6 ms·

Those are called taxis.

Hokusai 6y ago
The regulation already exists, ridesharing companies just decided to break the law and challenge the definition of "employee" and "taxi" because ridesharing companies have an app. That was weird from the begging. All the gig economy is just based in the idea that companies that do business thru an app doesn't need to follow established laws.
- SllX 6y ago
  They were bad laws that deserved and earned open defiance. All people care about is getting from Point A to Point B in a quick, reliable and safe manner. People don’t care if the driver has an expensive medallion that makes them a member of a government-sanctioned mafia, if the driver of the car is willing to fulfill the passenger’s request in exchange for money. When you make the request for a private car to take you somewhere, you’re putting your life in the driver’s hands for the duration of the ride. The medallion and privileges don’t make a difference, but they can make the difference in the availability of cars in your vicinity.
  - Hokusai 6y ago
    > All people care about is getting from Point A to Point B in a quick, reliable and safe manner. Drivers also care about having a safe work environment, reasonable working hours and a fair pay. Capitalism is not just about consumers, but about consumers and producers. Apps push employees to accept ever lowering salaries to achieve that "cheap trips" and to renounce to their rights as employees to increase "availability". Labour laws were created to address this situations and should not be ignored. How would you solve these problems? > The medallion and privileges don’t make a difference, but they can make the difference in the availability of cars in your vicinity. Many cities require tests, background checks, etc. to get a taxi driver license. Apps seem to have lowered that standards. So, the opposite - less safe travel - could be the actual reality. I think that your statement needs some extra proof.

The regulation already exists, ridesharing companies just decided to break the law and challenge the definition of "employee" and "taxi" because ridesharing companies have an app. That was weird from the begging. All the gig economy is just based in the idea that companies that do business thru an app doesn't need to follow established laws.

SllX 6y ago
They were bad laws that deserved and earned open defiance. All people care about is getting from Point A to Point B in a quick, reliable and safe manner. People don’t care if the driver has an expensive medallion that makes them a member of a government-sanctioned mafia, if the driver of the car is willing to fulfill the passenger’s request in exchange for money. When you make the request for a private car to take you somewhere, you’re putting your life in the driver’s hands for the duration of the ride. The medallion and privileges don’t make a difference, but they can make the difference in the availability of cars in your vicinity.
- Hokusai 6y ago
  > All people care about is getting from Point A to Point B in a quick, reliable and safe manner. Drivers also care about having a safe work environment, reasonable working hours and a fair pay. Capitalism is not just about consumers, but about consumers and producers. Apps push employees to accept ever lowering salaries to achieve that "cheap trips" and to renounce to their rights as employees to increase "availability". Labour laws were created to address this situations and should not be ignored. How would you solve these problems? > The medallion and privileges don’t make a difference, but they can make the difference in the availability of cars in your vicinity. Many cities require tests, background checks, etc. to get a taxi driver license. Apps seem to have lowered that standards. So, the opposite - less safe travel - could be the actual reality. I think that your statement needs some extra proof.