CurlyWurlies4All
EnshittificationWhy would any work towards making their tech better when you can just free yourself from the consequences of its mistakes.
How about carve out such companies from the market if they can't function safely enough?
Eh, this actually makes sense. It is a lot like the graves amendment for rental car companies.
For better or worse, ride share is a pretty important part of society now and making them responsible for every crash involving their drivers is eh.
They are liable for gross negligence
So, if any company contracts our their work, are they no longer liable? Or is ot just rideshare? In that case, why would any company keep liability by having employees?
Sure, uber are at risk from having de facto employees cause damage. They could prioritise safe driving and do proper training. Instead they just churn through drivers who eventually realise its not worth it.
In Texas, legally, yes, if they contract out work, not liable for independent contractors. In Re Home Depot, sw.3d (Tex. 2026)
Or, maybe we hold corporations accountable for their outsized impact on society?
The company has billions of dollars available. They can be liable for crashes involving their drivers. You're using a "too big to fail" adjacent argument that makes no sense
I do not necessarily disagree, I think they should be taxed to all hell and resources used to improve infrastructure. I am just saying if an uber driver runs a red light, may not be anything Uber can do about it
Uber could provide training and if there are drivers being reckless of their own accord face a risk of getting banned (fired of you will) from being a driver.
I am just saying if an uber driver runs a red light, may not be anything Uber can do about it
I am just saying if a factory employee ignores some safety checks, may not be anything the factory owner can do about it
I am just saying if a surgeon leaves a glove in a patient, may not be anything the hospital can do about it
Companies create the incentive structures, checks, and balances that drive their employees to take certain actions. Factories that don't leave enough time for workers to do their due diligence cause workers to ignore safety checks. Hospitals that pay surgeons to work overtime cause surgeons to make mistakes from inattention. Rideshare companies that pay drivers depending on how quickly they get people from point A to point B cause drivers to disobey traffic laws.
At the very least, legal responsibility for crashes and traffic law breaking is an incentive for rideshare companies to change their drivers' incentive structure in order to promote save driving. It doesn't have to be a moral assignment of guilt, just a way for society to have fewer road deaths because of market forces.
Taxi companies found a way. Just because a tech monopoly wants to say they're different doesn't actually mean they are. They can use that money to properly screen and train drivers and only once a best effort has been made (which again taxi companies have shown can be done) do they get lessened liability.
But agreed 100% on the tax them into the ground and build public infrastructure instead idea. Loads of people love trolleys and trains, never see anyone get excited about an Uber or a Lyft
Right but taxi companies did it the same way mcdonad’s did. Franchises…
Franchising changes how expansion is financed. It doesn't magically change liability or operational requirements and is not relevant
Yes it does, mcdonald’s is not liable for a slip and fall at a franchise location.
under a union seizure, the drivers can get the cars themselves to control, the office workers could maintain technological tools to keep the same level of coordination between driver and rider
i guess also there is no incentive for a vetting process by uber of drivers after this, making connections with no vetting just as attractive to riders, whilst being a positive force for the labourers
not that vetting without centralisation isnt possible
