CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead, Comedians Lost Work

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by ChrisLomont on Saturday September 12, 2020 @11:06PM (#24457940)

Wage floors push the most vulnerable out of the workforce. Is that bad?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by viraptor on Sunday September 13, 2020 @12:49AM (#24458459)

This would be the immediate effect today. An alternative description is "VC money supports the axe hanging over unprofitable uber jobs". The question is - does uber need to find a solution to this problem today or in X months?

This is going to happen one way or another.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by manigandham on Sunday September 13, 2020 @04:05AM (#24459278)

Uber is profitable in many markets and was approaching broad profitability this year before Covid.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by XMPPwocky on Saturday September 12, 2020 @11:48PM (#24458150)

If somebody is vulnerable, I'd say it seems like a very bad thing to make them work by threatening them with homelessness and poverty, enforced by men with guns.

So no, I don't think it is.

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by unishark on Sunday September 13, 2020 @08:27AM (#24460389)

If most people want to help them, as apparently most people do (these laws need to get passed in a democracy, after all), why does that help need to be enforced by men with guns?

[ Parent | on HN ]

Re:CA Law Was to Give Uber Drivers New Protections. Instead,... by whiddershins on Sunday September 13, 2020 @05:29AM (#24459590)

Yes. A sense of self determination is important to human functioning.

[ Parent | on HN ]