tbiwiti

Getting to stream with Ninja would have a large, direct effect on their income, not to mention the promotional aspect.

But sure, lets instead imagine a male-only social club that directly promotes the business and career interests of it's members. That would get shut down real fast.

That article is really strange to me. On one hand, he's probably 100% right. There's no other way to avoid rumors and jokes like that. On the other hand, that's a completely unacceptable excuse to bar women from something. Can someone refuse to hire a female secretary out of respect for their wife?

I'm incredibly sad at how much of my programming goes into monitoring the performance of my coworkers. The worst part is when I write a new tool and take a look at it before management does. Usually only 1 or 2 people are doing the tasks that management is asking everyone to do daily.

I've said this before, but I think a key component of contractors' rights going forward will be legislating their employers' ability to "lock them in" with loyalty programs and the like.

In this case, a large part of the issue seems to be certain orders from people (and companies) that have found loopholes in the pricing (bulk orders of large, heavy goods).

If contractors could decline these orders with no repercussions, they wouldn't be nearly as much of an issue. Instacart would fail to deliver these orders and quickly learn they need to change their pricing structure.

The argument could be made that you can go too far in giving contractors the right to decline. I can imagine various forms of extortion occurring or problems being unable to blacklist problematic contractors, but it's a tradeoff that seems to be too far in the company's favour right now. Maybe disincentiving contract work in service-critical environments is a good thing, considering the complaints about rising part time and contracted work and not enough full time work.

I think a key component of contractors' rights going forward will be legislating their employers' ability to "lock them in" with loyalty programs and the like.

"Ride-sharing" has started to become a commodity and one of the only options left for large companies to out-compete small ones is to have a locked-in supply of drivers. This leads to lowering of standards for registration, temporary incentives, etc. that I think are ultimately bad for the drivers and consumers.

Why should a driver have to decide whether to primarily drive for Uber or Lyft if they aren't an employee of either? If there is no downside to a driver registering for another company, it will allow competition to focus on quality of service, tech, etc. rather than simply having the biggest supply of drivers.

Maybe a driver has a shitty car, but can still register on every app except for the super-upscale one. Maybe a driver hasn't had a background check run, so he can only register for the cheaper sketchy app that most people worried about safety don't use. Doesn't that make more sense than this ridiculous scramble for a "network effect" capable of justifying Uber's valuation?