uber vs taxis

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Obviously the medallion system is pure rent-seeking cartelism, and should be smashed to smithereens post haste.  But some of Uber's "innovations" over their competitors are pure cream-skimming like not having handicapped accessibility, and classifying employees as "independent contractors" so they don't have to pay benefits (not that your regular taxi driver really has it any better, mind).  And their specific corporate culture seems to be worse than average.

More choice, better quality, and expanding people's ability to get around without their own private cars is something we desperately need.  So I support the sector.  But I also don't want to just replace one monopoly with another, and not all regulations are evil. 

In conclusion: I'm on Team Lyft.

Do actual taxis have that? My urban experience is limited, but it's hard to imagine cabs running around, say, New York, with wheelchair ramps and everything.

[FEMA Camp Administrator]

Indeed, though with added context. But you need to understand that the business model of companies like this = 100% reliant on exploiting loopholes in regulations. It's the same with parcel deliver services and so on.

Sorry, I somehow interpreted "bullsh*t" as referring to my post above rather than as an adjective.

Anyway, I tend to think that a system akin to Uber could very well work even if they had employees instead of "contractors". Didn't a ruling in California recently make them into employees?

While I sympathize with the plight of workers improperly classified as contractors, Uber seems like a poor test case for the larger issue. Uber's case is not nearly as clear cut as some of the more prolific abusers of the system.

There are no hard and fast rules on this issue, but courts look at issues like who is bearing financial risk, who decides when and how the work is done, and who provides the equipment and training to decide whether a worker is an employee or not.

e.g.

a) Antonio V hires DC to do accounting for company. He buys DC's computer, accounting and tax software, tells DC when to work, and Antonio bears all the financial risk of DC's decisions. Clearly DC is an employee.

b) Antonio V hires Cathcon to keep the yard and parking lot around his office building clean and tidy. Cathcon has to mow the lawn weekly but he decides when. Cathcon provides the lawnmower and hedge trimmers, and Cathcon can hire other people to do the work if he wants. Clearly Cathcon is a contractor.

In the case of Uber, the driver provides their own car and chooses when they work. At first glance they appear to be contractors. Of course I don't know all the details of Uber and the California ruling, so that's certainly not my professional opinion, but you can see how this issue is fuzzy and how Uber may not be "bullsh!t self-employment".

As much as I enjoy my sporadic appearances in people's examples, I do hope that people perceive my skill set beyond being a janitor and a landscaper. Do I at least get to dig ditches or use chipping hammers?