Lyft _chose_ to hurt the drivers instead of complying with the law.

This is a transparent ploy by Lyft and Uber to try and extort the state into changing the law by holding their drivers' livelihoods ransom.

Lyft isn't a charity and should not be expected to operate in an unprofitable market.

Neither Lyft nor Uber has ever made a profit. Drivers aren't the only ones being fleeced.

Or perhaps it's basic business and economics. Lyft and Uber's business is built on the assumption that drivers provide on-demand transportation. The business model doesn't work if the workforce is not also on-demand. Instead of vilifying companies, perhaps it might be beneficial to understand the business aspects of decisions instead of jumping to conclusions based on knee jerk emotional outrage.

Did their business model work even when their workforce was on-demand?

California's far left policies?

When did California eliminate private property? When did it hand over the means of production to the proletariat?

Last I checked, capitalism was alive and well in California, which is the dearly beloved home of the most successful capitalist entities and richest people on the planet.

If California's policies really were far left, all those companies would be owned and run by their workers, and no one would be richer than anyone else.

But that's not California, is it?