89
submitted 3 months ago by MicroWave@lemmy.world to c/news@lemmy.world

The California Supreme Court ruled Thursday that app-based ride-hailing and delivery services like Uber and Lyft can continue treating their drivers as independent contractors rather than employees.

The unanimous decision by the state’s top court is a big win for tech giants. It also ends a yearslong legal battle between labor unions and tech companies over a law dictating the status of app-based service workers in the state.

The ruling upholds a voter-approved law passed in 2020 that said drivers for companies like Uber and Lyft are independent contractors and are not entitled to benefits like overtime pay, paid sick leave and unemployment insurance. Opponents said the law was illegal in part because it limited the state Legislature’s authority to change the law or pass laws about workers’ compensation programs.

you are viewing a single comment's thread
view the rest of the comments
[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

What you are saying is "It's okay to keep exploiting them because we need the service they provide, and cheap." Fuck you.

These companies haven't turned a profit.

You realize that's on purpose, right? It's accounting magic to pay less taxes and to feed people like you propaganda to parrot. There definitely is enough money to pay the executives fat bonuses. (But those are "expenses".)

Everyone deserves fair pay, job stability, HEALTHCARE and other benefits. If YOU can't afford the LUXURY of an Uber unless the guy who drives you is being fleeced because otherwise he can't feed his family, the solution is not to exploit the workers. It is to not take an Uber.

[-] Chozo@fedia.io 4 points 3 months ago

What you are saying is "It's okay to keep exploiting them because we need the service they provide, and cheap." Fuck you.

That's absolutely not what I'm saying, and fuck you for insinuating it. I'm saying it's more complicated than some eye-grabbing heading will have you think, especially when you're not taking the actual workers' motives into consideration.

Everyone deserves fair pay, job stability, HEALTHCARE and other benefits. If YOU can't afford the LUXURY of an Uber unless the guy who drives you is being fleeced because otherwise he can't feed his family, the solution is not to exploit the workers. It is to not take an Uber.

I agree completely. But some people need an Uber. Ride sharing has offered a lot of people some amount of independence they might not otherwise have, given the state of transit options in their area. In fact, I'd argue that most Uber users do so out of need instead of desire, given how outrageous the prices are.

[-] odium@programming.dev 9 points 3 months ago* (last edited 3 months ago)

In my opinion, your "some uber drivers prefer contracting" argument has merit. But your customer arguments don't. Taxis have existed and did the same things uber does from the perspective of the customer for decades. Ubers are now often more expensive than the taxi. There wouldn't be a change from the customer's side.

[-] Randomgal@lemmy.ca 7 points 3 months ago

That's absolutely not what I'm saying...

Okay bro it's not like the text is right there. Lol

[-] Chozo@fedia.io -1 points 3 months ago

Then feel free to point to it.

this post was submitted on 26 Jul 2024
89 points (98.9% liked)

News

23287 readers
4439 users here now

Welcome to the News community!

Rules:

1. Be civil


Attack the argument, not the person. No racism/sexism/bigotry. Good faith argumentation only. This includes accusing another user of being a bot or paid actor. Trolling is uncivil and is grounds for removal and/or a community ban. Do not respond to rule-breaking content; report it and move on.


2. All posts should contain a source (url) that is as reliable and unbiased as possible and must only contain one link.


Obvious right or left wing sources will be removed at the mods discretion. We have an actively updated blocklist, which you can see here: https://lemmy.world/post/2246130 if you feel like any website is missing, contact the mods. Supporting links can be added in comments or posted seperately but not to the post body.


3. No bots, spam or self-promotion.


Only approved bots, which follow the guidelines for bots set by the instance, are allowed.


4. Post titles should be the same as the article used as source.


Posts which titles don’t match the source won’t be removed, but the autoMod will notify you, and if your title misrepresents the original article, the post will be deleted. If the site changed their headline, the bot might still contact you, just ignore it, we won’t delete your post.


5. Only recent news is allowed.


Posts must be news from the most recent 30 days.


6. All posts must be news articles.


No opinion pieces, Listicles, editorials or celebrity gossip is allowed. All posts will be judged on a case-by-case basis.


7. No duplicate posts.


If a source you used was already posted by someone else, the autoMod will leave a message. Please remove your post if the autoMod is correct. If the post that matches your post is very old, we refer you to rule 5.


8. Misinformation is prohibited.


Misinformation / propaganda is strictly prohibited. Any comment or post containing or linking to misinformation will be removed. If you feel that your post has been removed in error, credible sources must be provided.


9. No link shorteners.


The auto mod will contact you if a link shortener is detected, please delete your post if they are right.


10. Don't copy entire article in your post body


For copyright reasons, you are not allowed to copy an entire article into your post body. This is an instance wide rule, that is strictly enforced in this community.

founded 1 year ago
MODERATORS