Uber and Lyft shutdown in California averted as judge grants emergency stay

Post by jeffbee » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:54 AM UTC

renewiltord wrote: post #450

jeffbee wrote: post #437

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If your contract can be terminated at any time without cause, that supports the notion that you're an employee, not a contractor. That's one of the aspects of the Borello test. https://www.dir.ca.gov/dlse/faq_independentcontractor.htm

> If your contract can be terminated at any time without cause, that supports the notion that you're an employee, not a contractor. How interesting. That inverts expectations: you need a reason to fire a contractor but no reason to fire an employee. Ah, I see it: > Whether the employer has a right to fire at will or whether a termination gives rise to an action for breach of contract; and... You can't fire a contract…

Post by renewiltord » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 2:54 AM UTC

jeffbee wrote: post #451

renewiltord wrote: post #450

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> If your contract can be terminated at any time without cause, that supports the notion that you're an employee, not a contractor. How interesting. That inverts expectations: you need a reason to fire a contractor but no reason to fire an employee. Ah, I see it: > Whether the employer has a right to fire at will or whether a termination gives rise to an action for breach of contract; and... You can't fire a contract…

Point 5, "What is the Borello test?"

Post by ng12 » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 3:08 AM UTC

sudosysgen wrote: post #387

ng12 wrote: post #282

Earlier quoted context omitted.

> Let them decline rides without facing penalties by the platform The independent contractor model works both ways. Uber has the right to avoid working with contractors who continually refuse work. You can't be picky about your work but also demand the company keep contracting you like you weren't. The independent contractor model doesn't map perfectly to gig work but it's much closer than traditional employees.

Uber is arguing that drivers are not their contractors, but contractors of the riders. Therefore, Uber denying some wouldn't be the right of Uber unless they were contractors to Uber, in which case they would be misclassified and actually employees as per AB5.

Post by afrojack123 » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 3:11 AM UTC

darkwizard42 wrote: post #337

afrojack123 wrote: post #325

Possibly a dumb and general question. Is Uber and Lyft responsible for state tax revenue from its contractors? Or are the contractors supposed to pay their own taxes? I could understand the states having problems with contractor's paying their own taxes considering their incomes are lower.

Independent contractors pay their own taxes. Uber and Lyft offer tools and assistance to help drivers adequately report and take deductions etc. as needed (Lyft at least offers the ability to export ride data etc. as needed, I believe but am not sure if Uber does the same). Companies pay taxes for their employees (different tax relationship altogether). Another way to think about it is... do you ever pay taxes for a…

Post by gnopgnip » Fri, Aug 21, 2020, 3:13 AM UTC

pishpash wrote: post #433

jschwartzi wrote: post #247

Earlier quoted context omitted.

If you're an IC, you have to pay Self-Employment Tax to cover the employer's part of the payroll tax deductions. Plus you're also liable for all the usual payroll taxes. That burden doesn't go away just because you get a 1099 instead of a W-2. So it's the drivers who are in theory paying in to healthcare subsidies and Medicare.

Taxes are on earnings after top-of-the-line deductions for business expenses including gas and depreciation that they'd lose on the W-2. Drivers aren't stupid as you think.