Posted on 09/12/2019 3:09:08 AM PDT by C19fan
Are the independent drivers able to set their own rates?
These driver’s are taking a hell of a gamble. I can’t see how private vehicle insurance would cover anything like this in the event of an accident.
What the hell does that mean? They were hired to provide rides....and no more.
Seems to me that if Uber is willing to provide the app, the driver is willing to drive, and the customer is willing to pay the price, and there is competition, it’s a clean transaction.
The government should leave it alone.
just like UPS your not a full in vested employee until 9 months for benifits or even have union rights until 30 days.
Uber drivers are in control. They take riders when and if they want to.
Uber drivers get to rank you just like you get to rank them. Since you tip you probably are a sought after ride.
The subjects are doing what they’re SUPPOSED to do:
FOLLOWING the example of their leaders:
The State of Calif didn’t like the DEA’s laws & openly IGNORED them, took every chance to blare that.
How much longer was it going to take individuals who didn’t happen to care for state laws?
We see that reality played out, here.
It has begun to go even further; one individual doesn’t care for the red hat of another individual?
Kay, knock it off or steal it:
CUZ YOU WANT TO.
No so with Uber (not-)employees. Maybe the hours, but certainly not the pay.
Agreed. This rule will lead to far more self-driving cars in the taxi business.
Uber provides insurance for the drivers. Getting a commercial insurance add on isn't all that expensive. At least that the case was for a friend that looked into it.
Well, we are talking California here...
Who sets the rate of compensation? Who decides routes? Who decides which vehicles are suitable?
There are well established guidelines used by IRS to determine if a person is an employee or an independent contractor. So the California law is really about protecting existing cab companies and unions.
They won’t. I am quite sure most Uber and Lyft drivers do not tell their insurance carriers of their side business.
Hey, here’s a thought. This is America. If a contractor/employee/whatever doesn’t like the arrangement, don’t work for the company ... oh, unless they think the government will solve their problem for them.
“Well, we are talking California here...”
Here is what Uber offers for insurance while driving for them.
https://www.uber.com/us/en/drive/insurance/
Driverless cars are central to their operations, or soon will be.
They’ll be sued into the ground when their cars keep running people over and under
He is just taking the typical Lib position. If they do not like a law, they do not follow the law! Wonder where someone would learn such actions California? May be the concept of a sanctuary city or not notifying ICE of a release from jail. Uber is just following the example of Lib leaders in California.
It’s purely voluntary and at the discretion of the driver. It’s perfect for college kids or those that need a flexible schedule.
I find it a bit astonishing that governments believe they have the right to interfere in a mutually beneficial agreement between two entities in a free market.
...and those here on FR that agree with it.
A lot of major airports make taxis queue up at a specific location and then release them to pick up passengers on a demand basis. That said, there are a lot fewer cabs on the roads these days. Although I support American ingenuity, I feel badly for the guys who saved up for a taxi medallion in NYC (~$100k)that is not worth much now.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.