If they can't abide by the rules that the state have set for them - in this case, what seems to be a fairly reasonable a ruling saying that their 'contractors' are actually employees - and they can't make profit with those changes, then their company should die, or reform. That's basically all it comes down to. If their company is downsized as a result, well, you can blame them for unsustainable business that didn't actually work when the alarm finally rang, and their inability to respond.
If your friends want a startup that will help them get downtown to pound beers faster, and Uber dies, don't worry - someone else who can _actually do the job_ and abide by the rules will almost certainly be there. And the Uber employees who get canned? They might actually
The amount of doublethink people have here about "bad actors will get pushed out of the market for better ones" while simultaneously defending shitty business practices, or conveniently ignoring that bad actor principle when their oh-so-favorite business gets a slap, is pretty astonishing. But given most people on HN seem to only want to "disrupt" the wallets of other so theirs can get fatter through acquihire buy-out plans for their ephemeral startups, I guess it's not surprising.
You are completely blind to the desire of the customer. You are happy to tell the customer to absorb costs for services they clearly do not want.
What's amazing is that people are voting with their dollars that they approve of the business and you want to stick your nose in there and say "hey guys, I don't approve of this transaction. Get out of the car."
So, according to you, McDonald's should be free to break minimum wage law in order to lower their prices? That other companies should be allowed to violate safety regulations in order to provide cheaper prices?
The customer wanting something in no way, shape, or form justifies violating the law. And in this case, the customer is NOT told to absorb costs for services they don't want. They're simply told to pay the true cost of the service. If they don't want to, then they clearly did not value the service that much.
Driver A: "I'll get you there for $10. If I crash, you don't get to sue Uber, just me."
Driver B: "I'll get you there for $15. If I crash, you can go after Uber."
As the customer, do you believe I should have the right to choose between these two options? Or do you believe I should be forced to choose B every time?
Yes, I think it's fine for you to be forced to choose B. Because when people get hurt, someone pays. And if uber doesn't pay, and the driver doesn't pay, society does. Hurt passengers would have their medical problems paid for by their insurance or by all of us through taxes.
In CA, you have to have insurance to drive a car. It would be cheaper for you not to have insurance, but most people don't have the money to make things right when they get into an accident. This is exactly analogous.
Nowhere in the example was the condition that the driver is not insured.
Outside of that, I find this attitude incredibly patronizing. "We need to save you from yourself" is what it boils down to. You pay somebody for a ride knowing she's not insured? That's _your_ problem, not mine.
If your friends want a startup that will help them get downtown to pound beers faster, and Uber dies, don't worry - someone else who can _actually do the job_ and abide by the rules will almost certainly be there. And the Uber employees who get canned? They might actually
The amount of doublethink people have here about "bad actors will get pushed out of the market for better ones" while simultaneously defending shitty business practices, or conveniently ignoring that bad actor principle when their oh-so-favorite business gets a slap, is pretty astonishing. But given most people on HN seem to only want to "disrupt" the wallets of other so theirs can get fatter through acquihire buy-out plans for their ephemeral startups, I guess it's not surprising.