capitalist policy to trim back the responsibility of the state to provide. In any case, the call by the state for Uberlyft to step up its game in this regard has been answered by Dara and by Logan Green in their Op Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which they plead with California that they will indeed assume these burdens by offering these benefits so that, effectively, the state does not end up having to.

We'll see if California buys it. What's certain is that Uberlyft has no intention of moving their business model back closer to a true IC setup. What's also certain is, as mentioned above, they brought this on themselves.
 
Last edited:

MiamiKid

Well-Known Member
That someone would make a comment like this shows just how effective Uberlyft's propaganda has been. Uberlyft's independent contractor drivers are independent contractors in name only. If the agreement was one of true IC, not of employee-disguised-as-IC then this legislation probably would never have happened. It took the abuse of the relative freedom from government intervention in business-to-business transactions to kick-start interest from politicians. Again, Uberlyft only has itself to blame.

To put it in other words, government has a relatively hands-off approach when it comes to regulating how businesses transact with other businesses. However, government has a very hands-on approach when it comes to regulating how businesses deal with their employees. It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.

This is where this all comes from, rather than any concern from the state for the wellbeing of workers. It could be argued that making drivers employees and transferring the burden back onto the companies themselves it is not socialist. It could be argued that it is a capitalist policy to trim back the responsibility of the state to provide. In any case, the call by the state for Uberlyft to step up its game in this regard has been answered by Dara and by Logan Green in their Op Ed in the San Francisco Chronicle, in which they plead with California that they will indeed assume these burdens by offering these benefits so that, effectively, the state does not end up having to.

We'll see if California buys it. What's certain is that Uberlyft has no intention of moving their business model back closer to a true IC setup. What's also certain is, as mentioned above, they brought this on themselves.
?
 

steveK2016

Well-Known Member
they do it at hotels .
A forced gratuity is a service fee. Theres no such thing as a forced gratuity. If it's mandatory to receive services, its a service fee. Go ahead and mention large parties at restaurants too. Still not a gratuity. If its mandatory, its a service fee.
 

observer

Well-Known Member
Moderator
It's not all for philanthropic reasons; it's about money. If companies do not want to pay for their workers' health care and retirement benefits, and are allowed to pay their workers so little that they cannot afford health care or retirement benefits then it is the state that becomes responsible for paying these. Clearly, the states do not want to do that - they feel that the companies that utilise these workers should be paying these costs instead.
Post automatically merged:

"As employees, gig workers would have a safety net for the first time ever. The changes from the bill would also benefit the state of California, which estimates that it loses $7 billion in tax revenue each year from companies that misclassify employees."
Post automatically merged:

"In 2017, a long-awaited report was published by the Government Accountability Office, analyzing government efforts to combat tax fraud. The report summarized findings from an IRS audit of 15.7 million tax returnsfrom 2008 to 2010. It turns out that about 3 million of those returns involved misclassification, adding up to about $44.3 billion in unpaid federal taxes that were later adjusted."

Just want to point out these figures are for 2008-2010 which was before Uber/Lyft.
 
Top