It's interesting how often Silicon Valley companies blitzscale an unsustainable business model and then leave public investors holding the bag. In the Uber and Lyft case, the time bomb was the regulatory issue. Which investors should have known about, given that these companies have been breaking the law since day 1. Tesla with their full self driving is also an example of this dump the risks on the bag holders pattern.
Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
171–180 of 781 posts
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#172Leave 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?
Yup, it's definitely Uber and their billion dollar investors that need the government assistance here, and not their below minimum wage workforce.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#173Earlier quoted context omitted.
If Uber and Lyft weren't around, people in a state of economic desperation would have fewer options. 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.
Exactly, the situation would be more desperate without Uber/Lyft/etc, not less.
Would it though? How do you get to that conclusion? My understanding is that many drivers for those companies do it as supplemental income because their regular jobs seem to be unable to cover their living expenses. But doesn't that then lead to additional economic pressure for everyone else because i.e. now there's more renters willing to pay inflated prices, so more people get economically desperate and need to get supplemental income?
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#174If 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.
Well... many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job. But Uber and Lyft are direct competitors. I have a clause in my contract that forbids me working for a direct competitor, but I'm a software engineer and I have knowledge of trade secrets. A driver? Not so much. So I think that a court would find a restriction that you couldn't work for bo…
> many people work more than one job. IANAL, but I don't think your employer can forbid you from working more than one job.
Sure. But employers can prevent you from working for someone else at the same time as you are working for them.
So if you wanted to do a 6 hour shift for Uber and then after that do another 4 hours for Lyft. That would almost certainly be legal.
But the common practice today is to run both apps at the same time and pick up clients on both networks as requests come in. This is what people are talking about, and will almost certainly be banned.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#175Earlier quoted context omitted.
except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.
How is that any different from Patreon suspending user accounts due to ToS violations? Are companies free to suspend accounts for any reason or not?
You are free to fire a contractor for any reason, but if you consistently fire contractors for doing things that you would prefer that they not do but which you cannot mandate they not do because they are not employees, then you undermine the claim that they are in fact contractors.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#176It 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.
What you seem to be advocating for is a service something like Fiverr, where drivers set their own prices and Uber/Lyft takes a 20% cut off the top.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#177Earlier quoted context omitted.
It seems like changing that would be an easier and less disruptive fix?
Imagine the fun metagames this would cause. If the government took Uber's stick away, the company would be forced to find a rate at which they'd have enough drivers to allow for reasonably short pickup time. Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X, thus forcing Uber to raise their rates to $X (+ Uber's cut). (While dropping drivers from the plat…
There is no stick; they already have to do that. If the drivers don’t like the rates and think they earn too little, they quit. Uber has to ensure that drivers make attractive rates if it wants retain them. And indeed, it offers lots of bonus pay, special deals etc precisely for that reason.
> Drivers then could, over their local "$city Uber drivers" FB/WhatsApp group, agree to not take any ride below $X,
This is, of course, illegal.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#178Earlier quoted context omitted.
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.
But it's not a "spare time". A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call. A lot of drivers have both Uber and Lyft apps running and take the ones they prefer at the moment. Some have become tired of this and just choose Uber. If Uber or Lyft are required to legally hire these drivers as employees, they will probably develop a technology to track the drivers so t…
> A driver literally has to constantly make decisions whether to take the next Uber call or Lyft call.
Under an employee model, they would do this while on the clock of a particular company (and being paid by it). Sure, Uber could choose to employ a driver for 16 hours a day, but they'd have to pay for that time.
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#179Earlier quoted context omitted.
In your lawn care example you used the word "mutually". That is a difference between the Lyft/Uber relationship with drivers and your relationship with the lawn care contractor. Maybe if Lyft/Uber allowed drivers to bid on rides drivers would become more contractor-esque? But then the latency would be much higher for users. The system would likely also regress to the proposed price, as well, since drivers would likel…
You are expecting that Uber/Lyft creates an "auction" environment in order for their drivers to be considered contractors? In my world view, an auction is not requirement for a driver to be considered independent. Drivers can: - drive on their own schedule - drive for competing ride share services (concurrently even) - drive for themselves - not drive at all Seems very independent contractor. Uber/Lyft created a mark…
It looks like you're correct; the IRS doesn't seem to distinguish based on pay.
https://www.irs.gov/businesses/small-businesses-self-employe...
Re: Uber and Lyft ordered by California judge to classify drivers as employees
#180Earlier quoted context omitted.
except uber/lyft will remove you from the platform if you decline too many rides, thereby only giving the illusion of choice.
How is that any different from Patreon suspending user accounts due to ToS violations? Are companies free to suspend accounts for any reason or not?
The good analogy would be Patreon forcing you to follow specific schedule / backer numbers / revenue figures / working model.