121–130 of 781 posts
Earlier quoted context omitted.
The parent's point brings up the fact that the medallion system wasn't particularly beneficial to all drivers (or riders); medallions are good for medallion-holders, which are usually taxi companies.
Has anyone suggested the solution to this is to make another medallion system? It seems like the OP was putting the cart before the horse.
Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
Is it still voluntary if it happens out of economic desperation?
California is basically saying that if you can't provide a good job with benefits, you aren't allowed to provide a job at all. That will result in fewer jobs.
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
How much do your contracting friends invest? What's their compensation?
If Uber and Lyft are forced to classify drivers as employees, doesn't that mean these companies will try to lock them in? For example Uber won't allow their drivers to work for Lyft, and vice versa. If this is the case, I think Lyft will die very quickly because as far as I know, most drivers prefer Uber over Lyft.
IANAL, but to my knowledge, in California, a company cannot[ ] legally prevent their employees from working a second job in their spare time, so this kind of lock in would not work. [ ] some exceptions apply, mainly related to IP I think.
Leave it to California to stick it to a company losing $7 billion per year trying to find its footing. Drivers are voluntarily entering into the current work arrangement. Why does the government need to have an opinion on the matter?
Regardless of whether this decision is correct or not, Uber's financial situation is of their own making and shouldn't factor in to the ruling.
So I think the biggest question here is whether, as an employee, Uber/Lyft can set hours for a driver. Some specific implications: * Will we see employees (drivers) get a say in their shifts? An employee can be asked to work a 3AM - 9AM shift for example. * Can not arriving to shifts on time be grounds for dismissal? * Can refusing a shift be grounds for dismissal? * Can incurring unapproved overtime be grounds for d…
If Uber requires someone to work a "Shift", then they have to pay them for that shift regardless of miles driven. Uber doesn't want that. I don't believe the state is requiring Uber to pay hourly and Uber almost certainly doesn't want to pay people hourly either so none of this is relevant.
> Can Uber/Lyft systemically set employee hours to like 29 per week to avoid FTE status?
This is what most low-wage jobs do so why wouldn't they?
> Will multihoming (ie working for multiple "gig" apps) be grounds for dismissal as a conflict of interest?
Maybe. But since a big chunk of the appeal of working for Uber is flexible hours that work around the hours of other jobs or responsibilities, why would they?
If Uber prevents drivers from doing other gig-jobs, they will have a hard time finding drivers.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
You’re right except exploitation occurs as crony capitalism. “You rub my back, I’ll make your competition run through red tape”. Nobody is forcing these workers to do ANYTHING. Regulation would force action.
Exploitation isn't limited to quid pro quo or antitrust corruption. It's easy to sit from a seat of having a salaried ~40 hour week job with health benefits and safety standards, which were fought for from past generations, and then scoff when similar people are trying to fight for the same.
It strikes me that these articles are always biased in the direction of the benefits of being an employee. I have several friends that actively choose to be contractors because they prefer the (legally protected) flexibility to decide their own hours, among other things. It's a personal decision, and there are upsides and downsides in both directions. Sure - some (non-insignificant) portion of Uber and Lyft drivers w…
Some things, like not being able to set their own rates, meant drivers were never contractors, even if they wanted the perks of contracting (e.g, choose your own hours). Saying 'I wish to be a contractor' isn't legally sufficient: the agreement needs to permit setting rates.
Earlier quoted context omitted.
Not all contractors set their own rates. Sometimes they bid on an already published rate. Which is what happens here. Uber/Lyft tell you what you will make before the ride starts. If you accept, you just set your own rate.
except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.
Being a contractor doesn't mean you get to pick where you work, it means you get to pick where you work out of the people willing to hire you for contract work. Many companies have different criteria for what they require out of contractors. I don't see this as all that different.
I'm confused how they are violating Assembly Bill 5 (workers can generally only be considered contractors if they perform duties outside the usual course of a company’s business)? Do any employees working at Uber or Lyft currently do any driving? Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business.
>Their business is providing riders with drivers. The driving is not their business. Can't you use this excuse to bypass that clause altogether? eg. a pizza restaurant that classifies its delivery drivers as contractors: "their business is making the pizza. delivery is not their business".