Say hi: DM or kate.conger@nytimes.com.
.@Lyft apparently has $30 million to spend on a harmful ballot measure that would deny their drivers basic protections, yet they don't have enough money to retain the same drivers they're trying to screw over? Make it make sense. #SickofGigGreedhttps://twitter.com/kateconger/status/1255526352813535232 …
They put the money into the ballot initiative already, so can't really un-cash that particular check. The employees being laid off today are not drivers (Lyft still classifies drivers as contractors and has not employed them).
-
-
Yes, correct that the layoffs impact corporate employees, who are now eligible for unemployment insurance, an option that is much more difficult to access for drivers because
@Lyft refuses to comply with the law & provide wage data to the state or pay into UI program -
As for $30 million, it's all about priorities.
@Lyft would rather spend millions on a campaign to strip drivers of basic protections than support drivers & other workers in the company. Layoffs at a time when they are spending massively on politics is a bad look to say the least
Ende der Unterhaltung
Neue Unterhaltung -
-
-
When a company commits dollars to a lobbying campaign, do they have to spend all of it or could they take it back to pay their workers if they encounter financial difficulties?
-
In this case, they hired an external lobbying firm (shared by the other gig companies involved in the initiative) and paid their contributions already. It's not a line item in an internal budget that they can re-allocate.
- 1 weitere Antwort
Neue Unterhaltung -
Das Laden scheint etwas zu dauern.
Twitter ist möglicherweise überlastet oder hat einen vorübergehenden Schluckauf. Probiere es erneut oder besuche Twitter Status für weitere Informationen.