Rideshare operations are being suspended in California

Re:Rideshare operations are being suspended in California by mumblemumble on Thursday August 20, 2020 @03:19PM (#24227510)

Assuming that what Lyft is saying about "4 out of 5 drivers don't support" is accurate, that would seem to imply that this is also about giving flexibility to all the people who are only driving 5 hours a week to pick up some spare pocket change. Which is the model for how this would mostly work that is invoked by the word "rideshare."

I do see a potential problem here of the interests of people who do this as their job being unnecessarily put into direct conflict with the interests of people who don't do this as their job.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rideshare operations are being suspended in California by slg on Thursday August 20, 2020 @03:29PM (#24227630)

People being taken advantage of by unfair business practices are usually still making an active choice to participate in those unfair practices. People making below minimum wage would likely rather keep that below minimum wage job than be fired because the company refuses to pay them more. That is still not a valid argument against the minimum wage.

A business model that relies on unfair business practices is not a viable business model. We just need to make sure that the employees caught in this transition have a social safety net that protects them from the financial repercussions of implementing these higher standards for all employees.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:Rideshare operations are being suspended in California by rightbyte on Thursday August 20, 2020 @03:29PM (#24227645)

Surely "ridesharing" should be reserved for when a group of people share the same vehicle and all are going in the same direction, with another purpose than driving the group there. If I drive my friend to the airport and I then drive back we did not share a ride I gave him a ride.

[ Parent | on HN ]