Uplifting News
Welcome to /c/UpliftingNews, a dedicated space where optimism and positivity converge to bring you the most heartening and inspiring stories from around the world. We strive to curate and share content that lights up your day, invigorates your spirit, and inspires you to spread positivity in your own way. This is a sanctuary for those seeking a break from the incessant negativity often found in today's news cycle. From acts of everyday kindness to large-scale philanthropic efforts, from individual achievements to community triumphs, we bring you news that gives hope, fosters empathy, and strengthens the belief in humanity's capacity for good.
Here in /c/UpliftingNews, we uphold the values of respect, empathy, and inclusivity, fostering a supportive and vibrant community. We encourage you to share your positive news, comment, engage in uplifting conversations, and find solace in the goodness that exists around us. We are more than a news-sharing platform; we are a community built on the power of positivity and the collective desire for a more hopeful world. Remember, your small acts of kindness can be someone else's big ray of hope. Be part of the positivity revolution; share, uplift, inspire!
view the rest of the comments
I have many issues with Uber as a corporation - their treatment of customers, employees and drivers. But with case law, I have concerns for the precedent this sets.
Ruling drivers as employees risks removing scope for a ridesharing services entirely, and locks ad hoc transportation to the old inefficient taxi system.
With personal vehicles sitting idle, I do think there should be scope left for some platform for drivers to offer services at any price at any time if they feel it is worthwhile. It increases mobility across the spectrum, and allows for better allocation of resources.
I think the bigger issue is why Uber has so much leverage to control the pricing and terms of drivers in the first place, and why there aren't more alternatives to force them to be competitive.
I don't see why having drivere be employees would prevent this. If you're driving, you're on the clock. If you're not, you're not.
Alternatively, have a true network of contractors, with an Uber style company just creating a marketplace to facilitate connections between individuals offering and accepting rides. The company won't set prices or schedules or payouts; it will allow drivers and riders to bid on fares. The company simply takes a small percentage from each transaction, or has a membership fee.
That network of contractors is a pretty cool idea, I think that's the kind of network I would like an exception carved out for.
The other commenter made a fair point that its commercial viability is questionable, but as the world changes I'd still want to leave to scope to try.
Well, one thing is it forces overtime for more than 40 hours. This reduces the efficiency of the market, and may introduce restrictions on how many hours I can work.
Don't use the passive voice.
Uber may restrict your hours because they don't want to pay a fair wage.
As a society, we have a minimum wage for a very good reason.
uber has never proved the non taxi model is actually self sustaining. They paid really high wages at the start for low fares by burning through investment capital with the promise they will corner the taxi market and repay investors with a monopoly.
At the rates and fares they're collecting its actually not possible to maintain the kind of fleet they need. When investors and drivers stop volunteering their money and cars to support uber its not clear the whole thing will stand up on its own. Grocery/restaurant delivery is for sure a heavy ongoing loss in the industry.