[newacct583]

If Uber shareholders thought that they were walking away from all revenue in the state of California their shares would tank. We all know this is brinksmanship. I know it. You know it. They aren't leaving CA. The goal here is to get the "other side" to blink and adjust the rules so they can continue to operate. But at the end of the day Uber isn't abandoning the California ride share market to its competitors. Be real.

[say-vagnes]

Uber is using their weight to get what they want, because they know we want them to continue offering service. This is actually quite a bit like having a raise negotiation at work. I don't see their goals as evil, either, simply at odds with the state.

Their shareholders likely suspect California will capitulate. Though it is hard to do research over whether their drivers actually want this, generally the information I see indicates they'd prefer to remain contractors. Yes, some of this is paid for by Uber. I imagine some of the content I read was also paid for by the opposition. But it seems like no matter how you cut it, the drivers generally want to remain contractors, and definitely do not want ~their livelihood~ an income source threatened either way in the midst of a pandemic.

[scarface74]

It’s still a negotiation tactic. Would shareholders be happy if the entire business model changed? There are other freelancers that aren’t happy with the laws.

[newacct583]

> It’s still a negotiation tactic.

Which is exactly what I said it was, and not consistent with your framing of departure as a "perfectly logical thing to do".

I'm happy we agree.

[scarface74]

Why isn’t negotiating a perfectly logically thing to do? You use the weapons you have.

[newacct583]

In the sentence to which I replied, the antecedent to "that" (in "That’s a perfectly logical thing to do") was not "negotiating" it was "leaving the state".

I genuinely can't follow your point. These goalposts are moving too fast, sorry.